Mythology at Stake

[StefanR]

A small oddity came to my view when reading this TPOD, and I hope perhaps mr. Van der Sluijs could explain it:

In the Sumerian tale, the god Enlil, also styled Gibil, separates heaven and earth with his al or “hoe”:

“Then Enlil praised his hoe (al), his hoe (al) wrought in gold, its top inlaid with lapis lazuli, his hoe (al) whose blade was tied on with a cord, which was adorned with silver and gold, his hoe (al), the edge of whose point (?) was a plough of lapis lazuli, whose blade was like a battering ram {standing up to a great (gal) wall} … Gibil made his hoe (al) raise its head towards the heavens – he caused the hoe (al), sacred indeed, to be refined with fire.”

The deity allegedly did so at a sacred place called uzu-è-a, "where flesh came forth," raising or suspending the bulug, the “axis of the world,” at Dur-an-ki in the ancient Sumerian city of Nippur. The idea may have been that the hoe itself transformed into this column.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... 1stake.htm

Rens says that Enlil is also styled as Gibil. But I have tried to find any such connection but it is just not there. As far as I could find Enlil is a God of Heaven and Gibil a lesser god who has a dominion about Fire and purification.
Even in The Song of the Roe which is cited in this TPOD there is a clear separation of the two. Because of the use of the elipsis I personally think Rens makes a bit of a confusion there as the first part:

1-7. Not only did the lord make the world appear in its correct form -- the lord who never changes the destinies which he determines: Enlil, who will make the human seed of the Land come {forth} {(3 mss. have instead:) up} from the {earth} {(2 other mss. have instead:) chamber} -- and not only did he hasten to separate heaven from earth, and hasten to separate earth from heaven, but, in order to make it possible for humans to grow in {'Where Flesh Came Forth'} {(2 mss. have instead:) 'Where Flesh Grew'} (the name of a cosmic location) , he first {suspended} {(2 mss. have instead:) raised} the axis of the world at Dur-an-ki.

8-17. He did this with the help of the hoe (al) -- and so daylight broke forth (aled). By distributing (altare) the shares of duty he established daily tasks, and for the hoe (al) and the carrying-basket wages were even established. Then Enlil praised his hoe (al), his hoe (al) wrought in gold, its top inlaid with lapis lazuli, his hoe (al) whose blade was tied on with a cord, which was adorned with silver and gold, his hoe (al), the edge of whose point (?) was a plough of lapis lazuli, whose blade was like a battering ram {standing up to a great (gal) wall} {(1 ms. has instead:) born for a great (gal) person (?)}. The lord evaluated the hoe (al), determined its future destiny and placed a holy crown on its head …….

So Enlil splits/divides Heaven and Earth with his roe and he does not use it to raise the axis of the world at Dur-An-Ki (the Bond of heaven and Earth ).
and it is only much later that Gibil is coming on stage and still than Enlil is separately named:

59-70. The king who measured up the hoe (al) and who passes (zal) his time in its tracks, the hero Ninurta, has introduced working with the hoe (altar) into the rebel (bal) lands. He subdues (alĝaĝa) any city that does not obey its lord. Towards heaven he roars (algigi) like a storm, earthwards he strikes (alĝaĝa) like a dragon (ušumgal). Šara {sat down on} {(1 ms. has instead:) got onto} Enlil's knees, and Enlil gave him what he had desired (al-dug): {he had mentioned the mace, the club, arrows and quiver, and the hoe (al)} {(3 mss. have instead:) he desired (al-dug) the mace, the club, arrows and quiver}. Dumuzid is the one who makes the upper land fertile (allumlum). Gibil made his hoe (al) raise its head towards the heavens -- he caused the hoe (al), sacred indeed, to be refined with fire. The Anuna were rejoicing (alḫulḫuledeš).

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... t=t.5.5.4#

So if Rens could be so kind to show how he sees Enlil also styled as Gibil it would be of great help.


Another thing is his bringing in the work of:

In his monumental The Golden Bough, the famed Scottish anthropologist and belletrist, Sir James George Frazer (1854-1941), staked his claim that the mind everywhere evolves along similar lines, thus translating similar experiences in nature into similar superstitions and institutions. For all its elegance, however, this hypothesis does not stand up to the light of day.

