The Horned Man, or Huntsman
Quote Unquote
pretty significant seminal charachter in mythology, but there is not much
liturature about the horned huntsman figure that I can find.
If you care to, you can post replies and information to the Procession of
the Damned Message board: http://members2.boardhost.com/monstro/
--
"...The contactees would be manipulated, used as robots to propagate
beliefs and false frames of reference, and then be discarded to sit in the
darkness and wonder why the world was not as they had imagined it, why the
wonderful space people had abandoned them." - The Mothman Prophecies
Procession of the Damned http://home.att.net/~zazel/alienz.htm
Chris Siren
You might have some better luck searching under the name
"Cernunnos", which is the name this figure was known under
among the continental Celts. I seem to recall there being
a decent amount of info on him in Anne Ross's _Pagan_Celtic_
_Britain_.
Good luck
Chris Siren http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/
Quote Unquote
Taliesin2
<za...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> You might have some better luck searching under the name
>> "Cernunnos", which is the name this figure was known under
>> among the continental Celts. I seem to recall there being
>> a decent amount of info on him in Anne Ross's _Pagan_Celtic_
>> _Britain_.
>>
>> Good luck
>>
>> Chris Siren http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/
>>
>
>
>That'll work. Thanks much.
You might also want to consider looking for references to Herne as
well. :-)
Larry Caldwell
> You might have some better luck searching under the name
> "Cernunnos", which is the name this figure was known under
> among the continental Celts. I seem to recall there being
> a decent amount of info on him in Anne Ross's _Pagan_Celtic_
> _Britain_.
The only ancient source for "Cernunnos" is a single stone carving from
Italy, carved in Latin letters. At least there were some Celts in Italy
at the time, though it was probably a Roman rather than a Celt who carved
the stone.
Luke Goaman-Dodson
news:MPG.16cf9f9bf...@news.earthlink.net...
> In article <3C653790...@verizon.net>, vze3...@verizon.net
writes:
>
> > You might have some better luck searching under the name
> > "Cernunnos", which is the name this figure was known under
> > among the continental Celts. I seem to recall there being
> > a decent amount of info on him in Anne Ross's _Pagan_Celtic_
> > _Britain_.
>
> The only ancient source for "Cernunnos" is a single stone carving
from
> Italy, carved in Latin letters.
I seem to remember reading that it was from Gaul, not Italy, but I may
be wrong.
--
Luke
Quote Unquote
news:a4brp5$j5k$1...@helle.btinternet.com:
Anyway, I've seen pictures of a bronze Cernunnos that is clearly of Celtic
(Gallic) design. He's seated like a Bhudda, has antlers on his head, an
ourubouros in one hand, and a torc in the other, and there is a stag
standing beside him. This bronze has turned up in every resource I've
found about Celtic mythology, and there are apparently other similar
depictions of him.
Odysseus
> >
> > The only ancient source for "Cernunnos" is a single stone carving
> from
> > Italy, carved in Latin letters.
>
> I seem to remember reading that it was from Gaul, not Italy, but I may
> be wrong.
> --
Lombardy, now part of Italy? IIRC before most of the territory that was
eventually to become France was conquered, Roman "Gaul" comprised this
province and "Transalpine Gaul", more or less equivalent to Provence. So
both statements could be correct, one referring to a modern territory
containing the site in question and the other to an ancient one.
--Odysseus
Chris Siren
Well - in any event, here's a quote from Anne Ross's _Celtic_Pagan_
_Britain_ that puts him in Gaul = France:
The cult of Cernunnos in Gual is reasonably well-documented,
several studies of this complex god having been made. Although
the Celtic stag-god is is known to scholars as Cernunnos, it is
apposite to point out right away that the only direct evidence
for this name comes from one inscription which is incomplete.
This name appears on a relief from Paris where it forms an
inscription reading - ERNUNNOS above a representation of an
antlered god, having both cervine and human ears, and wearing
a torc over either antler. It has been inferred with a good
deal of reason, from the fact that the god is horned, and from
early drawings of the relief where the initial letter is more
legible, that the missing letter is C - and the meaning of the
name is thus 'the Horned One'. So although the name is
universally used to describe gods of this general type, and
seems to be completely appropriate, it must be emphasised that
it is known by inference and is not based upon any complete
documentary evidence.
Chris Siren http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/
Myths and Legends http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/myth.html
Chris Siren
>
>
> Well - in any event, here's a quote from Anne Ross's _Celtic_Pagan_
> _Britain_
make that _Pagan_Celtic_Britain_
oops.
Chris Siren
Philip Anderson
>"Larry Caldwell" <lar...@teleport.com> wrote in message
>> The only ancient source for "Cernunnos" is a single stone carving
>from
>> Italy, carved in Latin letters.
>
>I seem to remember reading that it was from Gaul, not Italy, but I may
>be wrong.
From a relief in Paris. That's the only source for the name, or title,
Cernunnos (meaning the 'Horned One'), but representations of a horned
god are widespread, from Northern Italy to Britain, including the
Gundestrup Cauldron.
--
hwyl/cheers
Philip Anderson
Cymru/Wales
Odysseus
>
> Well - in any event, here's a quote from Anne Ross's _Celtic_Pagan_
> _Britain_ that puts him in Gaul = France:
>
> This name appears on a relief from Paris where it forms an
> inscription reading - ERNUNNOS above a representation of an
> antlered god, having both cervine and human ears, and wearing
> a torc over either antler.
Well, Paris is certainly a long way from Cisalpine Gaul; if this is
indeed the same inscription as was mentioned previously then placing it
in Italy is, of course, just plain wrong -- unless "from Paris" means
"from a museum in Paris" (this doesn't seem at all likely to me), in
which case the question would still be open.
--Odysseus
Iain Parkinson
> From: "Philip Anderson" <pjand...@freeuk.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.mythology
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:38:32 -0000
> Subject: Re: The Horned Man, or Huntsman
> hwyl/cheers
> Philip Anderson
> Cymru/Wales
>
...and doesn't it only read 'ernunnos' the initial C being missing/damaged?
Iain
Iain Parkinson
> From: "Philip Anderson" <pjand...@freeuk.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.mythology
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:38:32 -0000
> Subject: Re: The Horned Man, or Huntsman
>
...and of course the Gundestrup figure is probably the same chap but does he
actually have horns? I've not seen a picture, at least not for ages, and
Hilda Ellis Davidson in 'Myths and Symbols in Pagan Europe' says there are
no horns on the Gundestrup figure - although the stags he is holding will
presumably have them.
Davidson also reports that there is a 'huge antlered figure with serpents in
a carving of about the fourth century BC at Val Camonica in Italy' - perhaps
this is the Italian image someone mentioned. I should add however that
Davidson warns against identifying all horned figures as the same god:
'since horns were a recognised symbol of power and a link with the wild
creatures of the natural world.'
Iain
Derrick Everett
> ...and of course the Gundestrup figure is probably the same chap but
> does he actually have horns? I've not seen a picture, at least not for
> ages, and Hilda Ellis Davidson in 'Myths and Symbols in Pagan Europe'
> says there are no horns on the Gundestrup figure - although the stags he
> is holding will presumably have them.
>
>
The seated figure on the Gundestrup cauldron has *antlers* like those of
the stag beside him.
--
Derrick Everett (deverett at c2i.net)
==== Writing from 59°54'N 10°36'E ====
http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/index.htm
Iain Parkinson
> From: Derrick Everett <behb0t...@sneakemail.com>
> Organization: Monsalvat
> Newsgroups: alt.mythology
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:03:37 GMT
> Subject: Re: The Horned Man, or Huntsman
>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:39:04 +0100, Iain Parkinson wrote:
>
>
>> ...and of course the Gundestrup figure is probably the same chap but
>> does he actually have horns? I've not seen a picture, at least not for
>> ages, and Hilda Ellis Davidson in 'Myths and Symbols in Pagan Europe'
>> says there are no horns on the Gundestrup figure - although the stags he
>> is holding will presumably have them.
>>
>>
> The seated figure on the Gundestrup cauldron has *antlers* like those of
> the stag beside him.
Yes they look like antlers to me - the 'horns' in my previous post are from
paraphrasing Davidson and, rereading her with less wine in my system, she is
referring to the bearded figure on the outside! She goes on to mention the
'horned' figure on the internal panel and links the image with that of a
similar figure on a stone from Rheims and, possibly, the Val Camonica
carving.
Oops.
Iain
Luke Goaman-Dodson
news:3C69B6C9...@yahoo.ca...
I'm pretty sure it was northern Gaul.
--
Luke
Michael Adams
The Celts often had a horned god, of fertility and the forest. One with deer
horns, and some with other horns..
Even Gilgamesh had a sort of horned god, but he was the friend of Gilgamesh.
Mike
Quote Unquote wrote:
--
Love Humor or just love to share it?
Then join or send to me at Adulth...@egroups.com
To join then send a blank email to
adulthumor-...@egroups.com The messages are
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adulthumor-l/messages/
Quote Unquote
news:3C6ECE3D...@yahoo.com:
> Try Curonos, or The Green Man, or Faun or Satyr and like..
>
> The Celts often had a horned god, of fertility and the forest. One
> with deer horns, and some with other horns..
>
> Even Gilgamesh had a sort of horned god, but he was the friend of
> Gilgamesh.
>
> Mike
>
>
Enkidu! Hadn't even thought of that.
Chris Siren
> Michael Adams <Abr...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3C6ECE3D...@yahoo.com:
>
> > Try Curonos, or The Green Man, or Faun or Satyr and like..
> >
> > The Celts often had a horned god, of fertility and the forest. One
> > with deer horns, and some with other horns..
> >
> > Even Gilgamesh had a sort of horned god, but he was the friend of
> > Gilgamesh.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
>
> Enkidu! Hadn't even thought of that.
