Talk:Ezourvedam

Factual accuracy

"about 2,000 of years before Bible." - and when exactly was the Bible written? useless piece of information.
Article: "And regarded to have been replicated into middle eastern legends". Source: "the first created couple in the christian bible were Adam and Eve, while in the Hindoo bible they were Adam and Heva." That's something completey different! I think you're making the same mistake here again: trying to find Indian origins for something, merely illustrating your thoughts with Google-snipptes. Sorry, I', going to add a tag to the article...

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is close to a hoax. See the following sources for reliable info:

Ludo Rocher (1984), Ezourvedam: A French Veda of the Eighteenth Century, John Benjamins Publishing. Google Books:

"The Ezourvedam, used by Voltaire among others, as sourcebook for the most ancient of religions, was thereupon found to have been a fraud. Actually it was composed by a Christian – the text shows him to have been a French Jesuit missionary, who did not necessarily know Sanskrit – in order to convert Hindus to Christianity. The controversy surrounding the spurious Veda continues, involving a number of scholars and missionaries particularly in the question of whether or not the Veda was composed in Sanskrit or French. In tracing the history of the Ezourvedam Ludo Rocher adds a number of points, one being that the text was definitely first written in French with a view to a later Sanskrit translation or, more likely, to one of several modern Indian vernaculars. This edition is based on the manuscripts of Voltaire and Anquetil du Perron, and, especially, on a third manuscript preserved at the Bibliotheque National in Paris, wrongly catalogued there as Yajurveda. This edition is therefor markedly different from the 1778 edition by the Baron de Sainte-Croix."

Urs App (2011), The Birth of Orientalism", University of Pennsylvania Press, Chapter 1: "Voltaire's Veda"

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page)"Raymond Schwab characterized the Ezour Vedam as an insidious piece of propaganda consisting of certain "Vedic" materials translated by Jesuits with the intention of isolating elements" and it was Willem Caland who regarded it as "pious fraud", while praising many of its material, Caland also says that "however the scope and realization of the book are highly ingenious.".

And both of these quotes are probably only 2-3 negative quotes about that book, so its definition cannot be based upon them. And it is disputed if Nobili wrote the book or not. Those who regard it as forged/copied, they haven't really proved that nobili wrote it. But either way, we can go by actual definition if we have to present the description of the book, and it is "or Yajûr Veda." Means it is just french word for Yajur Veda.definition, and infoplease is a reliable source,archive104 and arcive 107.

Lead can be like.. "Adimo is the first human, and Heva the first woman, in a creation story in the Ezourvedam. The story about Adimo can be also found in Rigveda." Not more. Description about scriptures is probably undue weight. Because Kersey Graves, Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, etc haven't read voltaire. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There are several editions or parts of the Vedas, that followed it, as the new testament is an addition to the jewish bible. They are called respectively, the "Code of menn", the "ramanayana", the "mahabharat", and the "puranas" or "poranas", says Mr. Graves" and "The Hindoos had an Adimo and Iva, the Hebrews an Adam and Eve." While Kersey Graves was referring to Vedas and religions. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And George Smith, is actually George Smith (assyriologist), he probably wrote in his The Chaldean Account of Genesis (1876) about Adimo, being written 2,000 years prior to Bible in a folk tale. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean, Baron de Batz regarded the book's scriptural citations were authentic. There is no dispute about the accuracy of the quotes of the book, nor that it has lies. I am sure there are some unverified claims about these books, just like there are claims about William Shakespeare's authorship. But disputed cannot be added on the page of topic, which is clearly different from other one. We have added volatire's opinion in the bottom of the page, which is quiet enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is about "Adimo" than the book we are talking about. And multiple reliable sources have referred to this character. Adding the criticism about Ezourvedam is obviously Undue, or adding criticism about voltaire, unless both of the things are actually related to this thing. Or it refutes that there was no Adimo. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maurer's review of Rocher is very clear: the Ezourvedam is a French text, written by Jesuits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"adimo" is not creation of "ezourvedam", none of these sources say that. It is much better to create a "ezourvedam"' separate page. Instead of changing this one. Because everything else written on this page is undue weight now. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blades, please!!! Stop it! This is why so many editors wanted you to be blocked. Stop. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, there is no source to add that "Adimo" is limited with Ezour Vedam. There are numerous reliable sources that add Adimo being a part of Vedas. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may first add them here, so I can take a look at them. My sure guess is that all those sources rely on the Ezourvedam and its reception. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read what Constantine Samuel Rafinesque wrote, he writes:-

"Our Noah- is thus NH (pr NOE) which the Jews since pronounced NUH, and even Mnuh ! Exactly the same name as given him by the Hindus! And all meaning repose, with many collateral meanings, lawgiver, collecting people, assembly humanity & c. The laws of M'nu are preserved by the Hindus : to him is also ascribed the substance of the Vedas, and the whole Mosaic history till near his own death. But the Hindus have many- M'nus ; Adam and Seth were such, by the names of Adimo and Satya." [1] Google preview is better though.

