Talk:Wiseman hypothesis

Earlier discussion

minor edit to make the point about Young Earth Creationism clearer to the reader. 194.80.32.9 08:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps i misunderstand, but i don't see a link with the claytablets as they have been found and translated, so this is not the theory deriving from the fact claytablets tell a propagator of the biblic story? But one connotating that with religious implications? The claytablets indicate that the social system of the jews had a religious and formalised aspect at the moment the biblical text diverts from the original. That original had it's relevance as a composition of creation in it's former system as well. Although it was written as a piece of literature originally deriving from a poet, much like the later greek dramaturgs: genesis. It has been found in 3? versions in clay with the first version being an example within a genre, this stuf is in books, so baghdad won't erase that, well i just mention because if someone is on a track, it might be of interest that the clay tablet linkage is actually quitte well documented, apparently ouside this Wiseman hypothesis, i always apreciated it a lot that literature can be so solid(for a believer is not it a miracle that genesis was actually the oldest most famous poetry, a shakespeares hamlet of forgotten era's? it had a mythological function however when it was rewritten as the first versions of the thora, and supposedly a (i think it is not the best word) "heraldic" one; another similarity to clay tablets are the chronicles. Actually an other old piece of literature tells how that went ,that the half moons civilisations had a dedicated aspect of claiming unique ancestry. I think it is called "kill the opposers of the only true story" a testimony of the fake ancestry of a king. 77.248.56.242 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Furthermore, the accounts of Genesis do not match with the current understanding of history when read from the perspective of them being literal eyewitness accounts."

I don't understand how this relates specifically to the Wiseman hypothesis. The current, secular understanding of history doesn't line up with Genesis even if we assume Moses wrote Genesis. I don't think the "eyewitness accounts" perspective makes any difference here.

Also, one of the critiques of the Wiseman hypothesis is that the colophons aren't always where we would expect them if the hypothesis is true.

The Wiseman hypothesis is directly related to Young Earth Creationism in that it strongly suggests a literal interpretation of the creation account as well as a strict reading of the genealogies. The wikipedia article on evangelicalism does not seem to stress a position of YECism on the part of evangelicals. While there may be a number of evangelicals who believe the Wiseman hypothesis to be correct, there are an overwhelming amount of theistic evolutionists or Day Age Creationists. Such people are often prone to see the first portions of Genesis as being "correct", but non literal, and instead being a metaphor for the evolutionary process. If they are eyewitness accounts, then the figures represented are obviously not metaphors. If the individuals were literal individuals who wrote straightforward, historical accounts, then the Bible supports Young Earth Creationism. The eyewitness account aspect ties directly to YECs, but not necessarily to evangelicals, thus Young Earth Creationism being a better, more precise fit in the article than evangelicalism. The evangelicals can have it either way--Tablet Theory or authorship by Moses. YECs will find the Wiseman hypothesis far more enticing.--Zephyr Axiom 22:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Both the group that believes Moses wrote Genesis and that which believes in tablet theory believe equally that Genesis is grounded in history. The tablet theorists just claim to have more evidence for it. Both groups tend to be biblical literalists/inerrantists. Tablet theorists would tend to take the genealogies literally, but that has nothing to do with the age of the pre-Adamic Earth. Tablet theory claims no human eyewitness for Genesis 1:1 - 2:4, which is the heart of the age of the Earth debate. Support for/knowledge of tablet theory is so limited at this stage that it is imaginary to claim that mostly YECs believe in it unless that claim can be backed up with facts/statistics. Day age creationists tend to be more persuaded by history and archaeology than by traditions such as the tradition that God dictated Genesis to Moses on Mount Sinai. Hence, day age creationists arguably have more incentive to investigate tablet theory than do YECs. True, theistic evolutionists tend to reject anything not widely accepted by academia, but that still leaves a vast multitude of day age creationists who utterly reject evolution and take Genesis every bit as seriously as YECs, albeit not as literally. Whether day-age or YEC, no evangelical Christian (properly defined) takes any human figure in Genesis to be metaphorical. This looks like a smear attempt to associate tablet theory with YEC, which can't be justified at a stage when only a small number of Christians have even heard of the theory. I see no need to associate tablet theory with any group of Christians apart from specific demographic data which I do not believe is available to us at this time. Zephyr, my conclusion is you did not back up these claim that "the eyewitness account aspect ties directly to YECs" or the supposition that YECs somehow need tablet theory even though the vast majority get along fine believing Moses wrote Genesis. (Marty8 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