>
Enkidu was a wild-man, but was more hero than god and IIRC
didn't have any horns. Fertility was more associated with
domesticated agriculture through Dumuzi/Tammuz in Mesopotamia
than with the wilds. The character that I most associate with a
forest in Mesopotamian myth is Humbaba, a rather monstrous giant
creature who lived in the great cedar forest, guarded the tree
which was the home of the gods, and who was killed by Gilgamesh
and Enkidu. I'm not sure, but I don't think that the fertile crescent
had much in the way of forests by the time the myths were being
written down. They may have been more associated with foreign
areas like the Levant.
Dan Norder
>Enkidu was a wild-man, but was more hero than god and IIRC
>didn't have any horns.
I don't think the text mentioned any horns, but he was frequently depicted with
ox horns in art from the period.
"Frequently" could mean either "in lots of different pieces of art" or "in the
same art that keeps getting reused in lots of different mythology books."
I am on vacation and away from my references to go figure out which is a more
accurate statement.
--
Dan Norder
No song is ever over-played on the radio...
some people just listen to the radio too much.
Luke Goaman-Dodson
Cernunnos and Pan, an antlered man with goat's legs.
This got me wondering whether there are any mentions of the fairy or
elf king as having horns or antlers at all. I seem to remember that
both the fairy king and the horned man are regarded as the leaders of
the Wild Hunt in different traditions.
--
Luke
Alice K. Turner
"Luke Goaman-Dodson" <bel...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a501o1$j2v$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
This is off the top of my head--no research. I don't think the fairy king is
involved in actual mythic hunting in Britain, though there is the "tain,"
the periodic offering to hell, which does seem to include a mob on
horseback--unless I am simply remembering from bad novels. Cernunos, the
antlered man, otoh, is very much part of Germanic-Anglo Wild Hunt tradition
and he is also the Erl-King, perhaps, so you could dig around with that.
Post what you find--we'd be interested.
Alice
Luke Goaman-Dodson
news:xFCd8.25826$Ci6.3...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> "Luke Goaman-Dodson" <bel...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:a501o1$j2v$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> > Terry Pratchett has the king of the elves as a kind of cross
between
> > Cernunnos and Pan, an antlered man with goat's legs.
> >
> > This got me wondering whether there are any mentions of the fairy
or
> > elf king as having horns or antlers at all. I seem to remember
that
> > both the fairy king and the horned man are regarded as the leaders
of
> > the Wild Hunt in different traditions.
>
> This is off the top of my head--no research. I don't think the fairy
king is
> involved in actual mythic hunting in Britain,
Well, there is Gwyn ap Nudd from Wales.
Also there's a mention in Sir Orfeo or something about the fairy king
leading a magical hunt, I believe.
> though there is the "tain,"
> the periodic offering to hell, which does seem to include a mob on
> horseback--unless I am simply remembering from bad novels. Cernunos,
the
> antlered man, otoh, is very much part of Germanic-Anglo Wild Hunt
tradition
> and he is also the Erl-King, perhaps, so you could dig around with
that.
You mean Herne?
> Post what you find--we'd be interested.
Where should I look? I usually can't find anything on Google, etc.
--
Luke
Alice K. Turner
Well, I'm not going to do this for you--that's a rule of our FAQ--but Google
is not bad at oddities. (Just don't try "phoenix.") Try Cernunos--that's
odd. Try Erl-King and Erl-Konig. The latter may be in German, but there is
often a translation. Actually you might try Kernunos too and fool around a
bit with spelling. And do post interesting findings. There's a core part of
this ng that really is intrigued with these things.
Alice
Luke Goaman-Dodson
> Well, I'm not going to do this for you--that's a rule of our
FAQ--but Google
> is not bad at oddities. (Just don't try "phoenix.") Try
Cernunos--that's
> odd. Try Erl-King and Erl-Konig. The latter may be in German, but
there is
> often a translation. Actually you might try Kernunos too and fool
around a
> bit with spelling. And do post interesting findings. There's a core
part of
> this ng that really is intrigued with these things.
Didn't find anything of interest I'm afraid, except a pagan motorcycle
club, but that's not really relevant... :)
--
Luke
Alice K. Turner
Well, that's strange. I can't remember what your original query was, but I
just did searches on both Cernunos and Erl-koenig and came up with some very
interesting material, including, in the latter, references to Goethe and
Schubert material and excellent pix in the former . Plus a pretty good link
to the Wild Hunt on the first page of that search. I don't know what you're
after, but I could have outlined an undergraduate paper from what I found in
five minutes.
Alice
Hal9000
news:3C6FAD4B...@verizon.net...
> Enkidu was a wild-man, but was more hero than god and IIRC
> didn't have any horns. Fertility was more associated with
> domesticated agriculture through Dumuzi/Tammuz in Mesopotamia
Right observation, Chris; Enkidu (sillabic Eabani, "Ea has given" if I
weren't wrong), is a good root for any selvatic character determined by
geminative nature. We find Enkidu in christian lorehood as John the Baptist,
aka Pan the Baptist, aka the Green Man.
Hal9000
news:xFCd8.25826$Ci6.3...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> antlered man, otoh, is very much part of Germanic-Anglo Wild Hunt
tradition
> and he is also the Erl-King, perhaps, so you could dig around with that.
Just try Herne the hunter, aka Cerne Abbas' giant (aka Hercules), aka
Nergal/Gilgamesh (in its "twin" Enkidu), aka Mercury as psycopomp aka Wotan
(alike), aka Hellerkonig, aka Bran, aka Saturn, aka Kronos, an so on.
Kosmos.
Dan Norder
>Nergal/Gilgamesh (in its "twin" Enkidu), aka Mercury as psycopomp aka Wotan
>(alike), aka Hellerkonig, aka Bran, aka Saturn, aka Kronos, an so on.
>
>Kosmos.
I'm certainly favor of finding parallels in myths and such, nut it looks like
you are condensing way too much with too little explanation.
For example, what do you mean by Nergal Slash Gilgamesh? What's "Cerne Abbas'
giant (aka Hercules)" all about? And why do you include Saturn and Kronos as a
Horned Man/Huntsman? Or Hercules for that matter?
Hal9000
news:20020309203309...@mb-mc.aol.com...
> I'm certainly favor of finding parallels in myths and such, nut it looks
like
> you are condensing way too much with too little explanation.
Hello Dan, sorry but it's better to abridge in order to keep posts as much
short as possible; so hints are fittingly for this.
> For example, what do you mean by Nergal Slash Gilgamesh? What's "Cerne
Abbas'
> giant (aka Hercules)" all about?
"Nergal/Gilgamesh" is referred to the fact that mesopotamian people
identified Nergal with Gilgamesh as a chtonic god (textually the twin god
Meslamtea; the other twin would indirectly be Enkidu, then), so greeks
identified Nergal with Hercules. Cerne Abbas' (note; "Cerne" similar to
"Herne", as far as "Cerne" got roots in the same ones of "Cernunnos", ie the
symbol of "horn") giant is a english chalk graffiti which in local folklore
represents Hercules or a "giant" roaming these lands time ago (you'll surely
find it after a intenet search), and in my opinion it could even stand for
the constellation of Orion (it has a phallus, a fecundity symbol, which is a
prerogative of both chtonic gods and specifically of Orion; chronicles say
that in ancient times in that zone was held fecundity rituals).
> And why do you include Saturn and Kronos as a
> Horned Man/Huntsman? Or Hercules for that matter?
These are ll hints; then one gets comparative on searching sources, 'cause
otherwise the explaniations here could be *very very* long 'cause of many
data to bring in comparation (I've already done it in a private essay of
mine, but I can't post it 'cause it is in italian and 'cause it would
obviously take much space in the ng). Please note also that this is assumed
to be a dynamic progression intended to compare sources during epochs.
Ciao,
Hal.
Dan Norder
>"Dan Norder" <dann...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:20020309203309...@mb-mc.aol.com...
>> I'm certainly favor of finding parallels in myths and such, nut it looks
>like
>> you are condensing way too much with too little explanation.
>
>Hello Dan, sorry but it's better to abridge in order to keep posts as much
>short as possible; so hints are fittingly for this.
No, this doesn't cut it. If you come in here and make wild statements about
which gods are the same as other gods, you better explain. Simply put, I think
you are ignoring differences, inflating the most meaningless of similarities
and combining figures to an extent that all meaningful information is lost.
Saturn is not a Horned Huntsman is not Hercules. If you think otherwise, prove
it, or point to references where other people prove it. Until that time you are
just dropping names and not adding any factual knowledge to the group.
Hal9000
> "Hal9000" nuntenefr...@cazvuo.viaspam wrote:
> >"Dan Norder" <dann...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
about
> which gods are the same as other gods, you better explain. Simply put, I
think
> you are ignoring differences, inflating the most meaningless of
similarities
> and combining figures to an extent that all meaningful information is
lost.
I agree, you've got reason in this, and that's the same feeling I've had
when it happened that I readed posts like mine; but the suite is very long
in order to exhaust it in even 2-3 posts, 'cause it embraces many sources
(and specially because of my very imperfect english, as someone puts here;
unless people were able to read it in italian, in that case I could even
paste here. I can't dare to translate long pages!). I know, mine couldn't be
a full justification, I'm in accord, but let's assume that at least from
hints people could be pushed to search whether what one might state here as
"sure" could be right or not (that's exactly what I did when I have had no
sources given in those posts). Otherwise, we could even post really anything
without any secundary scrutiny by whom who read what we post. So let's call
'em "hints".
Hal.
Dan Norder
>let's assume that at least from
>hints people could be pushed to search whether what one might state here
>as
>"sure" could be right or not (that's exactly what I did when I have had
>no
>sources given in those posts). Otherwise, we could even post really anything
>without any secundary scrutiny by whom who read what we post. So let's call
>'em "hints".
>
>Hal.
How about this then. I am not some novice when it comes to comparitive
mythology. I have not run across anything that would link Saturn / Hercules /
The Horned Huntsman as the same mythological entity. I was curious to where you
came up with this info. You won't try to back any of it up, you just say it'd
take 2-3 posts to explain, but you've already used 2-3 posts to say that it's
take too long to explain.
At this point I can only assume that you are making things up and have no proof
at all. What you state is at odds with the information I have found, and you
provide no pointers to anything that'd back any of your ideas up, other than
you say you are right and that I should treat them as hints.
