Fresh Batch #185: Alleged Transmission of Greek History & Mythology

History Purported by Greeks Is Not True

Mar 03, 2025

∙ Paid

Bryant wrote (Analys. Anc. Myth. pp. 161-4.) “The ancient history and mythology of Greece was partly transmitted by the common traditions of the natives: and partly preserved in those original Doric hymns, which were in the ancient Amonian language; and said to have been introduced by Pagasus, Agyieus, and Olen. (Pausanias. L. 10. p. 809. Clemens mentions Αγυιεα θυρωρον τω Έρμη. Holy Gatekeeper of Herme. Cohort. p. 44. [Agyieus is a title of Apollo, signifying he of the street.] Οσα μεν αδουσιν εν τω Πρυτανειω, φωνη μεν εστιν αυτων ή Δωρικη. That which is heard [spoken] in the Prytaneion [seat of government in Ancient Greece] was either in the voice of their own dialect or the Doric. Cohort. p. 44.) This last some represent as a Lycian, others as an Hyperborean: and by many he was esteemed an Egyptian. They were chanted by the Purcones, or priests of the Sun: and by the female, Hierophants: of whom the chief upon record were Phaënnis (Pausanias. L. 10. p. 828. of Phaënnis and the Sibyls), Phæmonoë (Pausanias. L. 10. p. 809. of Phæmonoë and ancient hymns.), and Bæo. The last of these mentions Olen, as the inventor of verse, and the most ancient priest of Phœbus.

“Ωλην δ’ ός γενετο πρωτος Φοιβοιο προφητης, Πρωτος δ’ αρχαιων επεων τεχνωσατ’ αοιδαν. (And Olen, who became the first prophet of Phoebus, And first fashioned a song of ancient verses. Pausanias. L. 10. p. 809, 810. Ωλην.)

“These hymns grew by length of time obsolete; and scarce intelligible. They were however translated, or rather imitated, by Pamphos, Rhianus, Phemius, Homer, Bion Proconnesius, Onomacritus, and others. Many of the sacred terms could not be understood, nor interpreted; they were however retained with great reverence: and various departments attributed to the several Deities. (Jamblicus de Mysteriis. Sect. vii. c. 5. p. 156.) In like manner in Samothracia the ancient Orphic language was obsolete, yet they retained it in their temple rites: Εσχηκασι δη παλαιαν ίδιαν διαλεκτον όι Αυτοχθονες (εν Σαμοθρακη) ής πολλα εν ταισ θυσιαις μεχρι του νυν τηρηται. The natives (in Samothrace) used to speak the same dialect in the past, and it is still preserved in many sacrifices [rites; ritual offerings]. Diodorus. L. 5. p. 322.) Every poet had something different in his theogony: and every variety, however inconsistent, was admitted by the Greeks without the least hesitation: Φυσει γαρ Έλληνες νεοτροποι–Έλλησιν αταλαιπωρος της αληθειας ζητεσις. The Grecians are naturally led by novelty: The investigation of truth is too fatiguing for a Grecian. (Literally: The Greeks are like birds that go where the wind blows—truth puts the Hellenic people in agony. Jamblicus de Myster. Sect. 7. c. 5. See notes. p. 295.) From these ancient hymns and misconstrued terms Pherecydes of Syrus planned his history of the Gods: which, there is reason to think, was the source of much error.