"the first created couple in the Christian bible were Adam and Eve, while in the hindoo bible they were Adimo and Heva." - Frank B. Robinson

"He descended into Hades. He rose from the dead and ascended to Voicontah (heaven). In the same tradition of Hinduism there is a story of creation of the antecedents of Hesus Christ. They were a man and a woman called Adimo and Heva." - Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Interestingly, 'none of them mentions ezourvedam or even volatire or any of his books. Including the other 2 sources that I had added last time. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by JJ:

Constantine Samuel Rafinesque (1783-1840) - unreliable
Frank B. Robinson "(1886 – 19 October 1948) was an American New Thought author and spiritual leader" - unreliable
Madalyn Murray O'Hair - what's her source?

Find a reliable recent source. I find:

adimo "rig veda" -wikipedia -adamo: 12 at Google, and 1 at Google Books.
"Adimo and Heva" -wikipedia: 9 at Google], 6 at Google Books.

Constantine Samuel Rafinesque is not unreliable source, book published by Oxford University.

So even if I agree with you, still, there are multiple reliable sources, that refer to Adimo, but not from Voltaire or Ezourvedam. Kersey Graves didn't referred to Voltaire either. And you looked at these two sources? [2], [3] And see 3rd one, named as "What on earth is an atheist!" is book of Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And [4] doesn't support your information that "Adimo" is created from EzourVedam, instead it suggest that the book is commentary of Vedas. I would have never made the page from first, if it was clearly production of Ezourvedam, but interestingly it is not, it is from Vedas.

Bladesmulti (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JJ.. Max Muller really talked about "Adima" "adamu" "adimo" as well, you know he had wrote that :-

"We should be driven to admit driven to admit that Adam was borrowed by the Jews from the Hindus, for it is in Sanskrit only that Adima means the first, whereas in Hebrew it has no such meaning."[5] Adima is a alternative name of this character, regarded to part of Vedic tradition[6]. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have found whole story from Ramutsariar, The medium and daybreak by William Oxley Thompson, publisher, Oxford University. Then Over the World: Travels, Adventures and Achievements by Henry Howe. And yes, no "voltaire" or "Ezour Vedam", in any of these sources, same with two above sources, including Max Muller, who regarded the story by Ramatsariar, citing "Yielded us such precious assistance in this volume."[7] Point that book is also written by Christian Charles Josias von Bunsen. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting the Roots of Judeo-Christianity: Louis Jacolliot's Thesis Re-Edited and Revised from 2006, by Ravi Prakash Arya, describes greatly. Can be a good source, since it also from University of Michigan. But I hope you agree that Subject deserves separate page. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by JJ:

Max Muller: Nature, 1881. Full quote:

"Comparative Philology has taught us again and again that when we find a word exactly the same in Greek and Sanskrit, we may be certain that it cannot be the same word; and the same applies to Comparative Mythology. The same god or the same hero cannot have exactly the same name in Sanskrit and Greek, for the simple reason that Sanskrit and Greek have deviated from each other, have both followed their own way, have both suffered their own phonetic corruptions; and hence, if they do possess the same word, they can only possess it either in its Greek or its Sanskrit disguise. And if that caution applies to Sanskrit and Greek, members of the same family of language, how much more strongly must it apply to Sanskrit and Hebrew! If the first man were called in Sanskrit Âdima, and in Hebrew Adam, and if the two were really the same word, then Hebrew and Sanskrit could not be members of two different families of speech, or we should be driven to admit that Adam was borrowed by the Jews from the Hindus for it is in Sanskrit only that âdima means the first, whereas in Hebrew it has no such meaning."

That's something quite different than what you are suggesting.

Hughs: 1896
Oxley: 1882, "Spiritualist weekly, started in 1869 by James Burns, originally published under the title, Medium, later absorbing the Daybreak, a provincial paper, founded in 1867." [8]
Howe: 1883
Ravi Prakash Arya: published by Indian Foundation for Vedic Science

So, no, I don't agree at all that "Adimo" deserves a separate page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max Muller is finally talking about the Adimo and Adam, which is related to the page.

James Burns (Spiritualist) is not a unreliable source, since the book is published by Oxford University.

Any books, that are recognized by University of Michigan cannot be rejected. And how it is not reliable?