Take a hint yourself: facts please, not bluster.
Quote Unquote
news:20020319193226...@mb-me.aol.com:
I'm taking all this as food for thought, personally. I started the thread,
just because I was looking for a little background on the figure for
someone who was trying to establish the existence of the character for a
documentary. Satisfied that the figure has an actual foundation in
mythology, she has apparently already gone on and done it. I find the
residual speculation and debate rather interesting, just the same. i admit
that some of the connections are pretty tenuous, but that's mythology for
you.
--
"The air force and CIA did not have to try to disrupt the ufological
movement. It is by it's very nature a self-disrupting network of
disoriented people." - The Mothman Prophecies
Procession of the Damned http://home.att.net/~zazel/alienz.htm
The Forgotten Ones (Cult Classics) http://home.att.net/~vladdrac/wish.htm
Hal9000
> How about this then. I am not some novice when it comes to comparitive
> mythology. I have not run across anything that would link Saturn /
Hercules /
> The Horned Huntsman as the same mythological entity.
And doesn't this fact suggest you that if you never ran across anything
similar before this could even mean that such a comparative suite were very
hard to fit? Btw I'm not known for babbling, as here (although I'm new here)
as specially elsewhere; maybe often I like to joke, but this not always.
Hope you already found something e. g. about Cerne Abbas' giant; another
hint, look for Bran's head, then about Adam's head, then about John the
Baptist (and here things get VERY hard), then about PAN the Baptist, then
about Sakkhuth, then about Cromm Cruach, then about Mimir, then about Herne.
How could I exhaust all these relations within a so small space like here?
One would say, "too many things in too little space". Then, better to hint.
Ok, ok; I'm repeating, I know.
The links between these characters could even be indirect or thin too, I
know, but the facts dwell in their SUSBSTANCE, not only in their logistic
PLACE or in the NAMES either. For example, how could we relate Hercules to
Nergal/Irrakal/Ninib and to Reshep and to latin Mars and finally to
Gilgamesh, if not using for comparative instances? Otherwise, we never knew
that they was one and the same since we started only from the cultures which
they belong to. Though, today it is renowed they are. So, if in ultimate
instance they were, e. g. planetarly speaking (because archaic sources was
mostly related to starlore), either Mars or Mercury or Saturn (most of them
was the latter; that was Bran, so was Adam, so was Ninib) according to a
different moment of observation, or even Orion, or let's put the
personification of the Sun crossing the lower emisphere, or the scorching
Sun in the constellation of the Lion at midsummer, or the western horizon at
dusk, or certain quarter of the year, or a wind, then the name doesn't
matter, but it's just a symbol for another instance of always the same
entity; SUBSTANCE does matter, instead.
IMHO it seems that ancients, maybe because of their direct integration
within the cycle of nature, saw things this way. Planets, stars, elements,
timeframes was knotted in a very strange code we must try to decode, but
often we fail in this because we are sons of THIS epoch, so the effort were
harder than we could sum up in few lines.
Should I even say also that it took more than 12 years to me in order to sum
up the conclusions (and three so far in search for a publisher....)? Ok,
this doesn't absolutely involve that I were absolutely right, but at least
it could involve that the explainatory excursus were LONG.
> I was curious to where you
> came up with this info. You won't try to back any of it up, you just say
it'd
> take 2-3 posts to explain, but you've already used 2-3 posts to say that
it's
> take too long to explain.
Yes, 'cause we are talking since three posts ago, Dan.... And we still
repeat the same things so far.
> At this point I can only assume that you are making things up and have no
proof
> at all. What you state is at odds with the information I have found, and
you
> provide no pointers to anything that'd back any of your ideas up, other
than
> you say you are right and that I should treat them as hints.
Feel free to think what you wish. Maybe someday I'll do it; so, hope you'll
be here when I'll do it. Anyway, I'm glad to post that suite, either in this
ng (well, "in tranches"....) or privately, in order to demonstrate my bona
fide, for able or less you were to read italian (I won't try an integral
translation using for MY lame english; that could even be equal to say
nothing at all).
> Take a hint yourself: facts please, not bluster.
Ok, but better to hint than to rest in silence, I guess; in the first case
at least one were much more helpful than in the second one.
Bluster? No bluster at all, be sure. For right or wrong that my stuff could
be, what's important is to share discussions as far as the limits of this
medium allow it us.
Hal.
_______________________________
"Look, Dave. I can see you're really
upset about this. I honestly think you
should sit down calmly, take a stress
pill, and think things over".
Dan Norder
A hint is a push toward something factual. This is your longest message yet and
you still haven't said anything but insinuate that you know things nobody else
does. That's not hinting, that's babbling. Silense would be better.
But now I know why you won't try presenting any facts... when you did on other
threads your "facts" were torn apart and shown to be ridiculous.
Hal9000
> A hint is a push toward something factual. This is your longest message
yet and
> you still haven't said anything but insinuate that you know things nobody
else
> does. That's not hinting, that's babbling. Silense would be better.
Hello. Think anything you wish.
For your information, I'm not "insinuating" anything but the stuff were
complex. Hints or suggestions either have not to be forcely aimed towards
something immediately factual.
> But now I know why you won't try presenting any facts... when you did on
other
> threads your "facts" were torn apart and shown to be ridiculous.
Really? You know, I never smelled it before. Btw it always depends from whom
the reply comes; someone's silence is just a defeat.
Hal.
Derrick Everett
> For your information, I'm not "insinuating" anything but the stuff were
> complex. Hints or suggestions either have not to be forcely aimed towards
> something immediately factual.
>
Open the pod bay door.
--
Derrick Everett (deverett at c2i.net)
Hal9000
news:pan.2002.03.22.20....@sneakemail.com...
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:24:15 +0100, Hal9000 wrote:
> Open the pod bay door.
Take a stress pill, Dan....
Philip Anderson
>"Dan Norder" <dann...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:20020319193226...@mb-me.aol.com...
>> How about this then. I am not some novice when it comes to
comparitive
>> mythology. I have not run across anything that would link Saturn /
>Hercules /
>> The Horned Huntsman as the same mythological entity.
>
>And doesn't this fact suggest you that if you never ran across anything
>similar before this could even mean that such a comparative suite were
very
>hard to fit?
Do you mean non-existant?
Btw I'm not known for babbling, as here (although I'm new here)
>as specially elsewhere; maybe often I like to joke, but this not
always.
>Hope you already found something e. g. about Cerne Abbas' giant;
another
>hint, look for Bran's head, then about Adam's head, then about John the
>Baptist (and here things get VERY hard), then about PAN the Baptist,
then
>about Sakkhuth, then about Cromm Cruach, then about Mimir, then about
Herne.
>How could I exhaust all these relations within a so small space like
here?
Perhaps you could try explaining ONE of these relations in more detail,
not just linking two names?
>One would say, "too many things in too little space". Then, better to
hint.
>Ok, ok; I'm repeating, I know.
>The links between these characters could even be indirect or thin too,
I
>know, but the facts dwell in their SUSBSTANCE, not only in their
logistic
>PLACE or in the NAMES either. For example, how could we relate Hercules
to
>Nergal/Irrakal/Ninib and to Reshep and to latin Mars and finally to
>Gilgamesh, if not using for comparative instances? Otherwise, we never
knew
>that they was one and the same since we started only from the cultures
which
>they belong to. Though, today it is renowed they are.
No it's not; having an association with war doesn't make all these the
same. Even Mars and Hercules were not equated by the Romans - the Roman
Mars had other attributes, before being equated with Ares; the Ancients
were fond of identifying other people's gods with their own, but they
were not always good matches.
So, if in ultimate
>instance they were, e. g. planetarly speaking (because archaic sources
was
>mostly related to starlore),
Controversial to say the least. The stars have interested many
cultures, but they are not the stuff of life and death with which myths
and stories were concerned; some cultures did tie them in with their
mythology, identifying stars and planets with gods and heroes, but I
don't believe that many people made up stories based upon the stars
(comets excepted perhaps).
either Mars or Mercury or Saturn (most of them
>was the latter; that was Bran, so was Adam, so was Ninib)
So what links Bran or Adam with Saturn?
--
hwyl/cheers
Philip Anderson
Cymru/Wales
Hal9000
news:101688091...@eurus.uk.clara.net...
> Do you mean non-existant?
Nope; I mean what I literarly said. Hard to fit within a limited space.
> Perhaps you could try explaining ONE of these relations in more detail,
> not just linking two names?
Do you think I dind't already done it, instead of arranging a quick suite,
in the case I were able to exhaust this in few words?
> No it's not; having an association with war doesn't make all these the
> same. Even Mars and Hercules were not equated by the Romans - the Roman
> Mars had other attributes, before being equated with Ares; the Ancients
> were fond of identifying other people's gods with their own, but they
> were not always good matches.
I know this; Mars was mostly agrarian for latins in origins, though Hercules
was mostly related to astronomical stuff (any researcher, since ancient
times, knows that Hercules' trials was related to the Sun traveling through
the "weel of the year"; see Porphyry f. e.). Anyway, if they was then
omogeneized either since origins or in late times either, this involves that
ancients knew what they were doing, 'cause they did their myths, we don't.
Btw I've precised about substances, not only about names.
> Controversial to say the least. The stars have interested many
> cultures, but they are not the stuff of life and death with which myths
> and stories were concerned; some cultures did tie them in with their
> mythology, identifying stars and planets with gods and heroes, but I
> don't believe that many people made up stories based upon the stars
> (comets excepted perhaps).
Please do not assume others' adfirmations were controversial or wrong either
just starting from what you are not aware yet well of.
Our "psycologic" freudian-jungian explaniations of how myths was created
wasn't yet known to them (and often right that can't exactly explain 'em
well)....
And I think they was much more pragmatic than we are; "psycologic"
explaniations are a creature of our culture, as far as we TRY to explain
what they put from scratch from some other much more direct source of
inspiration (either seasonal concepts, stars or human characteristics
transferred to whom we call "abstract concepts").
> So what links Bran or Adam with Saturn?
