Talk:Oera Linda Book

th No kidding... considering how popular this nonsense text is becoming once again, especially amongst misguided modern heathens/asatruar, it needs some outlining.

I shall see if I can add a few more lines to it. :)

Could you try to get some sources to the question about lack of carbon dating, this is the most obvious missing piece --JC 92.41.71.16 (talk)

How would that help? It's a 19th century book. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

My own editing of the article is also quite rough in form, but it adds more on the content of the text itself. When I have some free time, I shall add some quotes from the text as well as links and other references to academic journal articles and books dealing with the Oera Linda hoax; for and against, if I can find anything remotely useful in the 'for' category. ;)

Is there a reason all the dates appear to have links to non-existent Wikipedia articles? I'm new to this and I don't want to edit if there is some convention that requires them. Melangell 06:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting how everyone here claims it a hoax, when it has been stated elsewhere that there has never been any actual proof that it is a forgery. --75.2.22.184 11:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

So you're suggesting that claims it is a hoax are not NPOV? Robert Brockway 12:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Differentiating claims that it is a hoax and stating it is verifiably a hoax are quite different things. The first is called for, until it is proven a hoax, or the hoax accusations become something historical rather than contemporary. As Mylita says just below, the book calls for consideration of its claims. --Chr.K. 00:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The evidence that this book is not a hoax is not to be sniffed at, especially as found in Wilkins's book, which I cited. It should be noted that this evidence has absolutely nothing to do with "Neo-Nazis" or white supremacists, and I do not think that prominently displaying that theme is particularly sophisticated. Have you even read the book? I am certain you have not read Wilkins's arguments in favor of its authenticity.--Mylitta 03:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

On the sentence about Atlantis: "It also mentions Atlantis under the name of "Atland," which was supposedly submerged in 2194 BCE".

Comment to last statement: It does not mention Atlantis under the name Atland, Atland means "Old Land" and several modern theorist believe that it could be in reference to Atlantis. Comment unsigned attached by 216.106.93.239

The style guide is clear on this "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE-AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." This article was started with BCE and AD in its first version, but then AD was dropped. My conclusion is that the style should be BCE/CE (I've reverted changes the other way around when I've found articles starting with AD).--Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article has recently been changed to say " Frya (the Frisian equivalent of the Norse Freyja)" - the only source for this I can find is the Oera Linda, if no one can find a reliable source for this I'm reverting.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Frya is the Frisian language equivalent of Freyja, just as Frija is the Dutch equivalent. Why is this a problem? TharkunColl (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Oera Linda Book dates the submergence of Atland, in its very first section (the letter of Hidde), as 2194 BC. It says that AD 1256 is 3449 years after the sinking of Atland. 1256 - 3449 = -2193. -2193 is 2194 BC, because there is no year zero. Similar mistakes have occurred in many articles on Wikipedia, such as the ages of Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, etc. (i.e. those whose lives straddled the BC/AD epoch), which I have corrected when I see them. TharkunColl (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well don't correct this one as it's referenced, it is from Jensma. And as you don't know the assumptions made by the authors of the Oera Linda and the Dutch almanacs, any such calculations are OR.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it's the other way round. The authors may well have intended 2193 BC, which would be pretty amusing if they had made such a mistake - but unfortunately we don't know and therefore it's OR. The calculation of the date as given by the book itself is not OR - it's just a date. TharkunColl (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The book says "Written at Liudwerd, in the year 3449 after Atland was submerged - that is, according to the Christian reckoning, the year 1256.", so you have to make an assumption to get either 21943 or 2194 about whether the authors used a year 0, right? But the date I gave was from Jensma, which is why I say you shouldn't revert it.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The point is though that we don't use a year zero, so whatever year the authors intended, it is definitely the year that we call 2194. TharkunColl (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

And I've left 2194 in earlier. But the Jensma referenced bit should stand.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because, to change it or even say it's wrong (the Jensma bit), you'd have to 'create a fact' about the usage, or not, of a Year 0, or at least assume one, and that would be OR. Doug Weller (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Many calendars are routinely converted to ours in Wikipedia and this is not classed as OR - it's just our way of expressing exactly the same info. It may well be that the authors were assuming a year zero, or maybe were just ignorant, but what we can say with absolute certainty is that on our calendar, the statement in the letter of Hidde yields a date of 2194 BC. If Jensma gives a different date, shouldn't we at least point out that he is actually talking about the year that we call 2194 BC? For example if someone gave Caesar's assssination as 43 BC, rather than 44 BC, a similar comment should also be necessary, if only to avoid confusion. TharkunColl (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