I looked up what evangelicals believe, and George Gallup said that evangelicals first of all believe the Bible is authoritative. Secondly, they believe you must be born again. Anyone who sees the Bible as authoritative has motivation to examine the tablet theory. However, there is for many evangelicals some resistance to any non-traditional view and even a tendency to associate tablet theory with the documentary hypothesis, another multiple authorship view. (Marty8 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

When I stated that the eyewitness account aspect ties directly to YECs, it was not because YECs require the Wiseman hypothesis, but rather that such a view of Genesis flows naturally into a Young Earth Creation position. Sorry if I was unclear. In any case, I have not reverted your edit, and think it may be fair to insert your mention that a number of critics do not believe all the colophon markers match up. I'm not sure if any of the sources counters that claim, since I haven't read the stuff in a while.

Two little notes: Associating the Wiseman hypothesis with YECs is only a smear tactic if the hypothesis is incorrect. It's also kind of humorous that you mention Day Agers as being swayed by history, since in the literal sense of "written record," the YECs are more swayed by that evidence. What you probably meant to say was "naturalistic interpretations of archeology presented in mainstream origins textbooks."

Anyway, you are correct that few seem to have knowledge of the Tablet Theory no matter what their position on origins. Thank you for commenting.--Zephyr Axiom 22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I mis-used the word "need" in that context; that is not what you had written. Even so, I fail to see how tablet theory is more (shall I say) befitting to YECs than to other Bible-believing Christians. Incidentally, there are other alternatives besides day-age and YEC such as the framework view. One thing that virtually all evangelicals have in common, however, is that they believe Adam and Eve to be actual, historical figures - which Christ himself affirmed. There is a tendency for many outside the church to (along with YECs) dismiss non-YEC Christians as people who don't take the Bible (or at least Genesis 1-11) very seriously, but that is simply not the case. I can make a strong Biblical case for an old Earth and for people/hominids having lived before Adam and Eve, but this is not the place for that. There are web articles supportive of tablet theory by David Livingston, Curt Sewell, Paul A. Hughes, "AFDave" (afdave.wordpress.com), Damien Mackey, Peter Ruest, David Demick, and maybe others. I haven't researched all their backgrounds, but I personally don't recognize any YECs among them. Many of them are scholars, which is what I expected (and what I meant by people "more persuaded by history and archaeology than by traditions). If I somehow misunderstood something, feel free to explain again the connection with tablet theory that you feel is exclusive to YECs. Just don't base it on the YECs propaganda that they are the only ones who take Genesis 1-11 seriously. (Marty8 15:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

I concede that I was likely incorrect with my original point that "Young Earth Creationists" was a better fit in that sentence. I am leaving your edit as it is. I'm somewhat pleased, however, that that sentence is really the only one that has been found objectionable within the article so far. I have been hoping that the subject was fairly represented.--Zephyr Axiom 17:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I did some research on the people I named. Livingston, Sewell, and Demick are YEC. I don't know about the others. Demick wrote for the Institute for Creation Research, a YEC organization. This still doesn't seem a basis on which to draw any firm conclusions. Also, uh, since you mentioned it, I looked again at the article. You did do a great job, by the way, if you wrote it. The person named in the colophon could not only be the author but could be the main subject or the tablet's owner, though it's true that the hypothesis suggests they are authors. If you don't mind, I took out the word "likely" in "God may likely have written." I think it's seen as more of a possibility than a probability, which would really be going out on a limb. Also, I thought Shem rather than Moses would have been the one to do any required translation after the tower of Babel. Subsequently, as the post-Babel, proto-Hebraic language evolved into Biblical Hebrew, the text would need to be updated moreso than translated. I don't feel it is necessary for proponents of tablet theory to take a position on what the language was before Babel, though some do. I made an edit to the "Disadvantages" part to mention the small number of "handoffs," and I edited the last part as well, which I had previously critiqued. Again, however great job overall! Please let me know if you have any problem with any of my changes. I did not make the editing change for everything I just mentioned. (Marty8 15:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks (I was the one who wrote it). I think your edits look good. --Zephyr Axiom 17:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of the Wiseman hypothesis