The HEAD. Although I have to miss some steps in the demonstration, in jewish
lore Adam was Saturn; his head was hidden within the cave of Macpela, in
Edom, where melkizadekians (whose eponym was a worshipper of Saturn/El-elyon
although his name relates him to Jupiter; but this is fair due this hints to
a system Saturn/Jupiter) worshipped it. The head of Bran (that's a winter
"god" of deads, if I weren't wrong; Herne the hunter is a beheaded god, of
deads in the measure of he's nothing but Wotan, riding the skies in
midwinter. The "Hunter" of december is Orion, who was very renowed for his
problem with head - maybe the faint star Meissa -, eyes, heel, and so on)
were hidden in the "white mound" or in the tower of London either. John the
Baptist is alike; it was beheaded in springtime, some days before passover,
during Herod's (this is a character directly linked to Samael/Mars, as
anybody knows, as Herodias was nothing but the personification of the dark
Moon, i. e. Lilith. In jewish lorehood Lilith and Samael was wife and
husband, and Lilith was the star Algol, the severed head in Perseus, and was
also th head of Goliath - as far as is it clear that the reddish shepherd
David is universally an archetype of Mars/Aries - or even the head of
Shaitan; you can consult e. g. R. H. Allen's works for references on stars).
Mimir is the same as these; a wise, talking severed head.
The beheading of John IMHO represents the cutting of the year according to a
mixed system, a jewish and ROMAN one; it represents the cutting in MARCH,
the first month of roman calendar (please match also that Edom was the nick
of Rome for integralist jews - i. e. anti-roman -, and that they put Edom,
the region whence Isaiah said the Threaded has to come, under the authority
of Samael aka Mars) birthday, 'cause of the caprices of a whorish girl
(that's the "christian" counterpart of sumerian Shamat, the whore who traded
Enkidu - that's the counterpat of John the Baptist, identified since Bede's
times with Aquarius, e. g. with the Sun-sign of the month "severed" before
March.... the wild Enkidu/Eabani, "Ea has given", as far as Yochanan is "Yah
is gracious"; Yah is an archaic remainder of Ia, found e. g. at Ebla, and
was a short for Ea; btw, Ea was king of waters like as the three winter
signs, Pisces, Capricon and Aquarius, was all a manifestation of him - to
the "civilized" world, i. e. a social agent such as Delilah). John was
beheaded 30 years after his first manifestation, i. e. after a cycle of
Saturn. The problem with characters'/planets' overlap is also a calendric
month's overlap problem.
Again, very long and nested to exhaust here in full, specially due my lack
in english. Maybe I'll arrange a site when I'll have some spare time, where
I allow too a discussion list on advanced topics like these. I hope, in
"english" as far as I can express....
Hal.
Joe Jefferson
>
> John the
> Baptist is alike; it was beheaded in springtime, some days before passover,
> during Herod's (this is a character directly linked to Samael/Mars, as
> anybody knows, as Herodias was nothing but the personification of the dark
> Moon, i. e. Lilith.
So let me get this straight. John the Baptist is Saturn, and Herod
Antipas is Mars? So that would mean the Herod's father, Herod the Great,
is really Jupiter?
And John is the same as Bran because they were both beheaded, even
though one's head was cut off against his will to kill him and the
other's cut off after he was already dead, at his own request? But then
what about Marie Antoinette? Her head was cut off; does that mean that
she's Bran too?
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated November 25th, 2001.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Hal9000
news:3C9CB0...@mindspring.com...
> So let me get this straight. John the Baptist is Saturn, and Herod
> Antipas is Mars? So that would mean the Herod's father, Herod the Great,
> is really Jupiter?
This were "straight" under a greek-roman sequence; greek-roman world isn't
the whole world of myth (this is true only for mediterraneocentrist
"students", not for broad-range ones), nay, as any objective researcher can
confirm, it is the LESS precise, the less "straight", the less original, the
less ancient and the more subject to mismatches among all. Not all cultures
had the very system to arrange both their pantheons and mythic stories,
being or not their characters omogeneous with others of other cultures. We
have the bad habit to think that greek-roman culture were the cradle of the
most reliable system of myth; that's completely WRONG. It is wrong as to
believe that ancients e. g. would have really meant ONLY the PLANET Saturn
when talking about the GOD Saturn, while PLANET Saturn had many names
besided the REAL ones used in astronomy (they made this difference; we
don't. This is the cause of the confusion for us); as for
gods/titans/demigods/heroes and so on he could be Prometheus (bringer of
culture), Vulcan (smith), Dyonisus (the "dark" or "hidden Sun"), and even
Juno, and so on. Besides that, they had also other plans of relations, e. g.
a calendrical one, a seasonal one, a climatic one, and so on. This way we
have a planetary/astral plan and other ones in order to attach the same
character to; this they did. So did e. g. babylonians too; the sphere of a
planet was occupied by a god-name and had a planet-name, though the very
planet besides mythological issues (i. e. in astronomical field) had its own
name completely stand-alone from the mythical one. And often we are
displaced by their very complex system, that's a mutable, dynamic one.
We are in contest of MYTH; MYTH was Bran, so was John although in this case
we could be in contest of mythized person (kinda evemerism, although I don't
subscribe completely with Evemerus' stuff), besides the fact that we could
match a cultural borrowing of archetypes first from cananite/edomite into
christian lorehood then from christian into celto/briton/gaelic lorehood.
The more time has passed from an event, the easier it becomes myth, a very
nested myth; none would ensure us that in between a couple of centuries or
so Mary Antoinette (is she Bran? No, I'm not so mismatching; at least the
severed head of Medusa, Lilith, Algol, the barren lustful queen. But
seriously, please observe also that the Waterbearer for mesopotamian peoples
was either male or female, Gula - as androgynous was also in western
culture; I'm not calling for astrology, just about what they intended -,
whence in last instance we have Algul>Algol, "the Demon" in arabian) or even
JFK (oh yeah, this could even be Bran! :-)) will become mythical characters
attached to a PREDEFINED pattern, to an ARCHETYPE, although their history
wasn't very fittingly to that archetype. In the very case I could also say
that, because of his characteristics, if mythized Giuseppe Garibaldi could
even be took as a "remake" of Jesus (or even Baal, if his warrior wife Anita
were a counterpart of cananite Anatha; btw, Jesus have many to share with
Baal, Dusares, Osiris, Dyonisos and so on), and so on; any non-omogeneous
elements of what concerns him not included in the common archetype will
remain in the historical part of his life.
As you surely know, after Julius Caesar was killed by his adopted son
(christ/antichrist; the not legitimate son killing his father, and so on)
and other conspirators he was MYTHIZED, and also was mythized some events of
his real life that in facts never happened; as someone has commented he rode
a five-nail's hooved horse, he defeated the pirates such as Dionysus did
(so, isn't Bacchus very fitting to Caesar? Well, but in facts he was kinda
homo novus, the bearer of a revolutionary stage into roman culture, isn't?
Again, first SUBSTANCE, then CONTEST, finally NAMES. Btw, the episode counts
here, not yet the whole excursus of Caesar's life in order to fit him only
to Dyonisus. As in a normal process of the mythization of a special
characters, mostly "revolutionary" ones, there are different stages, and I
hope at least you agree with this), star signs appeared in the sky (ah, I've
missed, there is; wasn't Pompeus beheaded, isn't?), and so on. So, the real
historical character was disembodied from the mythical one. I think there's
a predefinedly timed process for which such things have to happen. The fact
you don't know details won't involve that who know 'em were wrong, and
doens't even involve that you were ignorant; just scarcely informed, that's
all.
> And John is the same as Bran because they were both beheaded, even
First comes the SUBSTANCE, then the CONTEST of the play and/or any elements
to share in commune, then the NAME (for similar or completely different two
or more ones may be; substance and then contest rule their meaning); this is
the procedure of the analysis applied to comparative issues. Unless things
were coincident when not yet two or more characters come from the same
culture (or even parented ones), this is the process to be applied to
different cultures' characters. Btw, I've already specified that when we
miss to report several details because of space limits (and because now I'm
really bored with that....) it could even happen to encounter
misunderstandings (infacts, you could see how the question is complex from
the long posts it outsources; and this is nothing if compared to the
detailed exposition.... You got it, you constrained me to be long).
> though one's head was cut off against his will to kill him and the
> other's cut off after he was already dead, at his own request? But then
> what about Marie Antoinette? Her head was cut off; does that mean that
> she's Bran too?
It's evident you was just writing, not dealing for a discussion, for right
or wrong I might be. And hirony is just a shelter for whom either unable or
unwilling to attempt at least to seriously ascertain things themselves. Hope
I was much more clear now.
Cya,
Hal.
_____________
"Don't judge others
from what you ignore"
Gale
>
> Hal9000 wrote:
> >
> > John the
> > Baptist is alike; it was beheaded in springtime, some days before passover,
> > during Herod's (this is a character directly linked to Samael/Mars, as
> > anybody knows, as Herodias was nothing but the personification of the dark
> > Moon, i. e. Lilith.
>
> So let me get this straight. John the Baptist is Saturn, and Herod
> Antipas is Mars? So that would mean the Herod's father, Herod the Great,
> is really Jupiter?
>
> And John is the same as Bran because they were both beheaded, even
> though one's head was cut off against his will to kill him and the
> other's cut off after he was already dead, at his own request? But then
> what about Marie Antoinette? Her head was cut off; does that mean that
> she's Bran too?
Actually, she's the Green Knight in drag. She'd just finished a gig as
Charles I of England where they'd chopped her head off, and she moved to
the other side of the channel for the change of scenery to the French
Court.
--
Blessed Be,
Gale
original fiction, poetry, Tarot at
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html
modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Hal9000
news:3C9E0A0B...@bellsouth.net...
> Actually, she's the Green Knight in drag. She'd just finished a gig as
> Charles I of England where they'd chopped her head off, and she moved to
> the other side of the channel for the change of scenery to the French
> Court.
Oh yeah, why not? :-)
Cya,
Hal.
Dan Norder
>
>Cya,
>Hal.