According to Jensma, Haverschmidt intended the Oera Linda Book as a parody of the Christian Bible. An article in late 2007 by Goffe Jensma ^[1] says that the three authors of translation intended it "to be a temporary hoax to fool some nationalist Frisians and orthodox Christians and as an experiential exemplary exercise in reading the Holy Bible in a non-fundamentalist, symbolical way." However, ignoring clues that it was a forgery, it was taken seriously by J.G. Ottema and achieved (in 1876) popularity for the reasons given above. Its creators felt unable to admit that they had written it, and it became the foundation for a new belief^{[clarification needed]}. Jensma concludes his article by saying "It is a perfect irony that a book written to unmask the Holy Bible as a book of human making was to become a bible itself."^[2]

We shouldn't even be trying to explain Jensma or Ottema, we look to reliable sources for that. Please read WP:OR. And don't just delete cited text because you disagree with it. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I find it hard to believe that anyone took this as "genuine" even in the 1800s. I suppose there were cranks and fools then as now, but just as tend to disregard contemporary crackpots under WP:DUE, I find it difficult to believe that people who thought this was in any way "genuine" back in the 1870s carry any sort of weight. To anyone with half an education and half a brain this must have been as obvious back in 1870 as it is now. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

To who you booth D talking, or just talking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

To one another? Do they all talk like you in Illinois, or is this a Neolithic Frisian accent? --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm just enquiring to see whether anyone knows of any academic texts in the English language that discuss this work in any detail? Many thanks. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC))Reply

Perhaps you should have a look at the book reviews on Survivors of the Great Tsunami on Amazon.com. The book is an in-depth historical, archaeological and scientific investigation into the Oera Linda Book and has nothing to do with the paranormal or any esoteric ideas. One reviewer labeled the investigation as: The Most Important Contemporary Contribution to Our Understanding of History.

You may also wish to look at Jacques Fermaut's Website (French):

http://home.nordnet.fr/~jacfermaut/pointdevueheemstra02.html

Fermaut translated the Oera Linda Book into French and has this to say (Google Translation):

The Oera Linda Book experienced a turning point in 2010. The South African Alewyn J. Raubenheimer has indeed published a remarkable book which surpasses everything that preceded it: Survivors of the Great Tsunami.

And,

Raubenheimer paints a convincing and well illustrated (picture) with various maps of the Frisian confederation to which humanity owes so much, and the disasters, including natural, which led to its decline. It thus adds to the history of Europe and makes a remarkable chapter in the Oera Linda Book's legitimacy. ```` -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Transvaler (talk o contribs) 07:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nevertheless, it's lacking in basic historical and linguistic plausibility in a number of respects... AnonMoos (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Transvaler (talk o contribs) 15:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Some points to consider:

1. The Oera Linda Book (OLB) accurately describes the 4.2 ka BP Event (4.2 kilo annum Before Present [1950]) which was discovered by scientists more than a century after the book surfaced. How could a 19th century author have known this?

2. The OLB mentions the fall of Homeric Troy in ca 1188 BC. Archaeologists established some 130 years after the OLB surfaced that Troy VIIa was destroyed by warfare in 1188 BC. In the 19th century the Legend of Troy was still regarded as a myth. How could a 19th century author have known this?

3. The OLB relates how the Frisian Sea King (admiral) Minnos and his crew settled on Crete in ca 1600 BC. Archaeologists discovered the Palace of Knossos and the Minoan Civilization in the 20th century. They tell us that these Minoans had a matriarchal system of government (as per the OLB) and that the Minoan civilization peaked in ca 1600 BC during the Neopalatial Period (MMIII). In the 19th century nobody even knew that a Minoan Civilization ever existed.

The list goes on and on. The real hoax is that the OLB is a hoax. The adherents of the Hoax Theory have not come up with a single verifiable fact to support their stance, nor have they been able to identify the so-called culprit(s). The main suspects such as Haverscmidt, Over de Linden and Verwijs all left letters wherein they denied having written the book. For some strange reason these are all ignored. These letters can be viewed at Tresoar in Leeuwarden, Netherlands.

The OLB is first and foremost a history book and not a New Age or occultist "Bible" as some would have us believe. What better way to discredit this very important historical document.