Since there is no professional or reliable scholarship underlying the hypothesis, it is only fair to warn people who come to this page that, essentially, they are dealing with religious fantasy.RED DAVE 22:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's why I removed your additions. (a) The statement that "the Wiseman hypothesis enjoys no support in the scholarly community" is a factual assertion that requires a reliable source to make it verifiable. (b) If a reliable source has judged the hypothesis as "an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to salvage their beliefs about Bible authorship" then we can note that as the source's opinion, but cannot propose this interpretation of our own accord without violating WP:NOR. (c) I understood the section as a whole to be intended to imply the falsity of the hypothesis, which violates WP:NPOV. I gather from your desire to "warn people ... that ... they are dealing with religious fantasy" that this was indeed your intention. The correct way to show that the subject of an article is a fringe theory is to cite scholarly responses to it. EALacey 08:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there have been any scholarly responses to the Wiseman hypothesis - it's so far out of the scholarly mainstream that it's just ignored. PiCo (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a scholarly version of the Wiseman hypothesis would go essentially that there was 11 documents made by unknown individuals circulating amongst the Israelites while they were enslaved in Egypt to describe the history of their ancestors. These documents where then updated to account for different place names and the rules instituted by Moses. If you think about it would make a lot of sense for at least part of Genesis to predate the time of Moses. Genesis has many features that support it predating the time of Moses. By the way, I do not personally believe in the hypothesis but from a secular standpoint I would see it as the best explanation for the existence of the book of Genesis, because it seems out of place when all the other books of the Torah discuss The Exodus by some means or at least lead up to the Exodus. It would also explain phrases in Genesis that have baffled critics for centuries such as, "To this day" which critics said demonstrated that Genesis postdates the time of Moses, with this hypothesis it would actually mean that the editor had simply put those words in to mean the same practice or whatever is done even till this day. It also explains the Genesis 1, 2 issue which is often used to support the documentary hypotesis. It also incorporates known conventions of ancient writing. --Java7837 (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just a fantasy. No Israelite were ever enslaved in Egypt (Please!). What the Wiseman hypothesis would mean today is that whoever composed the genealogies (done either in Babylonia or as late as the Hasmonean period) was vaguely familiar with Babylonian scribal practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.88.114 (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

pseudo-scholarship?

I don't have an axe to grind one way or the other on this, I'm just passing along info. I was editing the Book of Genesis article, and happened to notice that it did not mention this one. I added a See also link, which was immediately removed with the explanation on my talk page: "That the Wiseman hypothesis is pseudo-scholarship is a fact, not a point of view - rather like the world being round. It's never mentioned in the scholarly literature, never cited in scholarly books, is simply ignored by scholars." mdash; I don't know one way or the other about this, but figured that the info ought to be passed along here. If it is true that there is overwhelming scholarly disagreement with the Wiseman hypothesis, this article ought to mention that fact. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See above comments. --Zephyr Axiom (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

