Henke 2022bq

Mr. Lundahl Still Fails to Respond to Secular Hypotheses #3 and #4, which Rationally Explain the Origin of the Talking Snake Myth of Genesis 3

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022b), I stated that:

“In Lundahl (2022d), Lundahl (2022f), Lundahl (2022b), and in several of his emails, Mr. Lundahl makes a totally unwarranted assumption that if the earliest known audience believed that Genesis 3 or another claim in an ancient text was historically true, then the claims must be true. Of course, this assumption is nonsense for the following reasons:

1. People lie and make up stories.

2. People misinterpret natural events and sometimes credit them to supernatural forces (e.g., volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, severe storms, draught [sic, drought]).

3. The history of Mormonism, Scientology, etc. demonstrate that lies can become accepted by thousands or even millions of gullible people in a short amount of time, perhaps in no more than decades or a century.

4. Even if ancient historians (such as the five ancient biographers of Alexander the Great, Section 6.0) were sincere and honest, they still may have included inaccurate information, false rumors and misinterpretations in their works.

5. We don’t know who wrote Genesis 3 and when it was written.

6. The Dead Sea scrolls have the oldest known fragments of Genesis. This was about 1,000 years after Moses supposedly wrote the book. So, how could the writers of the Dead Sea scrolls have reliably known anything about events that occurred perhaps a thousand or more years earlier? How does Mr. Lundahl know that Genesis 3 is not a fabrication that may have been additionally altered or rewritten long before the Dead Sea scrolls? Why should anyone trust the claims in Genesis? Lundahl (2022c) assumes that God would have protected Genesis from corruption, but this assumption is totally without merit.

7. The biology of snakes is incompatible with them talking and there’s no evidence of either a supernatural or biological Talking Snake ever existing.

8. As further discussed in Section 5.0 [of Henke 2022b] and Henke (2022a), Hypotheses #3 and #4 on the origin of the Genesis 3 Talking Snake are rational, but Hypotheses #1 and #2 are not.

9. Mr. Lundahl has the burden of evidence to demonstrate that the claims in Genesis 3 and elsewhere in the Bible are factual.

Mr. Lundahl fails to realize that ancient histories by themselves cannot be trusted, especially if they were written centuries or millennia after the supposed event that they are describing or if the documents are copies of copies of copies of copies... and not the originals Even if an ancient history happens to be an original copy describing an event that occurred at the time that the document was written, unless a claim in an ancient history is confirmed with independent external evidence, either in another manuscript or from archeology, there’s no reason to accept it as reliable history. There’s a big difference between an historical claim and a reliable historical claim.” [my original emphasis in italics only; my current emphasis in bold]

Again, point #8 mentions secular Hypotheses #3 and #4 from Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b), which explain the origin of the Talking Snake myth of Genesis 3. Lundahl (2022k) makes the following comments about point #8:

“I already refuted that claim, his hypotheses #3 and #4 basically involving a process where made up stories (comedy's like Menaechmi, novels like Apuleius' Golden Ass, comic books like Spiderman, fantasy novels like Lord of the Rings) for no reason at all get to be considered as historically transmitted arguably true stories.”

No. As I explained in Henke (2022b) and my other essays, Lundahl (2022c) and his other essays totally failed to refute Hypotheses #3 and #4. Also, in the above quotation from Lundahl (2022k) on point #8, Mr. Lundahl is totally confusing and improperly equating Hypothesis #4 with #3. In his paragraph, Lundahl (2022k) doesn’t realize that the two hypotheses have very different origins. As explained in Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b), Hypothesis #3 states that the Talking Snake story arose because a group of people misinterpreted a campfire story or another work of fiction and thought that the story actually happened. On a smaller scale, this was also seen in one of President Reagan’s speeches, where he and his staff mistook a work of fiction about WWII as an actual event (Henke 2022a; 2022b). Fortunately, President Reagan’s mistake was quickly caught by fact checkers in the media before it could spread and become widely believed as an urban legend. In ancient times, fast checking and the rebuttal of misinterpretations was not so efficient. As I explain in Henke (2022a; 2022b; 2022ek), there have always been cases where large groups of people have misinterpreted works of fiction as something that actually happened.

While Hypothesis #3 involves people making accidental misinterpretations, in Hypothesis #4 people are deliberately deceived with propaganda and other lies by influential people. That is, in Hypothesis #4, powerful religious and/or political leaders deliberately deceive a large number of people through oral or written transmissions (Henke 2022a; 2022b; 2022es). Currently, this type of deception is being seen in how a majority of Russians believe the propaganda from Putin’s government on how Russia is supposedly “liberating” Ukraine from NAZIs. Also, see Henke (2022cc) for discussions on how tens of millions of Americans currently believe the lies that President Trump actually won the 2020 election. The fantasy involving St. Philomena is another prime example of how Hypothesis #4 can occur (Henke 2022es). A delusional 19^th century nun invents a biography about an early saint and the 19^th century Roman Catholic Church, as well as Mr. Lundahl and some other current conservative Catholics, blindly accept and believe that the lies are real.

Even if Mr. Lundahl eventually manages to dismiss Hypothesis #3 as a likely explanation for Genesis 3, he still has to dismiss Hypothesis #4, find acceptable evidence for his preferred Hypothesis #1 and then demonstrate that it’s more likely than Hypothesis #2. So far, he has not succeeded in any of his lofty goals. All of his talk about “first known audiences” is worthless rhetoric.