"Survivors of the Great Tsunami" is a scholarly investigation into the OLB and proves beyond reasonable doubt that the OLB is authentic and that all the historical facts in the OLB are more than plausible. ```` -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Transvaler (talk o contribs) 14:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Two points:

1. Survivors of the Great Tsunami is self-published and can't be used in the article.

2. This is not a forum to discuss whether the Oer Linda is a hoax. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk o contribs) 16:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

i don't get it. isnt the question whether these arguments are /good/ or not the real question here? whether the book is /in the system/ or not seems redundant to me. I guess wikipedia isnt good enough... because argument from authority is the know-nothings way to truth. Furthermore, i don't see any citations for the claims that since there were one more scholar(so important that they dont even have wikipedia pages which should tell you something) that didnt support the claim for authenticity, that therefore the document is a forgery. Can someone tell me exactly how wikipedia determines truth because all i see is most of the scholars supporting the document's authenticity have wikipedia pages while the ones who don't, don't. Furthermore the scholars going against its authenticity uses rhetoric while the ones supporting it's autheticity uses arguments... I understand wikipedia have a set set of sources its considers "Truth" and i probably can't change that, but where is the wikipedia policy that says that since x amount of scholars say it is a fraud against y amount of scholars saying it is not a fraud; it is a fraud. ? - anon 13:34, 7 June 2021 80.213.192.60

If we had to count scholars, then that would be something which was part of a legitimate scholarly controversy. That's not the case with the Oera Linda Book -- there are a few enthusiasts who support its factuality, while reliable sources overwhelmingly do not. AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia does not "determine truth", only verifiability. See WP:TRUTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The current article mentions several times that the book is a hoax/parody/forgery. The sources (from the article) which I have been able to check do not go in to detail about why the book is a hoax. A couple mention three different writers. The 2007 quote by Goffe Jensma (which is in the article) comes to the conclusion that it was a temporary hoax to fool nationalist Frisians and Orthodox Christians. This is a pretty bold assumption considering the original author(s) never confessed to a hoax/forgery and is/are now long dead. He also claimed earlier it was a parody of the bible. Is Goffe Jensma a reliable source?

The book contains a lengthy sea-faring account of warring involving Egypt, Phoenicia, and the Aegean Sea coupled with an Earth catastrophe. At one point afterwards, it parallels a portion of the Story of Wenamun (which hadn't been discovered at the time). For a forgery, it seems to have one of the most extensive descriptions of the Sea Peoples invasion and Bronze Age Collapse period. Considering much of what we know about that event had not been discovered to be translated, it must have been forged from a legit source. That's original research and I know this is not a forum, my point is the present article claims in several places the book is a hoax/parody/forgery without giving a reason. I have not found credible reasons elsewhere to incorporate into the article. The present consensus is the book is a hoax with no reason given other than assumption by a few sources. I have a general idea how Wikipedia works and if there is no reliable source stating otherwise it can't be incorporated into the article.

The 19th century section claims the authenticity was debated in the 1870s and by 1879 it was widely considered a forgery. No explanation is given. As a reader I would be interested in knowing the reasoning behind the forgery claims. The 19th century, for example, was still a time period when the bible was considered by some to be history. It also says Gerhardus Ottema believed it was written an Old Frisian. Has this been verified? As a reader I would be interested in knowing if the writing was modern or classical, if the type of paper or ink was modern or classical, etc. Things like that which could verify it as a hoax. I've searched for these myself and have come across unsourced claims, nothing that could be added to the article.

The Nazi section says the book was nicknamed 'Himmler's Bible' due to his obsession. The source is in German and OCR'd so I was only able to follow along with a very rough translation. Now I could be very wrong due to the translation on my end but I didn't see the book referred to as "Himmler's Bible" in the source other than it being the title used for the article discussing the panel.

Lastly, the contents section has an unsourced sentence claiming the book has the first known example of theosophy-stlye root races. Besides the sentence being unsourced, there doesn't appear to be anything like theosophy root races in the Oera Linda Book. No ethereal Hyperborean races reproducing by budding or evolving to lay eggs, etc. associated with root races — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.61.9 (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Goffe Jensma is a Professor of Frisian language and literature[1] and is a reliable source. You might want to try to read what he's written about the Oera Linda as that might help with your questions.

I've removed the root race and Blavatsky stuff, unsourced for 2 years.