Quite clear. You're a nut who doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking
about. Thanks for clearing that up for the people who hadn't caught on yet.
Hal9000
news:20020324211728...@mb-mn.aol.com...
> Quite clear. You're a nut who doesn't have the faintest idea what he's
talking
> about. Thanks for clearing that up for the people who hadn't caught on
yet.
Oh yeah, how not? "Quite clear"? Uhm, this seems a world of nuts, isn't? I
guess you and few others weren't "nuts", isn't? Well, feel free to think
what you wish, but if things were really standing as you state, please let
me drink from the source of your knowledge. What do you think about this
case? Let's see what were you able to "arrange" instead, what are your
opinions, and what your conclusions, now; let's see if you were able to
arrange a civil discussion, instead of pointing fingers like someone
previously did here but just in order to be completely nihilized then (ah, I
forgot; who where these who allegedy "ridiculized" those previous posts of
mine? Do they were friends of yours? In that case I could even share the
bitter feeling of your delusion). I think this were a discussion group, a
mutual helping group, a RESEARCH group, not yet the converging point of
people coming here just in order to repeat like parrots what others say them
or to peacock their knowledge either; and, mostly, the aim of discussion is
that to rise ideas, not yet statements; statements come after an accord, if
logic weren't an opinion.
So let's see who got neither the "faintest" idea of, let people be able to
catch YOUR opinion about that discourse now, in the case you really got any
opinions. Obviously either silence or no explaniations will be considered as
the withdrawal of a tamper or "agent provocateur" either. At least I wrote,
for right or wrong I may be, besides space problems; you don't. At least I
demonstrated something, e. g. to be a "nut"; you neither that.
Again, do not try to judge people according to what you don't know. So, Dan,
take a stress pill and think things over, if you can.
And remember, I repeat; silence will be a good declaration of defeat in any
case.
Hal.
_____________________________
"The secret to creativity is knowing
how to hide your sources"
Albert.
Dan Norder
>I guess you and few others weren't "nuts", isn't?
[About 30 lines of rambling deleted, in which he still doesn't even try to
present facts or use paragraphs for that matter]
>So, Dan, take a stress pill and think things over, if you can.
Hmm, who appears to require medication here?
>And remember, I repeat; silence will be a good declaration of defeat in
>any case.
Then please be silent already.
>Hal.
The simple fact of the matter is that Saturn, Hercules, and the Horned Man /
Leader of the Wild Hunt have nothing in common, other then the most tenuous of
connections. Coincidences are bound to come upm just by the nature of telling
stories about human or human-like characters.
They all happen to be male (although some leaders of the Wild Hunt were
female). And they could all be considered in some way (but different ways) to
be virile. But then the vast majority of characters in myths are virile in some
way, that doesn't mean they are the same character.
That's it. Even trying to come up with ridiculously stretched connections,
there aren't any more. Somehow you've gone beyond even the ridiculous to the
just plain insane to try to come up with some way that you can claim that they
are all the same figure.
Please stop waving your hands frantically claiming that it's all too
complicated for people who aren't you to understand. Present facts. Cites.
Sources. ANYTHING.
Here, I'll make it easy for you. Pick Saturn and one of the other characters
above. Don't bother with all of them, you're already too dizzy. Now take those
two and present information, this "research" you say you are capable of and for
which you claim I am lacking, that shows what they have in common.
Hal9000
> [About 30 lines of rambling deleted, in which he still doesn't even try to
> present facts or use paragraphs for that matter]
Nope, just a different system of writing between italians and rest of the
world.... But seriously, excuse me, Dan, but this is evidence of what? I
guess nothing but the fact you get fully confused by a system of formatting
and perhaps you was lead to a rushing conclusion. I think the most of your
attacks was motivated by this, but is it my fault if I'm unable to write in
english (just considere also how much complex were the argument)? I
"learned" english myself, on the net, since two years ago. I fluently know
french only, which I guess few speak here; btw, I'm too attained to my
native language to be subject on learning another one, although useful. I
write the better I can, but this doesn't involve that I should be either
misunderstood or injuried for this! Ever tried to write in italian? Well,
try it, then notice the complete difference.
> Hmm, who appears to require medication here?
Dan, that was a quote, nothing more; it is evident that you never noticed
that before. This is one among most famous quotes from 2001 SO. The quote
was "Take your stress pill, Dave, and think things over"; I only substituted
Dan with Dave, that's all.
> Then please be silent already.
This doesn't eliminate the fact. You are just reflecting my words, nothing
more. This seems to be a very predictable sport in these days....
> The simple fact of the matter is that Saturn, Hercules, and the Horned Man
/
> Leader of the Wild Hunt have nothing in common, other then the most
tenuous of
> connections. Coincidences are bound to come upm just by the nature of
telling
> stories about human or human-like characters.
Uhm, ok, it seems you decided for an explaniation; good, ŕ la bonne heure.
This is speaking. Anyway in tjis case you would had spared that "thus please
be silent already"....
Well, according to many latin sources (e. g. Tacitus - in Germania -,
Caesar - in DBG - and others) Odin was Mercury (whence your "wednesday",
"the day of Wotan", that's "mercoledě", "mercredě", "Mercury's day"), but
this could fit just in the case of Mercury as psycompomp (as Odin/Wotan was
in origins; now, Herne is nothing but Wotan as Wild Hunter, as anybody know,
and the Wild Hunter is a BEHEADED character). Now, the fact that they stated
"Mercury" DOESN'T involve this were PLANET Mercury; in this case it is a
matter of names. Btw, if Thor was established as Jupiter, and although it is
notorious that some traces lead to think that often Thor were a much more
archaic god than Odin (nay, some clues lead to think that he was father of
Odin; this way Jupiter were really father of Mercury), it is clear that
"Mercury" here has not a definition for celestial bodies, but for a degree
of somewhat else.
More, it is clear that if we should follow the latin suggestion then Odin
fits into Mercury, but it doesn't in the case of Odin as father of Thor
(Jupiter's father is Saturn; latins was not completely right, and I puzzle
why norse might have the weird idea to say 'em that Wotan were the
counterpart of their Mercury!); then in this latter case following the latin
system we should find Odin as Saturn instead of Mercury, and this is an
example of what I always stated with "roman system isn't the most precise
among all". But, and that's why I think that ancients used a dynamical
cascading system nor yet a rigid sequencial (or by names) one, Odin MUST be
"Jupiter" 'cause otherwise he weren't "the chief"; this also besides a
system based on kenningars (such as, e. g."Tyr of the hanged" - that's is
not to say that Odin is Tyr, but Tyr is an instance of "the hanged" - or
"Nergal is the Marduk of war". Is this detail clear now?). This way we could
digress to comparate unto the vedic system, were in facts often we have gods
that after changing their names embodied a different element; f. e., Varun
being the relative of greek Uranus but in facts is ranked as Poseidon in the
vedic triad shared with Agni and Indra, whilst you might also notice that
"Uranus" is Varun only for name roots, but the real sky-god is Dyaus, who
later became a root for Zeus (notice also that for greeks Zeus was the whole
sky, not yet planet Jupiter); this is always related to the evolution of a
system during ages, for instance, such as in changing some relations changed
also the rank, the characteristics and even the elementariety (f. e., Saturn
is Prometheus and also Vulcan, as anybody knows e. g. from both comparative
schemes and orphic hymns; not the NAME, but the SUBSTANCE variates on giving
a character another name for different purposes). This happens almost in any
hindeuropean system, I guess; for non-indeuropean people we could match it
among both mesopotamian peoples and egyptians. Only canaanites had a rigid
system where a god/name was matched with one and only one concept; so, El
was always Saturn, Baal was always Jupiter, Ashtarth was always the Venus as
"Esperus", Anat was Venus as "Lucifer", and so on. Just considere e. g. the
precolombian system of day-names and gods, a change of names according to a
change of times.
This is my OPINION. The connection between Saturn **as you know him from
greek-roman mythology** and Herne is CERTAINLY faint, but only if we
**forcely** look at **that** system; I always told about SUBSTANCE, maybe
you was too occupied in "refuting" instead of reading that very word.
> They all happen to be male (although some leaders of the Wild Hunt were
> female). And they could all be considered in some way (but different ways)
to
> be virile. But then the vast majority of characters in myths are virile in
some
> way, that doesn't mean they are the same character.
This is properly what I've hinted on putting the character of
Salomč/Siduri/Shamat and Herodias/Lilith/Algol/Gula (that is the same as
Shamat/Delilah; Salomč is nothing but an emanation or iconotropy of
Herodias, such as Andromeda were an anodyne alter ego of the monster slain
by Perseus using for the head of Medusa/Algol; and please considere that
Gula was either female or male) within the context, although these haven't
anything to do with the hunt. Hope at least you might agree with the suite
Bran/John/Adam, unless someone will pick John as a historical character. I
think f. e. that the story of John would hint something very illuminating
about which system ancients used in certain myths; I've told it could be
related to a calendric crypticism, but so far I never matched any opinion
from anyone about it. I think that at the actual state of progress in
mythological analysis we were too far from knowing how ancients made it,
what they put into it, what they did meant and what they REALLY had to trade
unto us with it. One thing is certain; they made myths 'cause they hadn't
yet the tv....
> That's it. Even trying to come up with ridiculously stretched connections,
> there aren't any more. Somehow you've gone beyond even the ridiculous to
the
> just plain insane to try to come up with some way that you can claim that
they
> are all the same figure.
Dan, again; I've told about SUBSTANCE, please dismiss that "ridiculously"
and alike. It is OPEN that the "default" Saturn couldn't be the Wild Hunter,
besides Saturn was never reported as beheaded (I guess details such as the
beheading were just elements of differentiation between an instance of
"Saturn" and another one). Why in a discourse some always read what they
WISH instead of what people REALLY say?
> Please stop waving your hands frantically claiming that it's all too
> complicated for people who aren't you to understand. Present facts. Cites.
> Sources. ANYTHING.
Dan, hope you might notice, as anyone could, that the question is REALLY as
complicated as luring; it isn't an invention of mine, nor something
inflated, nor a justification for I weren't able to demostrate what I say.
