Talk:Wiseman hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
A fact from Wiseman hypothesis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 12 June 2007. |
 |
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)
[edit] 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 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)
[edit] 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)
