Lebar Gabala Erenn a christian creation myth?

[ardri79]

something senbec said in the sacral kingship thread put me in mind of how we view the legends and this paper raised an interested discussion on the subject


I wrote a while back, ithe premise is flawed but Id like to hear yer opinions...

[glow=red,2,300]Lebar Gabala Erenn a christian creation myth?[/glow]
Its my opinion that Lebar Gabala Erenn (The book of invasions) was a christian invention, a creation myth in line with the Latin-Christian propaganda of the day and that in all probability there were no invasions. Whats your opinion?

When our native Oral Tradition met the written Tradition of Latin Monks the scribes probably encountered a good many problems. Prof Robin Flower notes in THE IRISH TRADITION (5) that early Irish history while rich in detail, is loose in chronology and with that in mind I would conjecture that one of the major problems the latin monks of the 6th and 7th century faced was how such knowledge could be validated and placed in the universal scheme of history that ruled the latin church at the time.

That universal scheme has been preserved for us in the Chronicle of Eusebius as translated and continued by St. Jerome and Prosper of Aquitane. The theory at the basis of the chronicle wasthat the great kingdoms of the world such as Egypt Greece etc.. all led pu by devine providence, to the establishment of the holy roman empire and this was reflected in the arrangement of the chronicle.
Each kingdom was layed out in parralell columns and the events of each kingdom were synchronised so that the advance of history, century by century could be followed at a glance for each and every kingdom and in that way they could be seen to lead up to the Roman Empire becoming the empire of Christ under Constantine.

Prof. Robin Flower again in THE IRISH TRADITION points to the common term for historian in Irish at that time as proof of the practice. "Fer Comgne" which he translates as "a Synchroniser" Prof Flower goes on to note that chronicles formed in this manner are at the base of all Irish manastic annals. The task the Fer Comgne would have set themselves in order for Ireland to be added to such a chronicle was to settle the loose chronology of early Irish history so that Irish kings might appear in due succession and right relation to their contemporaries in the other great kingdoms of the world.

PRof Eoin Mac Neill points to two methods used by latin scribes to complete their task in CELTIC IRELAND (25) An eye witness would either be called from the dead to converse with a saint or his life would be miraculously preserved 'til the coming of the saints and the written tradition. The latter is true of Tuan son of Starn in Lebar Gabala Erenn who goes through man animal incarnations (as in Scél Túain maic Cairill do Fhinnén Maige Bile inso sís) until he is reborn as Tuan son of Cairell in the time of Colm Cille and Findian to relay the invasions of Lebar Gabala Erenn to them.

in this way the lineages already known to to the Fer Comgne could have been shown to succeed one another in a series of invasions and be places in the Chronicle of Eusebius to give Validation to early Irish history.

The saying goes that necessity is the mother of invention and I have shown there was a need, I have shown the means by which the deed could have been accomplished and it is my opinion that Lebar Gabala Erenn is a work of Latin-Christian propaganda invented to fit the Kingdom of Ireland into the chronicle of Eusebius,

[Senbecc]

This is a very interesting and very thought provoking article! I'm very glad you posted it, and I will certainly enjoy a discussion on it, as the texts have undoubtedly taken on many Christian aspects in their histories.

I'm very glad you decided to post with us Ardri, any friend of Marcus's is a friend of mine! Not to mention you make some very intriguing posts!

[ardri79]

Sláinte man,

Marcus is a sound lad alrite.

any thoughts yet?

[Senbecc]

ardri79 said:

Sláinte man,

Marcus is a sound lad alrite.

any thoughts yet?

Well I don't have allot of time right now, I've just gotten off work and need to do things around here, after work seems to be my most busy time.

I will certainly post my thoughts on the article when I get a chance.

[ihrian]

ardri79 said:

Sláinte man,

Marcus is a sound lad alrite.

any thoughts yet?

and he just proved it, senbecc...(Slainte) lol eheheh

[ihrian]

no invasions, eh?? thats a startling thought...and i hate that the early christians changed thigns to suit them or invented stuff...but this is a book of invasions...seriously...hang on, are u saying its possible that there were no invasions??

[Marcus]

The Book of Invasions is one of my favourite Irish texts. The heroes, the detail of the battles, the names, places. The idea of this being all Christian propaganda is very thought provoking indeed.

[Senbecc]

oighrig said:

no invasions, eh?? thats a startling thought...and i hate that the early christians changed thigns to suit them or invented stuff...but this is a book of invasions...seriously...hang on, are u saying its possible that there were no invasions??