I'm not putting smoke on that; it is REALLY complicated as in explaining it
as in finding the nexus. Sources? Well, most are direct hints from original
authors (50%), others from mythologists (30%), others conclusions of mine
(20%). Wanna bibliographic lists?
> Here, I'll make it easy for you. Pick Saturn and one of the other
characters
> above. Don't bother with all of them, you're already too dizzy. Now take
those
You know? I wonder why people always have the time to read what they really
never need.
Anyway thanks for you goodwill on discussing things; this is finally
acceptable. Hope you get it much more easy now.
Cheers,
Hal.
_______________________
"Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence".
Joe Jefferson
>
> "Joe Jefferson" <jjst...@mindspring.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:3C9CB0...@mindspring.com...
> > So let me get this straight. John the Baptist is Saturn, and Herod
> > Antipas is Mars? So that would mean the Herod's father, Herod the Great,
> > is really Jupiter?
>
> This were "straight" under a greek-roman sequence; greek-roman world isn't
> the whole world of myth (this is true only for mediterraneocentrist
> "students", not for broad-range ones), nay, as any objective researcher can
> confirm, it is the LESS precise, the less "straight", the less original, the
> less ancient and the more subject to mismatches among all. Not all cultures
> had the very system to arrange both their pantheons and mythic stories,
> being or not their characters omogeneous with others of other cultures.
However you are missing the fact that Herod and Herodias are not part of
any pantheon at all because they are not mythical characters but
historical figures.
> It is wrong as to
> believe that ancients e. g. would have really meant ONLY the PLANET Saturn
> when talking about the GOD Saturn, while PLANET Saturn had many names
> besided the REAL ones used in astronomy (they made this difference; we
> don't. This is the cause of the confusion for us); as for
> gods/titans/demigods/heroes and so on he could be Prometheus (bringer of
> culture), Vulcan (smith), Dyonisus (the "dark" or "hidden Sun"), and even
> Juno,
What are your sources for equating Saturn with Prometheus, Vulcan,
Dyonisus, and Juno?
> We are in contest of MYTH; MYTH was Bran,
Which Bran are you referring to? There is an Irish Bran and a Welsh
Bran, and any connection between them is far from conclusive.
> so was John although in this case
> we could be in contest of mythized person
Not unless you expand the definition of the word "myth" to the point
that it no longer usefully means anything at all.
You seem to be fond of making everything into a myth, and then
abstracting all these "myths" until you can find enough common elements
to declare them the same. Unfortunately this type of methodology ends up
revealing far less about the myths themselves that about your cleverness
in manipulating them. Following the same procedure, one might just as
well claim that Marie Antionette was the same person as Anne Boleyn as
the "archetype" of the beheaded queen.
Hal9000
"Joe Jefferson" <jjst...@mindspring.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3C9FDF...@mindspring.com...
> Hal9000 wrote:
> However you are missing the fact that Herod and Herodias are not part of
> any pantheon at all because they are not mythical characters but
> historical figures.
Nope, I told about the mythization of historical figures too. Btw Caesar,
Rome and its politicians was very linked with herodians (and we have many
references to Cleofa > Cleopatra, maybe a naming disguise of the egyptian
one under the name of a relative of Herod such as in the thread of "give
Caesar what belongs him", the legions, and so on; btw, herod = "red snake"
in siriac, herod = terror in hebrew, and herrut = "snake" in egyptian, and
was a secondary name of Apep, ie the red dragon, aka Set).
> What are your sources for equating Saturn with Prometheus, Vulcan,
> Dyonisus, and Juno?
Prometheus > bound by Jupiter; artifex protector (like Vulcan), aequated to
Saturn e. g. in orphic hymn 13 (a "substantial aliasing", I might say);
Prometheus flung into Tartarus (Aeschilus) 'cause he refused to comply to
Jupiter's will.
Saturn > chased by Jupiter, put under "Aetna" by him (and as Typhon was
too), often in parallel renderings said sleeping in a island of Chronium Sea
(Plutarch, DFiOL), due northwest; classically Vulcan had his facilities
under "Aetna" too. "Aetna" is a clear logistic translation in order to
mediterranize the context of a myth; though Vulcan's opifices was located in
Caucasus (where Prometheus too was bound) by Homer (Ody.) and Pindar (Pyt.),
facing the land where Zeus defeated Typhon crushing him under a vulcan named
Aidna.
Juno > attached to **planet** Saturn by romans (btw, the very contest of a
wife perpetually in stride with his husband remakes kinda conflictualism
between the father Saturn - whence we have e. g. Juno Saturnia, a
preferential "patronimic" nick never given by any other first-class
goddess - and the son Jupiter) mostly after calendric arrangements
god/planet/Sun signs; the fact they did this demonstrates how latin
religion/mythology were an absolute mix of several concepts often unpaired
by any other original sources, and how things may vary from nation to nation
and epoch to epoch. She's a female "embodiement" of **planet** Saturn. I
don't have the source handy right now, I must search for it then I'll post
it.
About Dyonisos sorry but that was just a refuse of mine, a "freudian
lapsus"; I was writing mails to a friend right about Dyonisos while I was
posting messages here (whence the "dark sun"; in that I was commenting unto
him a line of Porphyry in Eusebius about the various personifications of the
Sun, nothing more). :-)
> Which Bran are you referring to? There is an Irish Bran and a Welsh
> Bran, and any connection between them is far from conclusive.
The welsh one was beheaded but his head was allegedy brought back to Wales;
the "giant" Bran, then absorbed into british lorehood, was linked to London,
was very likely a fisherking figure and beheaded **by his followers**.
Besides we have "three" Bran in celtic mythology, the Imram Bran's
character, that's "a" Bran featured also in Mabinogion tales, have to do
with conversing heads, heels, and he's one and the same with the welsh one
(this is what I often meant as for diversifications by details and
logistic); the guy of the White Tower of London.
I don't understand now why the connection were "far from conclusive"; for
whom?
Perhaps in the viewport of a Mimir-like character plays the figure of st.
Brannoch (in facts a christianized alias of Bran, such as Birgit > st.
Brigid, and so on), "a man of Italy", and his holy well; so we have a well
too, although from a serior source. About the shifting of attachments
between archaic characters and "historic" ones which I often spoke of
(unless Brennus were another unexistent historical persona fit by romans for
their "obscure" purposes), we have Brennius and Belenus (a remake of Bran
and Belin) as told by Jeffrey (de Monmouth....).
Bran is undoubtely linked the the grail by several legends; he is, to say,
the archaic welsh/celtic counterpart of "christian" John tB.
> Not unless you expand the definition of the word "myth" to the point
> that it no longer usefully means anything at all.
Yes, John is myth, as his counterpart is too; maybe they was both took by
historical character (f. e. "ben Pandera" or ben Stada for his counterpart;
I guess John haven't first-hand any else but mesopotamian Enkidu), but
haven't anything to do with history. Gospels are just fiction (and a very
lame one) based upon a less or more historical canvas, nothing more.
> You seem to be fond of making everything into a myth, and then
> abstracting all these "myths" until you can find enough common elements
> to declare them the same. Unfortunately this type of methodology ends up
> revealing far less about the myths themselves that about your cleverness
> in manipulating them. Following the same procedure, one might just as
> well claim that Marie Antionette was the same person as Anne Boleyn as
> the "archetype" of the beheaded queen.
Well, I've fit Mary Antoinette as a "Herodias" archetype, then in a
secondary stage into a Lilith/Algol/Medusa character, but I've laughed about
it too (also 'cause except monsters we haven't plenty of beheaded woman
characters in myths); otherwise, besides the fact that one cannot attach an
"archetype" as you write it to unrelevant figures, e. g. all guillotined
noblemans during the terror were a symbolism of Bran.... :-) That's why I
said that there should be some eveniences by whom a historical figure could
become a mythical one; one of those eveniences is TIME.
Myth is imperfect by itself; even both math and physic science hasn't any
evidences than those we could currently match since our technologic limits.
Would we even question about the system that ancients used to build myths,
and whether our own method of comparativity and analysis were fittingly or
not? Please don't joke :-)
Btw, I'm not so "clever", Joe....
Hal.
_______________________________
Dan Norder
>was a secondary name of Apep, ie the red dragon, aka Set
Apep is NOT a red dragon. Apep is the underworld snake of darkness.
Set and Apep are NOT the same figures. Set was actually the warrior god most
often linked to killing Apep in many of the early stories.
How are we supposed to trust any of your conclusions when you make wild
sweeping blunders like this in just half a sentence?
Hal9000
"Dan Norder" <dann...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:20020326161230...@mb-co.aol.com...
> Apep is NOT a red dragon. Apep is the underworld snake of darkness.
The problem doesn't dwell in the fact that Apep were red or black or
whatsoever colour might be, but in the sequence of names/**substances**
converging into a unique scheme centered upon a character that were
undoubtfully the humanized counterpart of the red dragon chasing the woman
of Revelation (btw, as historians said - e. g. Plutarch; how curious, after
the battle between Horus and Set the formed beheads his mother 'cause she
freed the loser.... -, the very scene was already known to egyptians; whence
the allegedy escape in Egypt of Jesus' family. This is an "archetype", most
surely drawn from astronomical conceptions; we have the very scene replied
e. g. as for Kansa pursuing his sister and the infant Krsna). Btw, hope you
already received the scheme Herod/Samael/Mars (the king of Idumea, the land
under Samael, where John preached and died) and Herodias (how weird; an
"incestous" liason between two familiars sharing the same name-root. What a
eager matter for mythographers)/Lilith/Moon in order to enchain the concept
of the suite into a sequential, dynamic system.
> Set and Apep are NOT the same figures. Set was actually the warrior god
most
> often linked to killing Apep in many of the early stories.