Louis Jacolliot [9] also notes the same story. Note, his book is also published by Oxford University. (we got better sources, but for a name)

"Representing India" by Taylor & Francis, 2000.[10]

"Imagining Hinduism: A Postcolonial Perspective" by Routledge. 2003. [11] also cites the comments by William Jones (philologist)

"Indian Encyclopaedia, Volume 1" 2002, By Genesis publishing.[12]

A huge article can be made... Bladesmulti (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have got a lot better version for this current article. Without any undue, and it is ready. And I have made better version for Adimo as well. I think "adimo" is less common, that is why it was hard to find sources citing him, for a while. But you can check User:Bladesmulti/Testing. Everything is sourced, and for many of the citations I have provided URL too. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that 19th-century writers picked up the story, does not mean that it is reliable.

Max Muller: "Max Muller characterized the Ezour Vedam as a "very coarse forgery" [...] and the silliest book that could be read by a student of religion". (Figueira (2002), "Aryans, Jews, Brahmins", SUNY Series, p.14
James Burns: a spiritualist; come on... The fact that a book is republished by a university, does not mean that it is a scholarly work. See the intro to "A history of Zen Buddhism" by Heinrich Dumoulin
J Louis Jacolliot: 1870. "The Bible in India, Hindoo origin of Hebrew and Christian revelation"; right
Michael John Franklin, "Representing India": 1790...
Sharada Sugirtharajah, "Imagining Hinduism": this describes how early Indologists interpreted Hindu stories to make them fit western conceptions
Indian Encyclopedia: unaccessible for me.

Blades, a very simple question: where in the Rig Veda (or the Puranas, or the Bhagavad Gita) appears this story? And why is this story not treated by modern scholars, except in the context of the Ezourvedam as a forgery? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using max muller as a source here, he can be used somewhere else. And there are modern scholars who refer that Adima, Heva, are mentioned in Purana, Vedas, Gita. Sorry, but all modern scholars who refer to Adima, uses it as the authentic hindu-related story. You have still provided no sources. Check my sandbox, that I posted above. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1870 etc is not modern. I repeat: where in the Rig Veda (or the Puranas, or the Bhagavad Gita) appears this story? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are recent. And nothing has been changed, now or then. Primary sources are original research, so we can stick to reliable sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so please don't engage in WP:IDONTHEARYOU and answer JJ's question regarding where in the Rig Veda,the Puranas or the Bhagavad Gita there's any reference to Adima. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Simon, welcome to the talkpage. :-) JJ and myself (and Corinne and Hafspajen and others) are mentoring Bladesmulti at the moment. Bladesmulti is interested in religious topics, and is good at digging up sources. However, subtle sourcing difficulties, like the authenticity or inauthenticity of Adimo in the original historical Rigveda, is a problem-area. You are of course more than welcome to help improve the topic and the talkpage; the point of my message here is just to let you know that this Adimo thing is kind of like the big "Student Driver" sign that you see on student-vehicles. Please be extra-AGF with our circus. :-) Also, I will ping AndyTheGrump so he will know the score, since I see he is editing in mainspace as well.

Bladesmulti: there are other editors working on Adimo now. You stay under the 5-per-day-limit please. We don't want to overwhelm Simon/Andy/etc. Edits to this article and this article-talkpage count towards the 5-per-day-limit, from now on. Make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AndyTheGrump thanks for the heads up. I've been working the fringier parts of religion and the occult on Wikipedia off and on for years and sometimes get a little jaded - having been through some truly frustrating encounters. I'll try to rein in the cynicism in light of your recommendation and apply a light touch. Simonm223 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edits merely consisted of fixing typo's. I've no particular interest in getting involved with this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, misread User:74.192.84.101 comment as yours. Simonm223 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is alright if AndyTheGrump fixed parts of the article. And Simonm223, there are stories of "Atma and Jiva" in Rigveda,[13], [14], [15], and actually more in Vedas, including "Yama and Yami",[16], [17], All of them have similar meaning to "adima", since these all names finally means "First"(male) and "life"(female). In Bhagavada Gita it is "Satya" and "Satarupa".[18],[19]. Stories(esp atma & jiva, satya & sata) are just same. Scholars who talked about these stories with these names(atma & jiva), they are having same observation as above, that these stories predate all other creation theories. Though I was in agreement that it should not be added here, because of WP:Undue, but they are related to any Hindu' creation stories. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How old are the Aboriginal (Australia) creation myths? By the way, "atman" is connected to the German "atmen" and Dutch "adem(en)", "to breath" and "breath". "Adam" is a Hebrew word. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be evidence linking them with geological events 10,000 years ago. See Australian Aboriginal mythology. I think the oldest written myths are the Pyramid Texts dating to around 2400-2300 BCE, then outside of Egypt the Sumerian Eridu Genesis dating to around 1600 BCE. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the book claim to be a translation?

It is wrong to call the work a "forgery" since the book itself never claim to be a translation of ancient Sanskrit original. All it claims is that it is a "commentary" of the ancient Vedas. So it can be considered an original work rather than a forgery. I suggest changing the lead accordingly. - Meldort (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Meldort (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]