Of course it is quite easy to set up his frame of explanation against the one of Frazer. But I personally think Rens builds a bit of a strawman here.

[The Great Dog]

From Rens Van Der Sluijs:

Many thanks for your interest in my work. I stand corrected regarding your first remark: there are, indeed, no grounds for equating Gibil and Enlil. All I can say in my defence is that I was combatting a sinus infection at the time of writing; perhaps the 'brain fog' caused a temporary lapse of attention. Not a good excuse - I know. That I am normally aware of the distinction can be inferred from my article 'A Possible Babylonian Precursor to the Theory of Ecpyrosis', published in Culture and Cosmos, 9. 2 (2005), 1-19, which can be downloaded from my website. On p. 10 of this article I discuss Gerra, who is the Akkadian equivalent of Gibil.

Concerning your second point I stick to my guns. If you read The Golden Bough, you will agree that I have correctly identified Frazer's leading exegetical principle in my TPOD. The entire argument laid out in The Golden Bough is a tour de force trying to explain how all mythical motifs examined therein can be explained as 'logical' reflections on simple natural processes, especially as concerned with the germination of plants. I am indeed challenging this entire methodological pillar. While I agree in principle with Frazer that 'like minds explain like phenomena alike', I differ about the nature of those phenomena. Instead of the tame and tedious phenomena Frazer adduced, I propose that transient, often catastrophic events in nature formed the primary sensory input that human minds around the world then set out to interpret alike. You are welcome to differ, but I fail to see in what sense I have set up a strawman.

Should you like to discuss these matters further, please write to me privately or address your concerns in an essay. I have no time to read Internet blogs and forums.

Sincerely,

Rens

[StefanR]

Thank you Rens for the reply and TheGreatDog for relaying.

Many thanks for your interest in my work. I stand corrected regarding your first remark: there are, indeed, no grounds for equating Gibil and Enlil. All I can say in my defence is that I was combatting a sinus infection at the time of writing; perhaps the 'brain fog' caused a temporary lapse of attention. Not a good excuse - I know. That I am normally aware of the distinction can be inferred from my article 'A Possible Babylonian Precursor to the Theory of Ecpyrosis', published in Culture and Cosmos, 9. 2 (2005), 1-19, which can be downloaded from my website. On p. 10 of this article I discuss Gerra, who is the Akkadian equivalent of Gibil.

No problem, I was just wandering. Of course you are right in the equation of Gibil and Gerra. It just made the comparitive relation between the Mesopotamian and Australian sources less firm.

Concerning your second point I stick to my guns. If you read The Golden Bough, you will agree that I have correctly identified Frazer's leading exegetical principle in my TPOD. The entire argument laid out in The Golden Bough is a tour de force trying to explain how all mythical motifs examined therein can be explained as 'logical' reflections on simple natural processes, especially as concerned with the germination of plants. I am indeed challenging this entire methodological pillar. While I agree in principle with Frazer that 'like minds explain like phenomena alike', I differ about the nature of those phenomena. Instead of the tame and tedious phenomena Frazer adduced, I propose that transient, often catastrophic events in nature formed the primary sensory input that human minds around the world then set out to interpret alike. You are welcome to differ, but I fail to see in what sense I have set up a strawman.

Well in the sense, that for taking Frazer as a prime example of the methodological pillar you wish to challenge, seems to me a poor choice. That is, that you might be right, if Frazer constitutes a methodological pillar all by himself. But similarity is in cosmogonical structures and such do can be explained simple and elegantly proceeding from how the mind sees the world and itself. And in that sense people all over the world and for quite some long time are sharing as people a human mind. Of course how such things are named are cultural and different, but the functioning of the mind is not. It is why the same structures displayed in myths can still be understood by us today. Comparitive mythology has in that sense moved on quite a bit since Frazer, and looking at Frazer from that point of view sure does make an "archaic" and "romantic" impression. But comparitive philosophy and theology have moved on, and as you know myths did have their function in their days in the fields of religion and philosophy. So raising Frazer as prime example in that sense is setting up a strawman, in my view. And no, I don't think you properly described even Frazer's point of view, it is too simplistic. And then it would only poorly reflect Frazer's methodology and not a methodological pillar as a whole, that you wish to challenge.
But then of course, I do know that you and the Thunderbolts group have their own way of seeing things and it is why mythological considerations on the TPODs will always be framed by you in the way you wish to frame them. And that is logical.