Sorry Dan, but I must contradict you, 'cause Set and Apep actually ARE the
same figure; Apep is an alias of Set **the Red** (sic in Book of the Dead;
"red of hairs and eyes") as serpent. As you exactly wrote, in archaic times
Set was the one who killed Apep 'cause the latter swallowed the waters of
the Sun's boat, so he constrained the monster to regurgitate 'em; more
recently Set was **identified** with Apep, with Rerek (that's one and the
same with Apep; the name changes because of different functions, but it is
always the snake of chaos dwelling in the lower emisphere and carrying the
boat of the Sun), with Keti and many other beasts (but, strangely, even in
archaic times Set was attached to those imaginifications, due he was
originally also the embodiement of the darkness treatening the next rising
of the Sun each night and to steal the light of the Moon).
In this case, the archaic killer becomes now prey; f. e., see Porphyry in
Eusebius' HE, talking about Horus harpooning Set in disguise of a riverhorse
(which he identifies with "the western horizon swallowing the stars"), or
the basreliefs of Hibisat, where Horus harpoons Set as a DRAGON.
IMHO btw about this apparent contraddiction either riverhorse or
serpen/dragon could surely be a reference to the circumpolar stars, namely
to Ursa Major (although linked to goddess Tauret; this is hebrew Behemot,
which btw as someone suggested, e. g. from Strong's concordance, should be a
derivate from a egyptian word for "water cow". I'll refer also some piyyutim
of Elehazar Rabbi Qallir about the fight between Behemot and Liviathan, such
as often egyptians setup fights between hippos and crocodyles. Ursa Major
and Draco were strictly linked for egyptian, and it is doubtful that the
hebrew myths about Behemot and Liviathan was mostly drawn from their myths;
infacts, for egyptians Tanem - Draco; that's a root for hebraic tannin,
"dragon", same name for the constellation - was represented by Tauret
too....) and to Draco (Apep proper, "who dwells in the skies", said papyri.
This is hebrew Liviathan, cananite Lotan, avestan Azi Dahaka, and so on), in
a sector which egyptians said belonged to Set. In this case Horus might
goodly be Bootes (e. g. in Dendera "zodiac" and the ceiling starmap of Seti
I - where Horus harpoons right Kepesh, Ursa Major, the Calf's leg -; but
this should be better matter for archaeostronomers), and his "harpoon" were
Alcor (that was, btw, e. g. for mesopotamians, the "fox-star", dedicated to
Nergal/**planet** Mars, "holder of the bond of heaven and earth" - s. Irra &
Ishum -, since the MulApin series) or Polaris, whereas not the polar axis
itself. Coincidentially, incidentally Ursa Major (for greeks Callisto, whose
son, Arcas, was Bootes....) was since arabian lore the procession of the
coffin of Lazarus, whilst Ursa Minor (whose prominent stars was the "killers
of Lazarus" for arabs) jointed with Draco rendered the imaginification of
the winged dragon (Arktoe et Draco, in many astronomical atlases;
incidentally Ursa Minor wasn't know before Tales of Miletus, although prof.
Schiaparelli said that it was very known to both hebrews and phoenicians).
> How are we supposed to trust any of your conclusions when you make wild
> sweeping blunders like this in just half a sentence?
:-)
The fact isn't to believe, but to DISCUSS. I hate to believe; I like to
discuss, specially in civil manner. Myth is something much more hard to
decode than people could imagine; one alone cannot cope with it without
dscussing.
Anyway, if I made such mistakes in just half a sentence, let's figure out
what I did in the rest! :-)
Hal.
_______________________________
"Absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence".
P. s.; did I made any other "wild blunders" in the post which you refer to?
Dan Norder
>
>P. s.; did I made any other "wild blunders" in the post which you refer
>to?
Just about every sentence in every post you make is filled wild blunders.
Howlingly bad errors. I don't have time to go through and refute them all one
by one, especially since when refuted you ignore it and respond with error
heaped upon error to try to prove you are right.
In 15 years of being on internet and countless posts to alt.mythology I've seen
few people who come close to the number of mistakes and total insanity you
spout in every post.
Joe Jefferson
>
> Hello Joe.
>
> "Joe Jefferson" <jjst...@mindspring.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:3C9FDF...@mindspring.com...
> > Hal9000 wrote:
> > However you are missing the fact that Herod and Herodias are not part of
> > any pantheon at all because they are not mythical characters but
> > historical figures.
>
> Nope, I told about the mythization of historical figures too.
Yes, but you telling it doesn't make it so. If you're going to claim
them as myth you need to demonstrate that fact.
> Btw Caesar,
> Rome and its politicians was very linked with herodians
Yes, in the same way that President George W. Bush is very linked to
Secretary of State Colin Powell. That doesn't make either of them
mythical.
> (and we have many
> references to Cleofa > Cleopatra, maybe a naming disguise of the egyptian
> one under the name of a relative of Herod such as in the thread of "give
> Caesar what belongs him", the legions, and so on; btw, herod = "red snake"
> in siriac, herod = terror in hebrew, and herrut = "snake" in egyptian, and
> was a secondary name of Apep, ie the red dragon, aka Set).
Names do not necessarily indicate relatedness. There was an American
general who's name meant "Son of Arthur". That didn't mean he was
related to the legendary British king.
> > Which Bran are you referring to? There is an Irish Bran and a Welsh
> > Bran, and any connection between them is far from conclusive.
>
> The welsh one was beheaded but his head was allegedy brought back to Wales;
> the "giant" Bran, then absorbed into british lorehood, was linked to London,
> was very likely a fisherking figure and beheaded **by his followers**.
A "fisherking" figure? The fisher king was not beheaded, but rather
healed by the grail.
> Besides we have "three" Bran in celtic mythology, the Imram Bran's
> character, that's "a" Bran featured also in Mabinogion tales, have to do
> with conversing heads, heels, and he's one and the same with the welsh one
> (this is what I often meant as for diversifications by details and
> logistic); the guy of the White Tower of London.
> I don't understand now why the connection were "far from conclusive"; for
> whom?
They are far from conclusive because the stories are different, they
come from different cultures, and were told in different languages.
You're grabbing onto a similarity in some details and constructing a
link that can't be supported by the sources themselves.
> > Not unless you expand the definition of the word "myth" to the point
> > that it no longer usefully means anything at all.
>
> Yes, John is myth, as his counterpart is too; maybe they was both took by
> historical character (f. e. "ben Pandera" or ben Stada for his counterpart;
> I guess John haven't first-hand any else but mesopotamian Enkidu), but
> haven't anything to do with history. Gospels are just fiction (and a very
> lame one) based upon a less or more historical canvas, nothing more.
First of all, fiction is a completely different thing that mythology. If
the Gospels are "just fiction" (an opinion that is not held by any
historian I am aware of), then for that very reason they can not be
treated as mythological.
Second, John the Baptist is attested not only by Christian sources, but
also by Josephus (Antiquities 18.116-19).
> > You seem to be fond of making everything into a myth, and then
> > abstracting all these "myths" until you can find enough common elements
> > to declare them the same. Unfortunately this type of methodology ends up
> > revealing far less about the myths themselves that about your cleverness
> > in manipulating them. Following the same procedure, one might just as
> > well claim that Marie Antionette was the same person as Anne Boleyn as
> > the "archetype" of the beheaded queen.
>
> Well, I've fit Mary Antoinette as a "Herodias" archetype, then in a
> secondary stage into a Lilith/Algol/Medusa character, but I've laughed about
> it too (also 'cause except monsters we haven't plenty of beheaded woman
> characters in myths); otherwise, besides the fact that one cannot attach an
> "archetype" as you write it to unrelevant figures, e. g. all guillotined
> noblemans during the terror were a symbolism of Bran.... :-) That's why I
> said that there should be some eveniences by whom a historical figure could
> become a mythical one; one of those eveniences is TIME.
But then you turn around and claim Herod, John, and Herodias as mythical
without the slightest evidence whatsoever - *especially* not time, since
all three are known from first century CE documents.
> "Absence of evidence is not evidence
> of absence".
And even less is it evidence of presence.
Iain Parkinson
> From: "Hal9000" <nuntenefr...@cazvuo.viaspam>
> Organization: [Infostrada]
> Newsgroups: alt.mythology
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:27:09 +0100
> Subject: Re: The Horned Man, or Huntsman
>
> Hello Joe.
> Nope, I told about the mythization of historical figures too. Btw Caesar,
> Rome and its politicians was very linked with herodians (and we have many
> references to Cleofa > Cleopatra, maybe a naming disguise of the egyptian
> one under the name of a relative of Herod such as in the thread of "give
> Caesar what belongs him"
Eh? I don't understand this bit; there's no Cleopatra in those New Testament
passages. Herodians are mentioned in Mark and Matthew's version. I can't
see any mythicised Romans or Egyptians in these pericopae at all, if that's
what you meant by 'thread'. Or do you mean that "give Caesar what belongs
him" is already a 'mythicisation' of Caesar? Which it isn't.
>the legions, and so on; btw, herod = "red snake" in siriac, herod = terror
in hebrew, and herrut = "snake" in egyptian, and
> was a secondary name of Apep, ie the red dragon, aka Set).
>
........
> and Belin) as told by Jeffrey (de Monmouth....).
> Bran is undoubtely linked the the grail by several legends; he is, to say,
> the archaic welsh/celtic counterpart of "christian" John tB.
>
>> Not unless you expand the definition of the word "myth" to the point
>> that it no longer usefully means anything at all.
>
> Yes, John is myth, as his counterpart is too; maybe they was both took by
> historical character (f. e. "ben Pandera" or ben Stada for his counterpart;
> I guess John haven't first-hand any else but mesopotamian Enkidu), but
> haven't anything to do with history.
You can guess all you like but that won't mean that 'John the Baptist' is
merely a mythical figure. What an absurd suggestion. I think the best book
on John is still Robert Webb's monograph in the JSNT Supplement Series
(University of Sheffield Academic Press) I forget which one but you could do
with reading it.
> Gospels are just fiction (and a very lame one) based upon a less or more
historical canvas, nothing more.
Never heard the gospels described as lame even by their 'cultured
despisers'.
Hal - you seem to have an impressive broadbrush familiarity with myths and
stories from various periods/cultures but I don't think you really
appreciate them in their contexts.
