Re: Sin once more

> Now does the fact that they slapped on a Biblical prehistory to the
> material they had invalidate that material? I don't get the

argument.

I can see that.

> > > > One of the nodal characters in this legend is Míl of Spain, a
> > > > transparent literary invention (= Miles Hispaniae,
> > > > `Soldier of Spain').
> > >
> > > Let's call that that 'an attempt at an etymology' instead.
> >
> > Still, it is a literary invention and not genuine history.
>
> No, an attempt is an attempt and not the final truth. Anything based
> on that is attempt too.

What the f**k are you even arguing? Do you even know? Because you are
just making a lot of noise at this point.

> > > > It was believed that the Irish discovered Ireland from
> > > > Brigantia in Spain. As Rolf Baumgarten has recently shown,

the

> > > > source of this legend is a reading of Orosius (I ii 71 and

80)

> > > > in the light of Isidore (Etymologiae XIV vi 6)."
>
> Yes, that's what the article says.

No sh*t! You know that's a quote from the article, right? See that
little quotation mark at the end there?
You can see more clearly that it's a quote in my original message
(where I say "Let me quote Donnchadh Ó Corráin"):
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59672

> > Names found in the LGE account, such as Scene and Bregon are quite
> > clearly drawn from written sources (Orosius' Scena and Brigantia)
> > and are were not passed down orally from ancient times

(otherwise,

> > they would have been subject to Irish sound laws – Brigantia, for
> > instance, would have become Brigte). In the case of Scena, this

is

> > a corrupt name in Orosius' text – he (or his copyists) should

have

> > written Sena (now the river Shannon). The medieval Irishmen who
> > borrowed this name from Orosius had no idea that he was referring
> > to the Shannon, thus they invented a new character, Scene. The
> > LGE's Eber is suspiciously similar to Latin (H)iberia, as well –
> > Isidore suggested that the name Hibernia was derived from Hiberia.
>
> Those eponymous founder heroes are always discounted, and for good
> reason. That's no reason to discard the rest of the material.

Even though it is evident that this section of the LGE is drawn from
non-Irish sources?

> > See Oliver Szerwiniack's article "D'Orose au Lebor Gabála Érenn:

les

> > gloses du manuscrit Reg. Lat. 1650" [In Études Celtiques 31

(1995)

> > pp. 205-217] fort a discussion of some early medieval, HIberno-

Latin

> > glosses on Orosius which display for us signs of the process of
> > transmission from his and Isidore's work (which were rather

popular

> > among the medieval Irish) to what ultimately became the LGE.
>
> But the fact the later redactors have compared sources and adjusted
> them doesn't prove the sources are false. Suppose one found

Napoleon's

> family name given as 'Buonaparte' instead of 'Bonaparte' in a
> contemporary French journal. Would we conclude that this showed it
> was all copied from the 'Journal du Corse' and that Napoleon never
> existed?

Wow, this is really flying over your head, isn't it? LOL!

> Also genetics show there *is* a connection.
> Look at the maps I uploaded to the file section from Oppenheimer's

The

> Origins of the British, those that show the marker R1b (called
> 'Ruisko' by Oppenheimer). How do you explain that?

OMFG. I AM NOT DENYING THAT THERE ARE GENETIC LINKS BETWEEN THE IRISH
AND SPANISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My entire argument is that you can't use a MEDIEVAL pseudo-history
(Lebor Gabala Erenn), as "proof" of some sort of irish folk memory of
a STONE AGE migration from Spain to Ireland, because the relevant
section of the LGE IS NOT ACTUALLY DRAWN FROM GENUINE IRISH
TRADITION!! What the f**k are you not understanding here??

- CG