POV & reliability of sources

All the sources in the article appear to be from parties holding to Biblical literalism, and most (all?) of them appear to be to sources with little (no?) scholarly credibility. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this notable? Are there any RS that mention it?Martinlc (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This does need work, but it is a valid theory that's been around for some time. Allenroyboy (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In which case, if notable, it should be easy to find RSs. My quick search only turned up mentions derived from t he authors, this wikipedia page, or non-RS discussions based on the book -an RS would be a substantial review / critique by recognised biblical scholars published by a reputable publisher.Martinlc (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking at improving the article with a view to relating the hypothesis to previous scholarship. The Wiseman hypothesis (and detailed variants of it), though widely derided by non-evangelical christian scholarship, is known in evangelical-christian circles. Admitedly many of those who publish are less-than scholarly, but the hypothesis is notable nontheless, as one of few alternatives to the Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis, which has the scholarly high ground at the moment. However the theory does not stand entirely in scholarly isolation, but has some RS tradition that should be mentioned in the search for an explanation of its current notability among evangelicals. I'm still trying to find a good source for a reference to Johann_Gottfried_Herder's 1774 work The Oldest Document of the Human Race, where he demonstrates a close literary reading of Genesis, that stands in contrast to the documentary hypothesis. The tablet theory clearly stands in this tradition. I suggest a mention of Hermann_Gunkel who, despite accepting the documentary hypothesis, said the anonymous redactors had moved the verse-fragment in Gen 2, identified by Wiseman as a colophon, thus noting its identity as markup (whether title, or colphon). Gunkel, Hermann (1997). Genesis. Macon GA.: Mercer University Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Other sources might include the discussions of Woudstra Woudstra, M.H (1970). "The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and their Redemptive Historical Significance". Calvin Theological Journal (5): 184–189. following the argument of Gispen Gispen, W. H. (1961). Schepping en Paradijs. Kampen: J.H Kok., Kulling Kulling, Samuel (1964). Genesis-P-Stucke. Kampen: J.H Kok. and Benne_Houlwerda in maintaining the toledot sections show the original structure of the book, even though they do not reckon the relevant phrases should be read as colophons rather than introductions. These sources, for which I'm still searching online English access, are not all supportive of the theory, but show some background for its development. I might also suggest a modern supportive mention by Schirrmacher Schirrmacher, Thomas (2009). "Is there a Contradiction between the two Creation Accounts?" (PDF). Theological Accents. MBS-Texte. Martin Bucer Seminar (114). Retrieved 20 July 2011.. The notability of the article may be confined to the evangelical christian community, but that should not diminish its weight or somwhow infect the credibility of the source tradition As I'm new here, comments would be welcome before I do any updating of the page.Scaryscary (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

ISBE

Please quote where this source supports the following passages:

The theory suggests that many passages used by Moses or other authors to compose Genesis originated as histories and genealogies recorded in Mesopotamian cuneiform script on baked clay tablets, handed down through Abraham to later Hebrews.

and

Air Commodore P. J. Wiseman, a British officer who visited many active archaeological sites during his career in the Middle East, found that ancient narrative tablets usually ended in colophons which had a very specific format consisting of three parts; 1) "this has been the history/book/genealogy of...", 2) the name of the person who wrote or owned the table, and 3) a date (such as "in the year of the great earthquake," or "the 3rd year of king so-and-so", etc. Wiseman noted that there are eleven phrases in Genesis which have the same colophon format, which have long been identified as the toledoth (Hebrew for "generations") passages. What Wiseman brought new to the table was the idea that these apparent colophons indicated that Genesis had originally been a collection of narrative clay tablets written in cuneiform, like the ancient tablets he had seen, which Moses had edited into a single document on parchment or papyrus. This is in contrast with traditional views that Moses wrote Genesis entirely on his own without any outside sources and with the Graf–Wellhausen JPED documentary theory that Genesis was written by a bunch of much later, unknown, and historically ignorant, redactors.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The top paragraph about clay tablets would probably be better sourced from Cambrige History of the Bible, pp. 32,33. If that looks acceptible then it should replace ref #3. The second citation was made to the last sentence only, about Wiseman's theory challenging to the consensus. The other parts of that long paragraph were earlier referenced. And this ref addresses the wiseman consensus challenge, New International Commentary of the Old Testament, by Victor P. Hamilton, pp. 8,9. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(i) The Cambridge History of the Bible reference, although generally relevant, is unsuitable as a specific reference for the first passage, as it makes no reference to the Bible, Biblical figures or Hebrews, nor to cuneiform script. (ii) The New International Commentary of the Old Testament passage only prefatorially acknowledges that the Hypothesis is a challenge to the consensus, and spends most of its time discussing three problems that it sees in it. WP:DUE weight should be given to these problems. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