Should you like to discuss these matters further, please write to me privately or address your concerns in an essay. I have no time to read Internet blogs and forums.

Well mythological matters have been discussed on the forum here of Thunderbolts. And it still remains a complete mystery to me why when you as TPOD contributor do post TPODs, but refrain to discuss matters on the forum in the public view. In a certain sense it shows a kind of disinterest, imho. Of course one can be very busy with work and private life and such, but when one has the time to make TPODs with a sinus infection, there must be time once and a while to join in discussions. Other participants of the forum have busy lives as well and very little time, but they find the time to speak in the open once in a while. So forgive me for not going to write you privately as I think if there are concerns or questions to be raised concerning TPODs, I will always prefer discussing those in the open and public view. I thought that was the handy dandy thing of the forum, to share our views concerning subjects we share in liking and find interesting.
But I do sincerely thank you for this reply you gave. It was very helpful.
En beterschap met de sinusinfectie natuurlijk.

[JohnMT]

Hi all,

Without quoting too much material (past posts etc), I too have always wondered why certain aspects of the 'EU Theory', at least mythologically-wise, are apparently beyond discussion by the purported self-proclaimed 'experts'...at least on this site.

These so-called 'experts' obviously stand alone and as such, apparently regard themselves as 'infallible'...so it seems.
Their various writings are now virtually regarded as 'dogma'...and are therefore unarguable...hence the 'quietness'.

But surely, the entire subject of the EU itself is in my understanding, essentially based on Mythology is it not?, so why should this subject not be more open to further discussion and interpretation with the so-called 'experts' and their various claims...one to one, as it were?

Are they somehow 'above constructive critisism'?

I find it quite astonishing, that certain advocates of the EU paradigm have from time to time, suggested that Velikovsky 'got most of it wrong' and that due further research etc, many of his interpretations are now 'out of date' etc. and thus completely erroneous'.

What?

Absolute nonsense!

In my humble view (and I am a qualified Aeronautical Engineer, but not a Mythologist), 'Worlds in Collision' is just as equally apparent, relevant and pertinent right now, as it was in 1950, when the book was first published.
Check it out and see for yourselves.
I personally don't need some present-day so-called 'expert' to tell me otherwise.

So, I think that nothing much has changed during these past 60 years or more and I also contend that the true 'Originator' of ALL these interdisciplinary discussions which we now currently enjoy, are due to the late Velikovsky himself and his original thoughts and ideas.

As for the so-called 'Saturn Theory' and its numerous derivations/interpretations etc.,...Who was the true Originator of this particular Thesis?... Why, one Velikovsky himself (reference various unpublished papers circa 1940/50's, such as 'Saturn and the Flood' and 'Jupiter of the Thunderbolt' etc.)
Has anyone else come up with such original thoughts as these?

Nope, none at all.

Also, such self-proclaimed 'experts' as these just love to self-interpret, abominably critisize almost to 'high heaven' and even of occasion actually condemn the Originator's fundamental precepts, even accusing him for an apparent lack of understanding, got his facts wrong etc (as they have done many times), his limited research or even some measure of connivance etc (courtesy dupes such as Leroy Ellenberger, Dr. Phil Plait etc)

Like it or not, the Real Fact is this:

Without Velikovsky's original thoughts, his detailed research, strewn over many decades, his extreme logical understanding of human nature (and as an experienced Psyschoanalyst he was more than well-qualified in this field) and of course his basic common-sense in all these disciplines too (which is seriously lacking these days...courtesy present-day 'science'), none of us would be discussing these subjects today at all!

To my mind:

Just take these so-called well-informed guys like a 'pinch of salt'.
Afterall, opinions count for nothing.

As a suggestion, perhaps one might take 'time-out' to read (or re-read) 'Worlds in Collision' (and of course the other eight or so books...such as 'Earth in Upheaval', 'Ages in Chaos' etc)...and then by doing so, one can get right back on track and recover sanity

'Velikovsky Rules'

John

[nick c]

Hi JohnMT,
I for one, have often said that Worlds In Collision and it's sequel Earth In Upheaval are the two most important books of the 20th C. I am not in the least bit embarrassed to say that, even though it often ends any chance for a meaningful exchange of ideas, well then so be it. That being said, Velikovsky made some errors and his chronology is at least partially wrong, casting doubt on the timing of events described in Worlds In Collision. But the adage "we should not throw the baby out with the bath water" applies here.
People involved in the Electric Universe have varying levels of agreement and disagreement with Dr. V. That just goes with the intellectual terrritory.

Wal Thornhill is straightforward in stating how he was influenced by Dr. Velikovsky:
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=3

J. R. Saul argues that medieval scholasticism was re-established during the 20th century. If so, the new "Enlightenment" will have to come, as before, from outside academia.


For me, enlightenment began with the controversial polymath and author of Worlds in Collision, Immanuel Velikovsky. In 1950 he demonstrated an interdisciplinary, comparative technique for uncovering hard evidence of planetary catastrophe from the recorded memories of the earliest civilizations. His method was forensic in that he looked for reports of physical events of a highly unusual nature that were nonetheless corroborated globally by totally separate cultures. Then by applying scientific knowledge of cause and effect, it was possible to build a very detailed model of the sequence of those events. Finally, the model enabled specific predictions to be made and confirmed - a requirement of a good scientific theory. Some of the predictions he made were outrageous at the time: Venus would be near incandescently hot, Jupiter would emit radio noise, the Moon rocks would be magnetised, and so on. Velikovsky was right, astronomers of the day were wrong. However, you will not find any textbook that gives him credit because his theory was judged to be wrong. Presumably they were all lucky guesses!

Nick

[JohnMT]

High Nick,

Thanks for your post and it would appear that we do at least have some measure of agreement on this particular issue, which is to say the Topic itself, 'Mythology at Stake'.

You wrote:

That being said, Velikovsky made some errors and his chronology is at least partially wrong, casting doubt on the timing of events described in Worlds In Collision.

May I ask you Nick and with respect, what apparent "errors" might these be?

Now, I am not asking for a whole detailed analysis of what all these apparent '"errors" might be...No not at all!, because maybe such a venture might take too much of your time (and we all have a life to enjoy and live, don't we?)

However, perhaps in a slightly obtuse but relevant manner if you will, may I say that the likes of 'Dr. Phil Plait' (whom I have personally dealt with before some years ago...amicable disussions of course...but within these discussions, I assuredly destroyed his unfortunately induced brainwashed ideas which were no doubt forcibly induced I might add, due his many years of 'University Indoctrination' etc)

In consequence, a rather pathetic result of his persistent and unquestionable adherence to the Nebular Hypothesis obviously resulted (but which in itself is a pure Conjecture in actuality...there being nothing proven whatsoever!)..and of course amongst the other non- existent nonsenses such as black holes etc, we just had to disagree and there is nothing at all he can do about it at all!!
Such persons are now too far gone!
What a shame.
Just like a guy on drugs...and I really mean that!

One more 'Prime' example:

Have you ever watched Prof. Brian Cox's new Astronomy series on TV with his annoying and persistent smile, as if he apparently knows it all (he's only a young lad))?

He is a clear example of many years of brainwashing...and please do notice up close...that his eyes are somewhat glazed as well..a clear example too of someone who has been mentally shredded of any reality, whether voluntarily of otherwise.
Personally, I can't bear to watch such drivel.
Therein it seems to me, lies the tragedy of our so-called 'Education' system within the recently introduced and unproven 'Sciences'.

Sadly, not one of these guys (ignoramuses), are possessed of an original thought at all!

Amongst other nonsense that Dr.Phil Plait (the purported next Carl Sagan?) has stated...and of course his knowledge too is completely based on pure textbook stuff etc, is that he didn't even know that the Equator of the Sun was inclined some 7.5 degrees above the plain of the Ecliptic!"!

"Hey, I didn't know that" he replied to me.

A 'Doctor' of Astronomy''?

HELP!

The only 'Doctors' I know...are those that cure my occasional physical ailments, which I suppose we all have endure from time to time...prescriptions etc, or otherwise...but at least within their REAL and unquestionable expertise etc, they do know what it is they are talking about...because the results are mostly proven.

Unlike present-day Astronomy', Cosmology and related subjects.