“Such were the principles which gave birth to the mythology of the Grecians; from whence their ancient history was in great measure derived. As their traditions were obsolete, and filled with extraneous matter, it rendered it impossible for them to arrange properly the principal events of their country. They did not separate and distinguish; but often took to themselves the merit of transactions, which were of a prior date, and of another clime. These they adopted, and made their own. Hence, when they came to digest their history, it was all confused: and they were embarrassed with numberless contradictions, and absurdities, which it was impossible to remedy. (Thus it is said in Eusebius from some ancient accounts, that Telegonus reigned in Egypt, who was the son of Orus the shepherd; and seventh from Inachus: and that he married Iö. Upon which Scaliger asks: Si septimus ab Inacho, quomodo Iö Inachi filia nupsit ei? How could Iö be married to him when she was to him in degree of ascent, as far off as his grandmother’s great grandmother; that is six removes above him. See Scaliger on Eusebius. ad Num. cccclxxxi.) For their vanity, as I have shown, would not suffer them to rectify their mistakes by the authority of more ancient and more learned nations. It is well observed by Tatianus Assyrius, that where the history of times past has not been duly adjusted, it is impossible to arrive at the truth: and there has been no great cause of error in writing, than the endeavoring to adopt what is groundless and inconsistent. (Παρ’ οις γαρ ασυναρτητος εστιν ή των Χρονων αναγραφη, παρα τουτοις ουδε τα της ίστοριας αληθευειν δυνατον τι γαρ το αιτιον της εν τω γραφειν πλανης, ει μη το συνατπτειν τα μη αληθη; The record of the times is incoherent, and despite claims of truth, the history cannot be accepted [or believed] on account of the source of the writings being false. If they don’t agree (the records and the claims), then the purported history is not true. Tatianus. p. 269.)

“Sir Isaac Newton somewhere lays it down for a rule never to admit for history, what is antecedent to letters. For traditionary truths cannot be long preserved without some change in themselves, and some addition of foreign circumstances. (I cannot find this citation, so if it is real, please provide it if you come across it.) This accretion will be in every age enlarged; till there will at last remain some few outlines only of the original occurrence. It has been maintained by many, that the Grecians had letters very early: but it will appear upon inquiry to have been a groundless notion. Those of the ancients, who considered the matter more carefully, have made no scruple to set aside their pretensions. (Νυν μην οψε εις Έλληνας ή των λογων παρηλθε διδασκαλια τε καί γραφη. Don’t look to a Greek or to the false teachings and scriptures. Clemens Alexand. Strom. L. 1. p. 364.) Joesphus in particular takes notice of their early claim; but cannot allow it (Όι μεν ουν αρχαιοτατην αυτων την χρησιν ειναι θελοντες, παρα Φοινικων καί Καδμου σεμνυνονται μαθειν. Ου μην ουδ’ επ’ εκεινου του χρονου δυναιτο τις αν δειξαι σωζομενην αναγραφην εν ίεροις, ουτ’ εν δημοσιοις αναθημασι. Joseph. cont. Apion. L. 1.): They who would carry the introduction of letters among the Greeks the highest, very gravely tell us, that they were brought over by the Phenicians, and Cadmus. Yet after all they cannot produce a single specimen either from their sacred writings, or from their popular records, which savors of that antiquity.”

In other words, people boast about their culture’s antiquity, same then as now. Yet none of these people who boast ever produce inscriptions or demonstrate their antiquity. But those who did boast, their writings were humbled by those of the alleged Phoenicians. Yet, had I never studied Phoenician, I’d still be able to read this name of the Kingdom of Ammon (𐤏𐤌𐤍) as OMN in Etruscan because the Phoenician is a derivative of Etruscan and the ancient languages of Italy, which are Celtic, not from the Orient as pretended by the religious institutions, and subsequently their scholars. It’s already been exposed by other authors, like Macrobius and Servius, that Cadmus is a Greek corruption of the Etrusco-Latin Camillus, another title of Mercury, the Logos, or Thoth, the inventor of letters. It’s fabulous, not historical.

“Statius Tullianus says, in the first book of the terms of things, that the Etruscans called Callimachus by the appellation Camillus Mercurius, &c. The Romans also call wealthy boys and girls Camillos and Camillas, the forerunners of the male and female Flamens and Flamines.” [Priests and Priestesses of Jupiter; flamen translating to breathers.] (Macrobius. Saturn. L. 3. c. 8. p. 284.)

“Mercury was called Camil in the Etruscan language.” (Servius in lib. 11. Æneid. v. 558.)

I suspect these mythological claims of history are meant to cover up the Etruscan Empire. The only way this could’ve transpired is if the so-called Greek Empire was after the Etruscan one, not before it as imagined. I have more controversial thoughts about this, but for now, I will keep them to myself.

Bryant continued (Ib. p. 164.), “Theophilus takes notice of these difficulties; and shows that all the obscurity, with which the history of Hellas is clouded, arose from this deficiency of letters. He complains that the Hellenes had lost sight of the truth; and could not recollect any genuine history. The reason of this is obvious: for they came late to the knowledge of letters in comparison of other nations. This they confess, by attributing the invention of them to people prior to themselves; either to the Chaldeans, or the Egyptians: or else to the Phenicians. Another cause of failure, which relates to their theology, and still greatly prevails, is owning to their not making a proper disquisition about the true object of worship: but amusing themselves with idle, and unprofitable speculations. (Των δε της αληθειας ίστοριων Έλληνες ου μεμνηνται πρωτον μεν δια το νεωστι αυτους των γραμματων της εμπειριας μετοχους γεγενησθαι και αυτοι όμολογουσι, φασκοντες τα γραμματα έυρησθαι, όι μεν απο Χαλδαιων, όι δε παρ Αιγυπτιων, αλλοι δ’ αν απο Φοινικων δευτερον, ότι επταιον, καί πταιουσι, περι θεου μη ποιουμενοι την μνειαν, αλλα περι ματαιων καί ανωφελων πραγματων. Theoph. ad Autol. L. 3. p. 400. Plutarch assures us, that Homer was not known to the Athenians till the time of Hipparchus, about the 63rd Olympiad, yet some writers make him three, some four, some five hundred years before that æra. It is scarce possible that he should have been so unknown to them if they had been acquainted with letters.)

“This older alphabet is identical with that which scholars formerly thought was Greek. The early abecedaria (Marsiliana, Formello, Caere) are Etruscan rather than Greek.”—B.L. Ullman (Etrus. Orig. Rom.)

It is worthy to note that these Etruscan abecadaria, which scholars thought were ancient Greek, predate the fable of Cadmus giving the Phoenician letters to the Greeks. When you see the body of evidence, through the lens my work provides, it is quite evident that this system is Etruscan, and the Phoenicians either inherited it from them, or where their navigators who spread it to the Orient. Even the word Phoenician is from an Etruscan context, which is Puni, Pone, etc., signifying purple, which begat the Latin Pœni (Phoenicians).

“And Vetulonia, the pride, once, of all Etruria. That city gave us the twelve bundles of rods that go before a consul, those twelve axes with their silent menace, she first adorned the high curule chairs with ivory, and first trimmed official robes with Tyrian purple; while the bronze trumpet that stirs the warriors, that too was her invention.”—Silius Italicus (Punica, VIII, 483ff.)

Furthermore, one of the oldest alleged Aramaic inscriptions, called the Carpentras Stele, wasn’t “found” till the late Middle Ages, written in alleged Phoenician letters. The history of the Chaldean (Aramaic) texts are extremely suspect, to say the least. Originally considered to be Phoenician, the text on the Carpentras Stele was later argued to be Aramaic (Chaldean). Most of the so-called Aramaic inscriptions are products of the Middle Ages. If authentic, it’d be evidence of this system being brought to the east from Europe, since Etruscan might be older than Phoenician, and is certainly related to such a degree that he who knows Etruscan can read Phoenician words. If not authentic, it proves that the claimed eastern origin of this system is a fabrication, a forgery, or at best, an imitation. It’s conceded that Phoenicians were not Semitic, which is a problematic word, and concept, that wasn’t created till the 18th century. Archbishop Trench wrote, “It was Eichhorn who first suggested the calling of a certain group of languages, which stand in a marked contradistinction to the Indo-European or Aryan family, by the common name of Semitic. A word which should include all these was wanting, and this one was handy and has made its fortune; at the same time implying, as Semitic does, that these are all languages spoken by races which are descended from Shem, it is eminently calculated to mislead.”

Etruscans were called Pelasgian by the Greeks, who are the only ones that are responsible for the ideas of the Phoenicians being from Tyre, based on their limited exposure to them in that area. This detail is not certain, but merely postulated by Greek writers, whose claims modern scholars have adopted as gospel, even though it is admitted, by serious researchers and historians of the past, that Greek writings cannot be depended on for historical accuracy.

To arm yourself with a much different perspective, using the archaeological record and the knowledge of the ancient languages, invest in The Real Universal Empire. To learn about the worldwide system of priestcraft, and its implications on you today, invest in the Spirit Whirled series.