One answer to Hrafn's first point is the quote "suggests that Genesis 1-36 originally had an independent existence as eleven, distinct cuneiform tablets, each with its own identifying colophon (an inscription usually placed at the end of a book or manuscript and usually containing facts relative to its production...comparatively easy matter for a talented person such as Moses to compile the canonical books by arranging the tablets in a rough chronological order, adding the material relating to Joseph, and transcribing the entire corpus on a leather or papyrus scroll.” Which I have seen credited to ISBE Volume 2 Article "Genesis" Page 437...but I now need to find a copy and look it up to see if its correct. The second point I suspect is best addressed by the Wiseman book rather than ISBE, I will look up a set of page numbers and see if I can't clarify that para. Scaryscary (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bible Commentaries

Bible commentaries and other work citing Wiseman's theory include the following; The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, pg.711; The New American Commentary, by Kenneth A. Mathews, pg.52; The New International Commentary on the Old Testament The book of Genesis: chapters 18-50, by Victor P. Hamilton, pg.131; The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1937, pg.548; Dating the Old Testament, by Craig Davis, pg.132; I studied inscriptions from before the flood, by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura, pg.254; Creation, catastrophe & Calvary, By John Templeton Baldwin, pg.64 72.161.229.229 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The ISBE has Donald as a reference, but not dealing with the PJ's Tablet theory, but rather other papers Donald has written on other topics. So the ISBE is not a good source for the table theory.

The same thing goes for the New American Commentary. Nothing there about the PJ theory, just Donald stuff. They are not the same. So the NAC is not acceptable either. 8een4Tfor (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Baldwin's Creation, Catastrophe & Calvary doesn't mention the tablet theory either. not a good reference. 8een4Tfor (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The same goes for I studied inscriptions from before the flood. 8een4Tfor (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Hess and Tsumura I studied inscriptions from before the flood is a good drive-by mention for the hypothesised colophon phrases. Page 255 of the book relating to the colophon phrases in Gen 10. Scaryscary (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no merge. -- StAnselm (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I note there is a tag to merge this article in Donald Wiseman. This is a different Wiseman, of course, and so I would oppose the merge. If this article fails notability (and I'm not convinced it does), then it should be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: this appears to be a notable, if heavily discredited, hypothesis. A number of heavy-weight sources appear to have weighed in on why it is attractive-but-wrong. I see no problem with its continued independent existence, as long as we give WP:DUE weight to those negative opinions that have rendered it notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Several knowledgeable scholars took the time to argue against the hypothesis when they could have just ignored it. They felt it was important enough that it had to be addressed. 8een4Tfor (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad referencing and cherry-picking

1. I would request that 8een4Tfor and 72.161.229.229 cease and desist dropping in references for pre-existing material where the cited reference does not support ALL the material referenced to it (in many cases they don't support any of the material cited to them). either (i) rewrite the material to match what the source has to say about the Wiseman hypothesis or (ii) find a source that does in fact say all that pre-existing material says on the subject.
2. Davis, Craig, 2007, Dating the Old Testament, R. J. Communications -- is a WP:SPS by an individual with no formal training in Biblical scholarship. Please cease and desist re-inserting this worthless source.
3. I would note that the sources are generally being used for descriptions of the Hypothesis without giving WP:DUE weight to the sources' criticisms of it (and sometimes omitting them entirely). This has resulted in an unbalanced treatment of the Hypothesis.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For example, the verses listed in 'Tablets in Genesis' do not perfectly match the verses listed on Hamilton(1990) pp 8-9 that they have just been cited to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

But the list does match Wiseman. Hamilton is inaccurate, perhaps he was more interested in criticizing the theory than presenting it accurately. However, it is close enough to give the basic picture. Craig, on page 133, for all his SPS, is more accurate than Hamilton (though not exact, either). 8een4Tfor (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is that if passage X is cited to reference Y, then X has to say what Y says, or Y needs to be removed as the source for X. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is ... whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" -- WP:V. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems very nit picky. The differences between the lists amounts to 1 or 1/2 a verse for the beginning or ending of a few of the proposed tablet. It's not like one list has 11 tablets and the other has 9. And it seems to me that the important point is the IDEA of tablet theory as opposed to the Documentary hypothesis. Since quoting verbatim is unacceptable in preference to paraphrasing, it seems that the demand for a paraphrase to be exactly like the original, or vise verse, is asking more than Wikipedia requires. It is ideas that matter not word for word replication. 8een4Tfor (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(i) WP:NOR is inherently about accurately reflecting the contents of cited references. (ii) They frequently vary by several verses -- Hamilton's table appears to reflect an unexpurgated listing, whereas the Wiseman one frequently reflects 'gaps' of several verses between Narrative and Colophon. (iii) If it is the "idea" that is important, then why include these tables at all? They're just going to confuse most readers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I. Hamilton's list is sloppy. Hardly what one would expect from a scholar, so it could be deliberate. It differs from the Wiseman list by missing ending and beginning verses. But it does show in general, the breakdown into 11 tablets.