These so-called 'Doctors', can't seem to prove anything at all!!
(End of rant),

Good health and best wishes to yourself and all.

Cheers,

John

[nick c]

hi John,

That being said, Velikovsky made some errors and his chronology is at least partially wrong, casting doubt on the timing of events described in Worlds In Collision.

May I ask you Nick and with respect, what apparent "errors" might these be?

Now, I am not asking for a whole detailed analysis of what all these apparent '"errors" might be...No not at all!, because maybe such a venture might take too much of your time (and we all have a life to enjoy and live, don't we?)

Yes, this opens a whole new can of worms, so I will just try to briefly answer the question.
In Peoples of the Sea pp 205-244, "Supplement: Astronomy and Chronology", Velikovsky effectively demolishes the accepted time scale of ancient history. This piece is must reading for anyone who may entertain the fancy that the currently accepted dates of Egyptian history (and all of the ancient world is pegged to Egypt) are accurate. Unfortunately, (but then perhaps it is asking too much from one man) he never really supplied a complete alternative. The problems with Velikovsky's chronology were outlined best by Clark Whelton. The selected Bibliography at the end of the link gives some articles dealing with the subject of Velikovsky's chronological shortcomings, but I would specifically highlight one:
"Velikovsky, Fundamentalism and the Revised Chronology", Aeon vol.1 No.6 (1988)
Whelton points out that Velikovsky could not arrive at the correct chronology because of his adherence to the biblical chronology. There was never a consideration on Velikovsky's part that the time frame of the bible may not be accurate. When it came to biblical chronology, he was a fundamentalist. That is not to say that he was a religious fundamentalist.

I had long since come to the conclusion that Velikovsky was not a religious fundamentalist because he demonstrated a repeated willingness to question the literal truth of Bible stories. For example, on page 32 of Ages In Chaos Velikovsky casts doubt on the statements in Exodus that "all of the firstborn and only the firstborn" were killed on the last night of the Exodus plagues "because events can never attain that degree of coincidence. No credit should be given to such a record." In Worlds In Collision Velikovsky also cautions his readers to seek the correct interpretation of Scriptural passages and not to take them literally.

But when it came to chronology Velikovsky did not follow his own advice. So I for one, cannot rely on the dates given for the catastrophes outlined in Worlds In Collision. Though, the book is remarkable in that it documents ancient man's experience with cosmic catastrophes, the result of a recent reordering of the solar system. The thesis that ancient man perceived Venus as destructive world threatening comet is astounding, especially since subsequent researchers have documented so many additional pieces of supporting evidence that Velikovsky did not even consider.
But, precisely locating those events in the historical time frame is problematic.

Nick

[JohnMT]

Hi Nick,

Thanks for your well-informed post.

Yes, I do agree with you that the subject of Chronology is indeed a problem and an on-going problem too.

I also appreciate how Velikovsky's quest and respect for Biblical truth in these matters was a major concern.
As you know, the Bible is quiet on many matters such as these, so it would be difficult to arrive at precise datings in many instances.

I shall have to check-out Clark Whelton's paper in Aeon (vol. 1 No.6) and also re-read 'Peoples of the Sea'.

Interestingly, some years ago I attended a three-day Conference on Akhenaton 'The Heretic' (as I remember) and from the very outset the MC strongly suggested that 'Chronology', being an ever continuing problem, with its many theoretical contradictions etc will not be seriously discussed as a Topic.
Many partakers of the conference agreed!

Velikovsky did say (somewhere), that when drafting 'Worlds in Collision', there was so much information available to him that his Thesis and the many, many references etc contained within the book, was but a small portion of this abundance of extant material.
He was thus forced to condense his writings somewhat, otherwise just this one book would easily have extended into a series of many volumes containing many thousands of pages and which of course would be both impracticable and extremely disconcerting for the understanding of the average lay-reader (such as myself).
Overall however, I think Velikovsky did an excellent job in presenting this enormous wealth of material in the manner that he did.

For sure, I do agree with you that since publication, much more information has come to light and the thesis itself is still very much on-going in this respect.

As a side note, I actually met Clark Whelton during the Halton Arp/Wal Thornhill lectures at London University in 2001.
He delivered a brief lecture on the approaches toward a better understanding of Velikovskian principles etc.
Interesting guy.

Cheers,

John