There is allot of events in the Lebor Gabala that have been proven, and dated (Proving the Bible dateing system used), I just need to get some time to round up a good responce.

[ardri79]

It is thought provoking Marcus.

One of the things I was wrong about is the Christian propaganda end. Back in the 6th Century the Monks were all Irish and Brehon Law ruled that changing the texts was amortal offence. BUT...

Stories from the Mythological cycle are MYTH, they are an important record of our Cultures beliefs and practices but are fictional.

Take the milesean invasion from whom even my own family claimed lineage. There is NO Archaeological evidence for a Celtic invasion. There hasnt been a major invasion since the Neolithic.

Add to that the genetic surveys saying there's more viking dna then celt in us as a nation and Myth is proven myth.

It comes down to why you study the legends are you taking them like a Christian fundamentalist as the exact truth or do you look past your own preconceptions of what is, study the symbollism and try to grasp what our ancestors were conveying to us and each other.

Thats how I think they should be taken, how about yerselves?

[Senbecc]

marcus said:

The Book of Invasions is one of my favourite Irish texts. The heroes, the detail of the battles, the names, places. The idea of this being all Christian propaganda is very thought provoking indeed.

After reading the responses, I feel that it is important to integrate that there are no Irish holy books. The Leabhar Gabhála is an educational tract which serves to teach us about the first generation. The Lebor Gabhála, uses a Christian Biblical date of 1472 B.C. as the given date for the coming of the Celtic people to Ireland, and is incredibly close to when the archaeological tells us that the Celtic peoples arrived there. The archaeological evidence also tells us of other races who lived in Eire well before the Celts themselves. Celtic scribes and/or Filidh compared the events in Ireland to events in the Bible, and many of their dates have proven to be quite accurate.

Secondly, like other Irish texts the Lebor Gabhála isn't a book in and of it's self, but more over a collection of manuscripts which originate from much older sources from within Celtic society, and sources, and not pulled from Italian scribes, what would be their motivation for this I wonder? Why take characters from "earlier" Irish texts, give them the godly ability to create and shape through their skill the one island sacred enough to it's people to have survived the deluge? If it were Italian in origin then to me that means all the text must be, and I've heard that claim made btw. That all of Irish (and all Celtic?) culture is a fraud, completely ignoring the influential archaeological finds, and the proof provided through these very texts and vice versa, never sufficiently explaining how these things took such hold of Celtic culture, or why the archaeological, and the biblical seem to complement each other so. I believe this to have been due to a melding of cultures just as it is found in the pages of the Leabhar Gabhála, and I believe this melding to be one of the main causes of the relatively easy transition that took place between Celtic Pagans, and Celtic Christians, which is the main reason, I am never quick to laugh off an Irish source simply because it may make a reference to Egypt, or Greece. In fact I see them as given cities to which we can actually understand the originals through by asking ones self, "What did these cities represent to those who would have first written the stories, which is also why I never laugh off the "Christian Druids", because I seriously doubt they're are the first to have that idea.

Now...What *is* the Leabhar Gabhála? The Leabhar Gabhála is one of many texts to the Irish tradition. It is a gathering of accounts that help tell us of the "Mythological" cycle of Ireland, just as there are 3 other cycles, and each teach us something different about our ancestors, ourselves and our world(s). The mythological cycle and Leabhor Gabhála IMO teaches us of magical aspects of our peoples just as the other cycles have their lessons. Like the famed Fomorii "Heron pose" taken by Lugh to caste his spell over the hosts of the Tuatha.

They aren't a invention by Italian Scribes IMO.

[ardri79]

admin said:

marcus said:

The Book of Invasions is one of my favourite Irish texts. The heroes, the detail of the battles, the names, places. The idea of this being all Christian propaganda is very thought provoking indeed.

After reading the responses, I feel that it is important to integrate that there are no Irish holy books. The Leabhar Gabhála is an educational tract which serves to teach us about the first generation. The Lebor Gabhála, uses a Christian Biblical date of 1472 B.C. as the given date for the coming of the Celtic people to Ireland, and is incredibly close to when the archaeological tells us that the Celtic peoples arrived there. The archaeological evidence also tells us of other races who lived in Eire well before the Celts themselves. Celtic scribes and/or Filidh compared the events in Ireland to events in the Bible, and many of their dates have proven to be quite accurate.

let me start by saying that after this point I agreed with what ye were saying Senbec.

BUT...

I COMPLETELY disagree with your opening statement.

now no Irish holy books? we preserved christianity and writing in the darkages Ireland is famous for its holy books both pagan and christian.

1472 B.C. as the dates the Celts arrived...? there is NO archaeological evidence to support that at all man. That seems like a fairly early date for Celts to have been in the UK at all.