II. The Wiseman list, as shown in the table, has no gaps of verses at all between Narratives and colophons. There are about 4 places where there is no narrative between the genealogy and the colophon. Yet, even in those cases, there is no verse gap between the genealogies and colophons either.

III. For many people, an illustration, such as this table, is extremely clear and helps visualize the tablet theory. Allenroyboy (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

When I come to such an article, I do not want to "visualize the theory", I want to know "is it serious". In this case, it isn't. Then I want to know, "is it notable". In this case, it isn't. At that point, I start asking why we have such an article in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 11:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The article as it stands creates cognitive dissonance, because the theory as presented is so loony that it is hard to believe it could have been proposed by a London University professor of Assyriology. I can believe the idea occurred to a religious military officer in the 1920s as an attractive one, but at some point you have to get real and admit that the idea didn't stand up to scrutiny. Well, stranger things have happened, so this is just a weird idea from the fringe of 20th century Assyriology. The question is, why shouldn't it be merged with the Donald Wiseman article? There doesn't seem to be very much to say about it. I also see no evidence[1][2] that this has any sort of notability. If it has been mentioned in passing in some books about Genesis (seven google books hits), WP:NOTE says that we should also mention it in passing at a relevant place, not write a standalone article. --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you've demonstrated notability right there. It's not "mentioned in passing" - it's explained and discussed. This article should be giving it the same sort of treatment that those books do. StAnselm (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please. It is mentioned in passing. In seven out of hundreds of books about Genesis. Notability would mean there are monographs. Are there monographs about the tablet theory? Yes, the 1985 one by Wiseman. That's it. Which is why this needs to be merged to Wiseman's bibliography unless you can show WP:BK is met. Do you understand WP:BK? The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself? If this can be shown, sure, this could become an article on the 1985 book. --dab (𒁳) 12:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

out of our seven raw google books hits, there is one (1) which I would accept as a quotable source.[3]. The tablet theory is mentioned in passing, and the reader is referred via a self-citation to R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (1969). Here is a review of that work, which finds it dubious that professor Harrison should have bothered to give attention to such a fringy idea. So this is an academic fringe theory in the literal sense of the word. It has been briefly noted and discussed in academia, and found to be without merit. The end. It can of course reside as a brief note in our article about Wiseman, or even as a footnote in the dating the Bible article. No need for a standalone essay. Apparently what is going on here is that both Harrison and Wiseman were academics who also held evangelical belief. Bottom line, this is an example of shoddy scholarship by people whose judgement was clouded by their religious belief. The fact that academia has received these proposals and rejected them is just an example of how academia works: it isn't hurt by shoddy scholarship, it just chews it, spits it out and moves on. --dab (𒁳) 13:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Article on Wiseman?

Is P.J.Wiseman notable enough to have his own article? If so, I think I'll try to write one. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 07:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not unless that article is a merger of this article with Days of Revelation Theory‎ (which is likewise mostly about Wiseman's claims). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

GI Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hrafn for the link cleanup. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 08:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Socks & copyvio

This article has been edited by Allenroyboy - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive and 8een4Tfor, blocked as a sockpuppet of Trabucold Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trabucogold/Archive although I believe they are the same. Whether or not they are, a number of edits of socks of both (and the puppetmasters) have been copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Mistake?

I'm not really sure (it is a long time back that I read Wiseman) but is the Kolophon not the connection between two tablets, consisting of the repetition of the last line of the former tablet? What you mean in the article as "Kolophon" is as far as I know in fact the "toledoth-formula".--217.13.71.164 (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)