Why Oera Linda book can't be a forgery
Posted: 01 Jan 2023, 21:45
One way to study the Oera Linda (OL) authenticity issue is to see if its narrative choices are known elsewhere only from sources that were found or known later than Oera Linda manuscript (MS) is known to have existed. This study method bypasses the counterargument that learned mid-1800s Dutchmen could have utilized Frisian folklore, Norse sagas and other similar sources to make up the OL narrative.
As chronology baseline we use the information that OL MS existed already in year 1845. The source for this is Jacob Munnik's later testimony that he had back in 1845 attempted to gain access to the manuscript:
Eight sources exist that fulfill the conditions that they were a. found later than OL MS already existed and b. contain details attested elsewhere only in OL. Four out of the five main ones are available as modern English language translations. The five main ones are:
This is textual evidence that OL narrative can't be a mid-1800s Dutch forgery, but the narrative is instead genuinely old work (regardless of the age of the MS paper). Way to falsify this finding is to show how theoretical mid-1800s Dutch forgers could have accessed the same information needed to produce the accurate parallels. Following posts detail the similarities between each of the four sources and OL.
Edit: updated 2025.
As chronology baseline we use the information that OL MS existed already in year 1845. The source for this is Jacob Munnik's later testimony that he had back in 1845 attempted to gain access to the manuscript:
As there are no known reasons why Munnik would theoretically later lie about the date, it can be considered evidence that the MS existed already in year 1845 and likely already before that date. What is uncontested by all viewpoints is that the MS existed by latest in 1860s. Copies of the MS can be seen online at Internet Archive site on Oera Linda.Jacob Munnik (husband of Cornelis' stepdaughter: Plate 1) reported in 1876 that he had joined Cornelis in an earlier failed attempt to obtain the MS in 1845.(2) This suggests that Cornelis did know about the manuscript earlier, and actively had tried to obtain it. [...] (2) Beckering Vinckers, J., Wie heeft het Oera-Linda-Boek geschreven (1876) pp. 31-32.
[Source: Jan Ott's blogpost Did Cornelis Over de Linden hide something?]
Eight sources exist that fulfill the conditions that they were a. found later than OL MS already existed and b. contain details attested elsewhere only in OL. Four out of the five main ones are available as modern English language translations. The five main ones are:
- Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles 19 Weidner Chronicle (ABC19), Iraq
- Sumerian King List (SKL), Iraq
- Story of Wenamun, Egypt
- Suomen Kansan Vanhat Runot VII1 679 (SKVR VII1 679), Finland.
- Suomen Kansan Vanhat Runot I1 20 (SKVR I1 20), Finland.
- Finn ↔ Su, Shu, Suen, Cu, Cuc or Sus (words Suomi, Suomen, suomalainen, tsuudi, Chud, Chude all mean 'Finn')
- Wodin, Odin ↔ Utu.
This is textual evidence that OL narrative can't be a mid-1800s Dutch forgery, but the narrative is instead genuinely old work (regardless of the age of the MS paper). Way to falsify this finding is to show how theoretical mid-1800s Dutch forgers could have accessed the same information needed to produce the accurate parallels. Following posts detail the similarities between each of the four sources and OL.
Edit: updated 2025.