Previous | Next

The Plato's Atlantis not was totally & completely destroyed. Paleographical proofs.

Added: (Sun Aug 14 2005)

The Plato's Atlantis not was totally & completely destroyed. Paleographical proofs.

Quote of Georgeos Díaz-Montexano theorie:

quote:

---

"...hê te Atlantis Nêsos... " (Tim. 25d), "... and the island of(from) Atlantis... ", that means that what sank island was one "of Atlantis", that is, an island that belonged to the empire of Atlantis, and that was just in front of the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar, but not all the whole Atlantis, otherwise Plato (or Solón) would have written "hê te nêsos Atlantis", that is translated like: "and the island Atlantis", that is the called island Atlantis; in this case yes it would be possible to be interpreted because the whole island sank.

"... hên dê Libuês kai asi as meizô nêson ousan ephamen einai potê... " (Crit. 108e), "... that is almost from Libya, and the island more mudly that exists, because as it were said, still it exists... ".

This translation that I propose is the correct one, because the verbs OUSAN and EINAI, is forms in present time of the verb EIMI (to exist), whereas they EPHAMEN (to say), also is in present.

As serious errors as this, that they even contradict until the principles of the old Greek grammar are the causes of which so many theoretical contradictions, as much ambiguity exist and so much confusion.

In the text of the Timaeus 25d, is spoken that only submerged one Island of/from Atlantis, that is, an island that belonged to the Atlantis, but not all "the island Atlantis" completes.

In the Critias 108e is confirmed, when affirming that (in present time, in not happened) that the island (or part of the same one) still existed; in addition it is repeated twice so that it is clear.

How an expert assumption in Greek old text translation could commit a so serious error as to translate a verb in present as if it was in last or aorist?

The answer we only can find it in my theory of the Latin influence. My paleographical studies demonstrates that the first modern translators of Plato guided themselves fundamentally by Latin texts of Ficino and Calcidio (for the case of the Timaeus), as soon as they used Greek texts, and I can demonstrate that some famous translators of the modern times not even consulted texts in Greek, because in his "translations" they appear errors or speculations such of Ficino or Calcidio, that does not exist in the Greek codices.

Not even it is clear that she appears written the word "submerge", because in both fragments it is used DUSA (Tim. 25d) and DUSAN (Crit. 108e), that in both cases can be translated like "get, go into, to introduce itself, to enter itself" (dus, dusa, Hdt. 8,8), or also like "to strip off". In any case, although the meaning "to sink" or "to submerge", and outside correct (as it seems that it is), also the fact is described in present time, because the continuation of the same fragment exposes:

"...nun de hupo seismôn dusan..."

"Now (in this time), after earthquakes, it has been introduced (entered or submerged)..."

In the Tim. 25d, also describes to the collapse of "the island of Atlantis" (no, the island Atlantis) in present time. Let us see proofs:

"...toukei pelagos, pêlou karta bracheos empodôn ontos, hon hê nêsos hizomenê parescheto..." (Tim. 25d)

"...also the pelago at that spot has now become impassable and unsearchable, being blocked up by the shoal mud which the island has provided when it has settled..." (Díaz-Montexano, 2000)

HIZOMENH (provide) and PARESCHETO (to seat) are in time pres part mid/pass and aorist, which allows a translation of which it is happening progressively, with the passage of time, of which it did not happen in a remote past. That is to say, a time pass "perfect" is not applied.

All this that demonstrates that the process of "collapse", he has been progressive with time, and it still followed continuing at the time of Solón or Plato. This responds to the well-known affluent process of the gradual ascent of the level of the sea in the coasts of the Atlantic. The archaeological evidences demonstrate in the Solon's times, the coast was to about 800 meters towards within the sea and below the -7 meters, shortly after, in the days of Plato, below the -5 meters and finally, constructions to the Roman time are below the -3 meters. But this progressive swelling of the level of the sea, is only registered in the coasts of Andalusia, from Gibraltar to Cadiz and Huelva..." (end of quote from Georgeos Díaz-Montexano's Book)

---