Its certainly true that a historical figure can become a mythical one but
that means neither that, as one frequent contributor here alleges, all
mythological figures were in fact historical, nor does it mean as you seem
to be implying, that figures who appear in myths or who might have been
mythicised have no recoverable historical existence.
John was one of several C1 Jewish prophets that we know about from Josephus
and other such sources.
But these are minor quibbles and I realise you are not chiefly addressing
matters biblical - it's your whole approach I find the most baffling.
I've no wish to be as rude to you as others seem to want to be but I can't
help feeling that your method is a sort of reverse Rumpelstiltskin - in
trying to spin all these diverse and independent myths into one thread you
are changing gold into straw.
Iain
Iain Parkinson
>
> The problem doesn't dwell in the fact that Apep were red or black or
> whatsoever colour might be, but in the sequence of names/**substances**
> converging into a unique scheme centered upon a character that were
> undoubtfully the humanized counterpart of the red dragon chasing the woman
> of Revelation (btw, as historians said - e. g. Plutarch; how curious, after
> the battle between Horus and Set the formed beheads his mother 'cause she
> freed the loser.... -, the very scene was already known to egyptians; whence
> the allegedy escape in Egypt of Jesus' family. This is an "archetype",
Well if it is it is more likely based on an earlier dreamer Joseph who ended
up with his family in Egypt. This is because Matthew wants to
claim/demonstrate that Jesus's life was in some ways a recapitulation of the
history of Israel. It is nothing at all to do with Horus, Set or
beheadings. None of which features in the gospel story.
Iain
Hal9000
"Iain Parkinson" <ia...@parko.demon.co.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:B8C7C009.28D71%ia...@parko.demon.co.uk...
> Well if it is it is more likely based on an earlier dreamer Joseph who
ended
> up with his family in Egypt. This is because Matthew wants to
> claim/demonstrate that Jesus's life was in some ways a recapitulation of
the
> history of Israel. It is nothing at all to do with Horus, Set or
> beheadings. None of which features in the gospel story.
Well, the problem is that besides borrowing form other myths, gospels,
specially that of Matthew, is full of errors.
Hal.
Hal9000
> Just about every sentence in every post you make is filled wild blunders.
> Howlingly bad errors. I don't have time to go through and refute them all
one
> by one, especially since when refuted you ignore it and respond with error
> heaped upon error to try to prove you are right.
>
> In 15 years of being on internet and countless posts to alt.mythology I've
seen
> few people who come close to the number of mistakes and total insanity you
> spout in every post.
Think what you wish, but with this you doesn't demonstrate anything; btw, so
far you wrote neither a word about the whole discourse, but for writing
that's completely "insane". This is quite a commodism in order to "get rid"
ob obstacles, that's all; or even to think.
Hal.
Hal9000
> Yes, but you telling it doesn't make it so. If you're going to claim
> them as myth you need to demonstrate that fact.
Here we go
> > Btw Caesar,
> > Rome and its politicians was very linked with herodians
Maybe you don't remember that Herod the Great had many things to share with
roman politic either in his own area or in Rome itself.
> Names do not necessarily indicate relatedness. There was an American
> general who's name meant "Son of Arthur". That didn't mean he was
> related to the legendary British king.
This is something I've already said about the previous quote of Dan; maybe
we are telling the same things on that, but just using for different words.
As for your general, well, but seriously, hope you understood the main
discourse about time, relevant personages and archetypes (for incidental or
tributed that they might be).
> A "fisherking" figure? The fisher king was not beheaded, but rather
> healed by the grail.
Yes, but the other one WAS beheaded. Many sources relate the other to the
fisherking, perhaps mostly due the wounded heel or so, this isn't yet clear
to me too (although some legends speaks of a certain "Hebron" who multiplied
bread and fishes; I have to better search the source, then I'll post it
back. I've not used it since long time, so I lack where it could be written
among my papers). For example he had a cauldron of plenty (such that of the
Dagda) and was wounded in the foot by a spear; and this were suggesting
connections with the Grail and the fisherking; tradition said that his head
was buried under the White Hill in London to protect the country, but Arthur
dug it up, as he wanted to be the sole guardian of Britain. Again, the
presence of a unique detail doesn't make a character unique.... Though, many
converging detail render a character a polyedron of elements in sharing.
> They are far from conclusive because the stories are different, they
> come from different cultures, and were told in different languages.
> You're grabbing onto a similarity in some details and constructing a
> link that can't be supported by the sources themselves.
Well, Joe; I guess that from Ireland to Wales to England there's not a so
great distance....
> First of all, fiction is a completely different thing that mythology. If
> the Gospels are "just fiction" (an opinion that is not held by any
> historian I am aware of), then for that very reason they can not be
> treated as mythological.
What historians? Maybe the "usual ones" ones, I guess. Anyway, someone took
a mythical canvas, a very popular one such those of cananite myths and
idumean lorehood, then attached it to some historic characters completely
arranging facts that never was in history as they wrote. Otherwise we might
think to "divine coincidences".... Please don't joke.
> Second, John the Baptist is attested not only by Christian sources, but
> also by Josephus (Antiquities 18.116-19).
I already know that John was treated by Giuseppe Flavio.... Anyway maybe you
miss that although Giuseppe Flavio was mostly a reliable historian (we owe
him many things), he wasn't yet so at all, due he was a clear pro-roman
source writing specially for roman audiences (to say, for the people who
occupied the Palestine).
> But then you turn around and claim Herod, John, and Herodias as mythical
> without the slightest evidence whatsoever - *especially* not time, since
> all three are known from first century CE documents.
Joe, I **never** said that they never existed, I said just that they was
historic characters (and this is even implicitous from the discourse....) to
whom was attached mythic archetypes, that's all (maybe also 'cause of
"divine coincidences"....); please read better what I wrote.
> And even less is it evidence of presence.
:-) At least you think.
Hal.
_______________________________
Iain Parkinson
> From: "Hal9000" <nuntenefr...@cazvuo.viaspam>
> Organization: [Infostrada]
> Newsgroups: alt.mythology
> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:23:35 +0100
> Subject: Re: The Horned Man, or Huntsman
>
Not sure your right on any of your theories about the relatedness of myths,
and in particular you'd be way off to suggest anything in the way of
non-Judaic borrowings in the synoptic gospels. Especially Matthew.
But what was all that about Cleopatra and whatnot...
> Nope, I told about the mythization of historical figures too. Btw
Caesar,Rome and its politicians was very linked with herodians (and we have
many
> references to Cleofa > Cleopatra, maybe a naming disguise of the egyptian
> one under the name of a relative of Herod such as in the thread of "give
> Caesar what belongs him"
What do you mean by that last sentence?
Iain
Hal9000
> Not sure your right on any of your theories about the relatedness of
myths,
> and in particular you'd be way off to suggest anything in the way of
> non-Judaic borrowings in the synoptic gospels. Especially Matthew.
Yes, errors of chronology, of dynastic descendance (see the contradiction
with Luke; I wonder whether a guy could descend from two different dynastic
lines....) and yet of "prophecies" (Zecharia quoted as Jeremy and viceversa,
etc.; too absurd and imprecise to be the work of a jewish writer, moreover
of one among Jesus' followers).
> But what was all that about Cleopatra and whatnot...
Cleopatra = Cleofa; in this case we have it attached to a man, i. e. Zebedee
aka Alpheus. But "Cleopatra" was also the name of **Herodias' mother**....
And, better than this, we have two Cleopatra; one's the "daughter" of
Herodias (Salome wasn't; she was adopted by the couple), the other was
called cousin of Mary.... But the strangest thing is that Cleopatra wife of
Herod the Great.... As you see, we have plenty of Cleopatras in the related
historical bkg of the gospels. Btw, I find very alarming to match the wife
of Chuza, an attendant of Herod Antipas, on the Golgota alongside Mary and
other women....
As for other indirect hints from history to gospels, look that Herod the
Great was a friend of Pompeus before he was beheaded (you've guessed it) in
Egypt (please match also that Cleo refused to give Herod help against some
enemies after the death of Pompeus), then he was also friend of Caesar;
dropping any domesticated mass' disinformation, Herod, the **historical**
one, was a great man both by name and by appositive, a builder, a reformer,
a **friend** of the people, a lucid politician, a vanquisher of brigands,
and as for his faults he was a ruler not worse than many other ones roman,
greeks, egyptians, and so on (how weird, when someone is a enemy for
religious integralists, immediately it is made up a monster or a fool
although some others rulers, maybe much more fond of crimes than him, got no
censure 'cause of their subjection to the religious classes! So was
Akhenaton, so was Julian the apostate - indeed a very brilliant thinker -,
and many others); his worst enemies was fanatic jahwist integralists 'cause
he was a nostalgic hellenist visionary (people still remembered maccabite
times). Isn't a case that the **only** gospel who tributes him the slaughter
of innocents (a crime that no roman deputy have had allowed without his
consent, 'cause of obvious politic motivations; people was in smell of
turmoil anytime) is that of Matthew, a **politicized** gospel very near to
both ebionites and Jacob the Just (killed by the sanhedrites in 70+), to
say, into a sadokite minority opposite in the sanhedrin to
pharisees+herodians+priesthood (made up by collaborationists of romans)
during Herod. Probably Matthew translated the slaughter of several pharisees
ordered by Herod in 6- as the "slaughter of innocents"; the very Giuseppe
Flavio, that good **detailed** source about the events of this period
(though nevetherless **pro-roman**), **makes not mention about the
slaughter**, that's something weird for such a monstrous event. Btw, if
Herod proceeded against pharisees in 6-, the slaughter had not lieu 'cause
Jesus wasn't yet born, or, if it was in "year zero" due the errors of
Dionigi il piccolo, he was already 6 y/o that year (so, he isn't to be
considered a "newborn"), unless it was born in 7- (as now REAL historians
state) and he was 1 y/o; in all these cases it is evident that the
chronology of gospels starts both lame and ungrounded since the exordium....
So, any tentative of chronologyze such an event is completely NULL, and, due
this, the event never happened as something against childrens (it is a pure
transpository, derogatory anti-herodian castle of cards). This is MYTH cover
90%, history 10%.
Hal.