We need a German speaker to answer your Himmler's Bible question, there must be several - there's a category for German speaking editors I'll bet. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

There are many highly respectable people calling the Bible a hoax. Do we slander that page with hoax labels? This is very POV. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

We go by what the sources say. Sources that clearly meet WP:RS refer to this as a hoax. What would break our WP:NPOV policy is not making clear that the mainstream considers it a hoax. Note that words such as 'slander' have legal implications and shouldn't be used, see WP:NLT. Doug Weller (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know of no "respectable people" who have said that the bible is a hoax. Almost every qualified scholar says that this is. Paul B (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

There's no controversy about the status of the Oera Linda Book as a hoax outside of a handful of sad corners of the internet. It's a very obvious and straightforward hoax to anyone with a background in ancient Germanic studies—so much so that it's clear that the manufacturers had no such background. I don't see what anything else has to do with that fact. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article doesn't make any attempt to say what any of the arguments against it being genuine are, besides saying that respected academics say so. It seems like, whether you think the Oera Linda Book is genuine or not (I haven't read it and have no opinion either way) the kind of people who are most likely to be interested in this page are not going to accept 'respectable academics say so' as an answer without question - there are some sources cited, for the most recent ones although not for the alleged 19th-century ones, but having to chase after references is a bother and most of them are in Dutch and most of them are dead links, so it really would make more sense to say what some of the objections are if any of the academics actually say. Wombat140 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you are saying those who think this is not a hoax won't trust academics, I wouldn't expect them to. Conspiracy theorists never do. Doug Weller talk 07:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Error in introduction: "De gemaskerde god ("the masked god"), including a new translation" - this work from 2004 does not include translation. Translation was published separately in 2006 as "Het Oera Linda-boek. Facsimile - Transcriptie - Vertaling"; ISBN 90-6550-841-4 / can someone change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:62:5E3A:37C5:11D2:A74E:C2BD:3666 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've restored the category - we use them as navigational aids, and there's enough evidence that it was a hoax to enable people looking for hoaxes by category to find this article. Doug Weller (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't Category:Literary forgeries be more specific in this case?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can we use both? Doug Weller (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

We can, but Literary forgeries is a subcat of Literary Hoaxes which is a subcat of Hoaxes.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Removing 'hoax' from the lead breaks both WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wonder about this word forgery, as if the creators of this book were trying to pawn off their creation as the real Oera Linda, while all the while they knew the real version was in the desk at home! That's what a forgery is, an attempt to pass off a copy as the real thing. If you replace "forgery" with "work of fiction" the intended (I hope) meaning is more clear. E.g. Most scholars think Oera Linda is a work of fiction. Hoax is an alternative to forgery, assuming we know the intention of the author, who isn't even known.173.173.20.99 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

If it was mainly intended as a work of fiction, then the author would have been expected to write in a language he actually spoke, and submit it to a magazine, or whatever. An attempt to present it as an old manuscript in an old language tips the scales towards hoax... AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

While I certainly believe it is a forgery it is notable that some works of fiction are presented as being authentic for the purchases of entertainment. These works do contain information (such as a relevant notice) that shows them to be works of fiction. An example would be the Handbook for Space Pioneers which purports to be an aid for anyone considering emigrating from Earth to one of eight colonisable planets. Robert Brockway (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hoax status doesn't derive from being in a fictional universe, but from the author's intention to artificially manufacture plausibility (i.e. to try to get other people to believe something which is not an abstract spiritual revelation, but an assertion about things which did or did not happen in the real world). AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oera Linda Book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atypon-link.com/WDG/doi/abs/10.1515/FABL.2007.017
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503085724/http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2000/2.pdf to http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2000/2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Most works on Wikipedia follow a "contents, then reception" model. You may argue this is done to drive home that this is a hoax or something, but the ontro already does a good job of that, so this just feels repetitive. 87.223.3.46 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's really only notable because of its reception. There's a (very) brief summary of its contents in the lead. I think that the sequence works here although I agree it isn't usual. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I came to this page to learn about the contents of the Oera Linda book. All I see is paragraphs upon paragraphs asserting that it is not an authentic piece of history. This is a worthless article for someone like me who is interested in learning about the subject. It is very obvious that there are politics and bias at play here and I am disgusted by this article as someone who is interested purely in knowledge. -- 04:09, 10 September 2021 2601:602:681:2da0:70c8:96f8:94ea:7c3a

We build our articles on what reliable sources say about the subject. You seem to have come here with a preconceived idea that it's history. If you want to know the contents of the book, read it. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

2601:602:681:2da0:70c8:96f8:94ea:7c3a -- It depends on whether you want knowledge or pseudo-knowledge. There is an English-language translation of the book available on-line (or was the last time I looked into it). AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply