Explanation of my translation of Luke 4:19 in the Greek context of which it is written:
Modern so-called scholars translate the word Kuros as signifying “authority,” disregarding the historical record from the century where it would’ve been most important.
“Κυρον γαρ καλειν Περσας τον Ηλιον.”—Plutarch, Artaxerxes, circa 75 AD.
Helion (the sun) was called Kuron by the Persians. (The termination -on/-ον signifies masculine gender. These words also take the forms of Helios, Ήλιος, and Kurios, Κυριος, a title ascribed to Jesus, as well as heliou, ἡλίου, and Kurou, Κύρου. Simply put, in this instance, the sun is considered masculine.)
In the ancient languages, terminations give context to the words. In so-called Ancient Greek, the termination -ou, or -ου, is an article that signifies the genitive singular masculine form, or neuter form, of the noun. In grammar, a particle is a word that doesn't fit neatly into other parts of speech, often used to modify the meaning of another word, like up in look up, while an article is a specific type of word used to define a noun, like the or a which indicates whether something is specific or general. It may take forms in different dialects, as we see masculine names ending in -os, or -ος, but in rare instances, -ios, -ιος, which may be evidence of a Latin creation or mindset, because it is equivalent to the termination -ius. (Even the way the word Christian is rendered in Greek, claimed to be of Greek origin, Christianos, is evidence of a Latin creation because Greeks did not terminate words that way. There is plenty of evidence to suggest the original language of the New Testament was Latin, and then translated into Greek. If I had to speculate, it may be a hijacking of the system once the capital of Rome was moved to Byzantium, or Constantinople.)
When you strip the word of its articles, in all forms, you are left with the radical KUR, KYR, CYR, CUR, KIR, CIR, KER, CER, etc., which gives way to these words beginning with CH, SH, H, S, TS, TZ, or even G, instead of K or C, as transposition occurs. In like manner, if you strip Ήλιος (Elios) of its article, you are left with El, Ήλ, the Hebrew word for God, which they even didn’t bother to change with Elyon, God the most high, as you can see for yourself that Plutarch calls the sun: Ηλιον (Elion: Eta, lamda, iota, omicron, nu.).
In Latin, the C is an appropriate transliteration of the Greek Kappa, Κ, because C functioned like a G until K was introduced to Italians in the 3rd century BC. But in the context of English, Cyrillic, and the like, the C is not a great transliteration of Kappa because it can function like S, which causes people to pronounce a name, such as Cyrus (Kyrus), like Syrus, Sirus, Syria, or Sirius.
There are no ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament that exist, or can be proven to have existed, in the archaeological record.
Lord is specifically written as the Persian name of the Sun, Kuros, or Kyros, in the context of Luke 4:18-19, which, when Latinized, becomes Cyrus, the founder of the Achaemenid Empire.
Lord, in the context of this passage, is not rendered Jove (יהוה; Tetragrammaton, Jehovah, YHWH, etc.), Elohim (אלהים; aleim), El (God), Adun (אדון,Lord), Adonai (אדני, adni), Theos (God), Pater (Father), Tsur (Rock, Lord), or any other word pertaining to God. Translators omitted the context of Kuriou, which is that the Persian name of the sun was rendered by Greeks as Lord, or Master. Pneo is pronounced Knay-Oh, or how the Latins would pronounce Neo, which makes me wonder if this is laid up in the protagonist of The Matrix.
The passage literally signifies, the breath or spirit of the sun, whatever title one ascribes to God, or however one imagines the Creator of this world to be, created the natural phenomenon we see in the sky, known as the sun, so that we may reckon its cycle of time, begetting the seasons, which we call a year. You cannot access the context of this passage without the knowledge of its historical reference, even if you’re fluent in Greek. My goal here is not deride anyone’s spiritual tradition, but to give my audience the tools to access deeper meaning, and develop a more sophisticated way of reading ancient texts, inscriptions, and the like.
Is the Sun We Don’t See the Spirit of the Sun? Did the Bible Reference this Astronomical Observation?
These show notes correspond to Chapter XVII of the Astronomico-Theological Lectures: The Twelve Patriarchs.
As we make our way through Reverend Robert Taylor’s work, uncovering the historical implications is unavoidable, so if that’s something you’re not interested in, or uncomfortable with, now would be the time to exit.
Taylor wrote (Astr. Lect. pp. 299, 300.), “Though there was no confirmatory document, and no history whatever has made the least mention of any of these personages, or their adventures, yet there was no counter or contradictory history,—nobody could prove the negative. And as they must have had some ancestors, or been descended from somebody or something, why might not the stars have been their forefathers, or be believed to contain the genii or souls of their fathers, and why might not the curious and entertaining illustrations which the astronomical priests gave of the starry heavens be the real history (in the absence of all other history) of the progenitors of mankind?
“Thus were the stars their fathers; and thus were the phænomena which the priests described in relation to the stars supposed to be the real history of what had occurred to those from whom they believed themselves to have descended. The names which the priests gave to distinguish one star from another, passed for the names of their particular ancestors: while the priests, by their manner of turning their eyes up, and like St. Stephen gazing steadfastly into heaven all the while that they were discoursing about these imagined fathers of mankind, gave a sufficient hint to those who had wit enough to look to actions rather than words,—as to what the real nature of those fathers was, and where the text of their marvelous history was to be found.
“Of which St. Paul, ever and anon, gives us the broadest hints that ever were in the world; and which, if experience had not shown that the stupidity of the religious world is absolutely infinite, one would have thought that stupidity itself could not have mistaken; as he says, ‘Set your affections on things above’—that is, to be sure, upon the stars which you see so high above your heads:
“and, ‘Our conversation is in the heavens,’—that is, all that we discourse about, is the science of astronomy: (I’m not sure how the word conversation was derived from a word that means state, region, or government, but it seems to be a common translation. It could easily be translated as the state or region of heaven.)
“and, ‘Moreover, brethren, I would not have you ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud.’
“Why, to be sure, and O’God’s name, they were under the cloud,—and of a cloudy night you cannot see any of them.
‘And all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea.’
“The very phenomena, which we see ourselves, and could hardly describe in any other language as occurring to the stars, which are continually baptized, or dipt, or ducking behind the cloud, as the cloud passes over them, and ducking in right earnest, as we see them set, or go down behind the waves of the western ocean. (In some parts of Italy, where I suspect these stories actually originated, the entire baptism can be seen, both of the stars being dipped and then being saved from the waters.)
What metal does the moon correspond to in alchemy? Silver. What is the etymology for Jericho? Yareakh (ירח; irkh), signifying the moon. How many times around Jericho before its walls fell? Seven. How many times was silver purified and refined? Seven.
Taylor wrote (Astro. Lect. p. 294-6.), “All the words of the Lord are pure words, even as the silver, which from the earth is purified and refined in the fire seven times.” (Psalm 12. v. 6.)
“Upon this axiom, we conclude that any words which are not pure are not the words of the Lord, and may and ought to be rejected, as spurious and base, wherever found, or under whatever pretenses of admitting of explanation, or our not properly understanding them, lest their apparent impurity may be screened from our criticism, or protected from our disgust.
“But all the words of the Lord, being of such essential holiness and purity, as having undergone, or requiring to undergo, a process of criticism as severe and trying as a seventh passing through the fire; can any absurdity be more monstrous, than that of those who, professing to call the scriptures ‘the word of God,’ would never subject them to any critical inquiry at all, nor ever allow themselves to revise or to doubt the first impressions which their text had made upon them?
“But behold I show unto you a more excellent way: ‘The patriarchs moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt: but God was with him.’
“Would not any man who intended to treat the scriptures with the respect which he would show to any other work of high antiquity, ask the emergent questions—
What are the Patriarchs?
Why moved with envy? Why sell Joseph into Egypt! And why and how was God with Joseph?
“To the first of these questions we may be thus resolved: The word patriarch occurs in no other passage of scripture but this I have quoted, except once in the singular form, in the 2nd of the Acts of the Apostles, where we have the phrase, the Patriarch David; and again in the 7th of the Epistle to the Hebrews where is the phrase, the Patriarch Abraham.
“It is nowhere found in the gospels, calling in, as we are in reason bound to do, the light afforded to a strict adherence to the original Greek; we find that Πατριαρχαι ζηλωσαντες (Patriarchai zelosantes) does not mean, the patriarch moved with envy, which is a moral sense, and certainly a bad one; but the twinkling, sparkling, glowing, effervescing, ardent patriarchs, which is a physical sense, and therefore neither good nor bad:
“But which, if the patriarchs should happen to mean any thing of a sparkling and twinkling nature, would, without any departure from the most literal sense, present us with a clue to the significancy,—especially if it were absolutely sure that the Patriarch Abraham was and is nothing else but a Star, even the planet Saturn, and the Patriarch David, likely hereafter to be proved to be—no more than a Star. And that the word patriarch should primarily and originally have reference only to a star or combination of stars.
“And then the form of speech, which we have rendered, they ‘sold Joseph into Egypt,’ απεδοντο (apedonto), is still more exactly, they ‘gave him over,’ which, without a metaphor, is such an action as might be ascribed to these sparkling and glowing patriarchs; especially if Joseph were one of their own sparkling, glowing, starry, and patriarchal nature and family, which is more than intimated in the phrase—και ην ο Θεος μετ αυτο—‘But God was with him.’ God always being believed to be in a very peculiar manner resident in every one of the Stars.”
Taylor gave an example of how you might describe astronomical phenomena, while at the same time encoding their meaning (Ib. p. 298.), “As you would say, ‘See there in the east, how yonder group of stars is rising, as it were, out of the sea, that looks so red with the reflection of the Sun’s rays, that you may call it the Red Sea: and that you may know the group again, mark yon bright Star that seems to lead them, and call him Moses. And there is one, not quite so bright, who shall be his brother Aaron; and there’s a sister for them, that beautiful pale looking Star, that seems to rise out of the froth of the sea, which makes her look so white—that is, Miriam, she has got the leprosy,—and is the Venus Anaduomené of the Pagan, and the Virgin Mary of the Christian fable.’”
Leprous is a descriptor, signifying white like snow, like Venus. I wrote in July’s End with Black Swans, which members of this Substack can get access to, “The allegory is claimed to be for the star Venus (Mary/Miriam) rising in her sign of Taurus, which happens in March, April, and May depending on the year. The sun goes from Aries to Taurus as well, which is symbolic of Miriam becoming “leprous white as snow” due to the sun blotting out the constellation it enters. It’ll still be possible to see Venus at dawn because she is so bright.”
To learn more about this system and the historical implications of these allegories being treated as history, invest in the Spirit Whirled series, and then The Real Universal Empire for my rectification of European/Mediterranean history.
On the other side, we’ll reveal the origin of guardian angels and why they were important to our ancestors.
Become a member to access the rest of this podcast and its show notes.
Listen to this episode with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Dylan Saccoccio's Canon to listen to this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
