05-08-2008, 11:57 PM
Shlama Akhi Stephen,
The connection from Saturn to Rome I can grant, at least from Ovid's mythological account of the god Janus describing how Jupiter cast down Saturn his Father to
Italia, where he remained the hidden god. From there Hislop contends Janus was Saturn as well; from there he contends that "Janus" comes from Chaldean "He Anesth" ="The man". Janus in Latin is "Ianus", which means "Gateway". For Hislop to make it Greek is dishonest and misleading; it certainly had nothing to do with the Hebrew "Ha Enosh" or Aramaic "Enosh" ("Human being").
The argument starts out tenuous, since he starts talking about pre-Roman times and names, and gets weaker when he identifies Saturn with Janus, which Ovid contradicts, along with other Latin ancients, then he changes Latin to Greek and tries to link the Greek "o annes" (Greek for "the man" is "o aner") as a transliteration of ancient Aramaic "He Anesth" (the man?), which does not exist in any language, as far as I can tell.
Exactly what does he think he is trying to pull here?
A quick reading would fool a lot of people. A careful measured study of his main points will not sustain his case. It falls flat like a house of cards.
Blessings,
Dave
The connection from Saturn to Rome I can grant, at least from Ovid's mythological account of the god Janus describing how Jupiter cast down Saturn his Father to
Italia, where he remained the hidden god. From there Hislop contends Janus was Saturn as well; from there he contends that "Janus" comes from Chaldean "He Anesth" ="The man". Janus in Latin is "Ianus", which means "Gateway". For Hislop to make it Greek is dishonest and misleading; it certainly had nothing to do with the Hebrew "Ha Enosh" or Aramaic "Enosh" ("Human being").
The argument starts out tenuous, since he starts talking about pre-Roman times and names, and gets weaker when he identifies Saturn with Janus, which Ovid contradicts, along with other Latin ancients, then he changes Latin to Greek and tries to link the Greek "o annes" (Greek for "the man" is "o aner") as a transliteration of ancient Aramaic "He Anesth" (the man?), which does not exist in any language, as far as I can tell.
Exactly what does he think he is trying to pull here?
A quick reading would fool a lot of people. A careful measured study of his main points will not sustain his case. It falls flat like a house of cards.
Blessings,
Dave