I'll research it and get back to you on that point.

The archaeology does not tell us of Celtic invading at all infact the celtic invasion is widely discredited and Ive never seen any archaologocal evidence to support peoples invading since the Neolithic who taken literally would have been the Tuath de Danann.

I'll get back to ye. If ye have examples of the archaeology please post them and enlighten my firey brain

[Senbecc]

ardri79 said:

admin said:

After reading the responses, I feel that it is important to integrate that there are no Irish holy books. The Leabhar Gabhála is an educational tract which serves to teach us about the first generation. The Lebor Gabhála, uses a Christian Biblical date of 1472 B.C. as the given date for the coming of the Celtic people to Ireland, and is incredibly close to when the archaeological tells us that the Celtic peoples arrived there. The archaeological evidence also tells us of other races who lived in Eire well before the Celts themselves. Celtic scribes and/or Filidh compared the events in Ireland to events in the Bible, and many of their dates have proven to be quite accurate.

let me start by saying that after this point I agreed with what ye were saying Senbec.

BUT...

I COMPLETELY disagree with your opening statement.

now no Irish holy books? we preserved christianity and writing in the darkages Ireland is famous for its holy books both pagan and christian.

1472 B.C. as the dates the Celts arrived...? there is NO archaeological evidence to support that at all man. That seems like a fairly early date for Celts to have been in the UK at all.

I'll research it and get back to you on that point.

The archaeology does not tell us of Celtic invading at all infact the celtic invasion is widely discredited and Ive never seen any archaologocal evidence to support peoples invading since the Neolithic who taken literally would have been the Tuath de Danann.

I'll get back to ye. If ye have examples of the archaeology please post them and enlighten my firey brain

I also never made the statement, that archaology shows any "invasion". We are simply discussing the timeline of Celtic arrival.

[Senbecc]

admin said:

ardri79 said:

let me start by saying that after this point I agreed with what ye were saying Senbec.

BUT...

I COMPLETELY disagree with your opening statement.

now no Irish holy books? we preserved christianity and writing in the darkages Ireland is famous for its holy books both pagan and christian.

1472 B.C. as the dates the Celts arrived...? there is NO archaeological evidence to support that at all man. That seems like a fairly early date for Celts to have been in the UK at all.

I'll research it and get back to you on that point.

The archaeology does not tell us of Celtic invading at all infact the celtic invasion is widely discredited and Ive never seen any archaologocal evidence to support peoples invading since the Neolithic who taken literally would have been the Tuath de Danann.

I'll get back to ye. If ye have examples of the archaeology please post them and enlighten my firey brain

The Late Bronze Age begins around 1200 BC, and brings to Ireland "a whole new range of bronze implements and weapons, such as socketed axe-heads and swords." This is an age strongly identified with the appearance of the first "hill forts" and "ring forts", a mark of Hallstatt Celtic culture, which appear only to date back to the seventh century BC in central Europe. A common type of dwelling in use at this time is said to be crannóg, an artificial island, palisaded on all sides, constructed in the middle of a lake.

www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/neolithic.htm

This link shows the first evidences of Celtic culture in Ireland, with the arrival of some of the first Celtic burial mounds.

Burial sites, however, are another matter. Court graves and passage graves can be found dating from as early 3,500 years b.c. (Harbison 5-ff). A court grave (or court tomb) was divided into two basic parts: a long chamber which contained smaller compartments in which remains were deposited, and a large open-space or court at the entrance to the chamber. The court was semi-circular and marked off by large standing stones. The chamber was roofed by a stone mound which tapered toward the back. Presumably the open court was used for rituals associated with burial.

mockingbird.creighton.edu/english/micsun/IrishResources/archaeol.htm

How ever you cut it the time line fits IMO, and the culture as shown goes beyond the Celtic arrival just as documented by the texts. In the mean time, lets tone the posts down a little OK? I don't make up my information, and don't care to have it insinuated.

Now, the thing about celtic spirituality, to me is that there was a time when these "holy books" were simply words uttered within a cave of learning, or told by story tellers, and still are, the only difference is that now they're on paper.

[Senbecc]

now no Irish holy books? we preserved christianity and writing in the darkages Ireland is famous for its holy books both pagan and christian.

And which of these would you equate with the Bible? In pagan Times wern't most of the teachings verbal? There are no Irish holy books that I'm aware of.

[Senbecc]

This link shows the first evidences of Celtic culture in Ireland, with the arrival of some of the first Celtic burial mounds.

This is supposed to say PRE-Celtic culture.