Henke 2022fe

Huge Strawman Fallacy in Lundahl (2022p). I’m not Ignoring the Five Ancient Histories, Mr. Lundahl!

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022b), I stated the following about the minting of the coins of Alexander the Great:

“As mentioned in Henke (2022a), Alexander the Great had numerous silver coins minted in his name during his lifetime. Lundahl (2022g) makes the following responses to Henke (2022a) and the coins:

“I would need to acknowledge that someone or something at the time of the coining referred to as Alexander existed.

That this entity disposed of a mint in Macedonia - and elsewhere in the budding Hellenistic world.”

While Lundahl (2022c) blindly accepts that Genesis 3 is history and without a shred of evidence believes the old story that Moses wrote it, Lundahl (2022g) thinks that the individual that ordered the minting of these coins and the humans that did it were only “someone or something.” How could a “something” order the minting of coins and then carry out that order? How could “someone or something at the time of the coining referred to as Alexander” afford to mint all of those coins, have the power to do it, and have so much influence that those coins would be widely used from India to Greece and Egypt if he wasn’t a powerful and wealthy leader? Again, all of the archeological evidence must be examined together – the Alexandros coins, the Egyptian temple inscriptions, the Bactrian documents, etc. – and not just the five ancient histories to confirm the existence of Alexander the Great. While I see no historical value whatsoever in Genesis 3, I do not dismiss these five ancient histories of Alexander the Great as worthless. They are very valuable when their individual claims are confirmed by archeological data. Once specific events in these histories are confirmed, then the information in the histories may carefully provide additional details and possibly answer questions raised by the archeological data. The written histories and the archeological data must complement each other – in isolation they are inadequate to truly provide the best information on who Alexander the Great really was.” [bolded my emphasis; italics in original]

Instead of looking at the full context of what I said in Henke (2022b), Lundahl (2022p) carelessly breaks up my comments and ignores what I said in the subsequent sentences about the importance of the five ancient histories on Alexander the Great:

Henke continues to make little use of precise formulations by me ...

Kevin R. Henke: ‘As mentioned in Henke (2022a), Alexander the Great had numerous silver coins minted in his name during his lifetime. Lundahl (2022g) makes the following responses to Henke (2022a) and the coins:

“I would need to acknowledge that someone or something at the time of the coining referred to as Alexander existed.

That this entity disposed of a mint in Macedonia - and elsewhere in the budding Hellenistic world.”

While Lundahl (2022c) blindly accepts that Genesis 3 is history and without a shred of evidence believes the old story that Moses wrote it, Lundahl (2022g) thinks that the individual that ordered the minting of these coins and the humans that did it were only “someone or something.’

It was someone or something referred to as Alexander. Without the texts, this need not mean the Alexander who was born to the Kingdom of Macedon and who Conquered the Empire of Persia.” [my emphasis]

Additionally, Lundahl (2022p) erroneously states:

“Now, I have similar evidence, the kind that Henke disparages, for the Alexander coins being coined in honour of and perhaps also on the orders of the Alexander who was born to the Kingdom of Macedon and who Conquered the Empire of Persia. I am however considering what the coins would tell us without such texts, and the answer is "someone or something at the time of the coining referred to as Alexander existed." [my emphasis]

Here, Lundahl (2022p) is erecting a huge strawman fallacy. Mr. Lundahl, where in the above paragraph from Henke (2022b) do I say that we don’t need the texts; that is, the five ancient histories on Alexander the Great? Again, Henke (2022b) actually says:

“While I see no historical value whatsoever in Genesis 3, I do not dismiss these five ancient histories of Alexander the Great as worthless. They are very valuable when their individual claims are confirmed by archeological data. Once specific events in these histories are confirmed, then the information in the histories may carefully provide additional details and possibly answer questions raised by the archeological data. The written histories and the archeological data must complement each other – in isolation they are inadequate to truly provide the best information on who Alexander the Great really was.” [my emphasis in bold; original emphasis in italics and bold]

Now, because I never rejected the value of the five ancient histories like Lundahl (2022p) accuses me of doing and because I admitted in Henke (2022b) that the archeological data cannot be used in isolation from the ancient histories to really understand who Alexander the Great was, I shouldn’t have to address this strawman fallacy in Lundahl (2022p). Nevertheless, using my actual standard in this situation, where in any ancient written document with archeological confirmation does it say that Alexander the Great had a powerful rival that was also named Alexander and that also lived in the 4^th century BC?

Then, as another part of his strawman fallacy, Lundahl (2022p) needlessly throws out speculations about who else might have minted the Alexander coins if it was not Alexander the Great:

“It could be a man, it could be a fake deity, it could be a club, it could be an insurance company (Alex-ander means man-protector) ...”

Kevin R. Henke: ‘How could a “something” order the minting of coins and then carry out that order?’

A club could have a chairman, and a deity could have a temple and a priest.

Kevin R. Henke: ‘How could “someone or something at the time of the coining referred to as Alexander” afford to mint all of those coins, have the power to do it, and have so much influence that those coins would be widely used from India to Greece and Egypt if he wasn’t a powerful and wealthy leader?’

It could have been a kind of common currency, by mutual agreement. Like the Euro currency. As you may know, neither Napoleon, nor Hitler introduced this, the politicians who did may have been more humane, but they were also, very certainly, more humdrum, and individually less powerful.

Numismatists certainly recognize that Alexander coins were minted after his death (Kontes 2000; Price 1991). The number of Alexander coins are so numerous that a very wealthy and powerful individual named Alexander must have inspired them. BOTH the five ancient histories and the archeological evidence solely identify Alexander the Great as that individual. Besides the worthless strawman fallacy, Lundahl (2022p) does raise some interesting issues. What does Lundahl (2022p) mean by a fake deity? Who would play a fake deity and how could they get away with it? Insurance companies may have existed in the 4^th century BC, but what were they like? Lundahl (2022p) throws out a lot of needless speculation in his strawman fantasy, but as usual, he has no details or evidence to even back them up.

References:

Kontes, Z.S. 2000 “The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great”: The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great | Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology | Brown University (accessed February 27, 2022).

Price, M.J. 1991. The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus: A British Museum Catalogue: Volume 1: Introduction and Catalogue: The Swiss Numismatic Society in Association with British Museum Press: Zurich and London, 509pp.