Henke 2022g

Who is Bishop Challoner? Another Adverse Consequence from the Absence of Proper Referencing in Lundahl (2022a)

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

As I mentioned in Henke (2022b), Lundahl (2022a) improperly quotes a Bishop Challoner when he discusses how angels can supposedly explain the talking donkey story in Numbers 22:21-30. Lundahl (2022a) states:

“Christianity doesn't propose snakes or donkeys generally talk. Have a look at Bileam's ass:

[21] Balaam* arose in the morning, and saddling his ass went with them. [22] And God was angry. And an angel of the Lord stood in the way against Balaam, who sat on the ass, and had two servants with him. [23] The ass seeing the angel standing in the way, with a drawn sword, turned herself out of the way, and went into the field. And when Balaam beat her, and had a mind to bring her again to the way, [24] The angel stood in a narrow place between two walls, wherewith the vineyards were enclosed. [25] And the ass seeing him, thrust herself close to the wall, and bruised the foot of the rider. But he beat her again:

[26] And nevertheless the angel going on to a narrow place, where there was no way to turn aside either to the right hand or to the left, stood to meet him. [27] And when the ass saw the angel standing, she fell under the feet of the rider: who being angry beat her sides more vehemently with a staff. [28] And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said: What have I done to thee? Why strikest thou me, lo, now this third time? [29] Balaam answered: Because thou hast deserved it, and hast served me ill: I would I had a sword that I might kill thee. [30] The ass said: Am not I thy beast, on which thou hast been always accustomed to ride until this present day? tell me if I ever did the like thing to thee. But he said: Never.

What does bishop Challoner say about this?

[28] ‘”Opened the mouth": The angel moved the tongue of the ass, to utter these speeches, to rebuke, by the mouth of a brute beast, the brutal fury and folly of Balaam.’”

Notice that the [28] refers to Numbers 22:28. It’s not a footnote with a proper reference to identify Bishop Challoner and when and where he said this. In Lundahl (2022h), Mr. Lundahl admits that he forgot to provide a link to Bishop Challoner’s comments. Rather than posting the link in an erratum, he gave it in Lundahl (2022h), which doesn’t help anyone reading Lundahl (2022a). Sometimes, we all forget to provide important details in our writing. However, Mr. Lundahl probably would not have forgotten to reference Bishop Challoner if he had been in the habit of using bibliographies in his essays.

Lundahl (2022h) then provides information on his source of the Bishop Challoner quotation:

“I could have given a link to the Douay-Rheims Bible Online, which is in the Challoner revision, not the original 16th C. which is why it is a bit more modern than King James. The online version of Douay Rheims is providing in red comments that Bishop challoner gave to the text. Below a verse or below a passage including the verse. Here is how it looks:

And here is the link I forgot to give:

http://drbo.org/chapter/04022.htm “

Lundahl (2022h) continues:

So - as a Catholic would know, when I give a passage with numbered verses and a comment is attributed to Challoner, featuring the verse number and a quote about what he is explaining, Challoner is in fact commenting on that precise verse and on that precise aspect of the verse.

Since when does Mr. Lundahl speak for all Roman Catholics and what they supposedly would know? He’s not the pope. Yes, Mr. Lundahl, people would probably figure out that whomever Bishop Challoner was, he was commenting on verse 28 from some passage in some source. However, that’s not good enough for our readers to really know what’s going on. I really doubt that very many Roman Catholics would even recognize who Bishop Challoner was/is without a reference. Would the reader even know that Challoner is a Roman Catholic Bishop rather than one from the Orthodox, Church of England or another church? Even if some Roman Catholics recognize Bishop Challoner, what about our Non-Catholic and Non-Christian readers?

After I protest in Henke (2022b) that people would not know who Bishop Challoner is, Lundahl (2022h) provides some background information on Roman Catholicism and Bishop Challoner that should have been in Lundahl (2022a):

Henke (2022b) states: “We don’t know who Bishop Challoner is.”

Lundahl (2022h) replies: “All Catholics of English culture (including American) usually do. For non-Catholics, allow me to give a brief introduction. After Mary I Tudor died in 1558, and the usurper Elizabeth took the English throne, and up to 1830, Catholicism was to varying degrees a legal offense in England and later in the United Kingdom, confer the so-called Penal laws. Especially, being a priest and saying Mass could get you drawn, hung and quartered. The actual number of Catholic martyrs under this period corresponds fairly much to the number of Lollards and early Anglicans killed under Catholic régimes, a little more than 280 each. This in practise came to mean, priests serving the needs of English Catholics were trained, equipped with Bibles, and received ordination in France. Two of the bishops for England residing in Douay or in Rheims were Witham and Challoner. As the Bible text of the original Douay Rheims version had become a bit archaic, he made a revision of it. Any online version of Douay Rheims (older than King James, btw, as such) is likely to be using Challoner's text. In this context, he also gave a comment, not on every verse, but on stray verses which he thought might require explanation. As he lived in the 18th C. he reckoned on Enlightenment hecklers (they haven't ceased to this day, and Henke examplifies this), and so commented on this verse.

So, Bishop Challoner lived in the 18^th century. How is Challoner’s opinion on this Bible verse even relevant in the 21^st century? Why should we believe what Challoner said about Numbers 22:28 three centuries ago, when there’s absolutely no evidence that Numbers 22:21-41 ever happened? What justification does Lundahl (2022a) have for even mentioning Bishop Challoner and the Bishop’s opinion on Numbers 22:28?

Next, Lundahl (2022h) refers to the following section of Henke (2022b):

“None of Lundahl (2022a-g) has a decent bibliography. He also often makes statements without providing specifics or citing references with the specifics. When he does cite individuals, his references and footnotes are often incomplete, disorganized and ambiguous. For example, when Lundahl (2022a) claims that angels can explain the talking donkey of Numbers 22:22-35, he quotes a Bishop Challoner. No reference is given for this citation. We don’t know who Bishop Challoner is, the context of his statement and whether or not it was in a peer-reviewed journal or part of a joke in a sermon.” [my emphasis]

Lundahl (2022h) comments on fragments of the bolded sentence from Henke (2022b) and makes another illegitimate excuse for his inadequate referencing of Challoner in Lundahl (2022a):

Henke (2022b) states: “…the context of his statement…”

Mr. Lundahl: ‘The clues provided in the text connexions between the Bible verse should have made it clear: it's the comment on the Bible verse.’

Henke (2022b) states: “…and whether or not it was in a peer-reviewed journal.”

Lundahl (2022h) continues:

Mr. Lundahl: ‘Peer reviewed journals are highly overrated. And they are also, as a phenomenon, clearly way after the times of Bishop Challoner.’

No. Peer-reviewed journals are far more reliable sources of information than the opinions of an individual from the 18^th century on a Bible story that has no evidence of ever happening. Because Mr. Lundahl told us nothing about who Bishop Challoner was in Lundahl (2022a), how would I have known that this quotation was about 300 years old?

Lundahl (2022h) continues:

Henke (2022b) states: “…or part of a joke in a sermon.”

Lundahl (2022h) then replies:

“Henke seriously has no clue of how un-universal his feeling of ridicule for the angel vocalising for the ass is. What is common sense to St. Thomas Aquinas or Bishop Challoner is to Kevin R. Henke so little comprehensible that he suggests it could be "part of a joke in a sermon" - it leaves me flabberghasted as to his lack of effective reading skills. Outside the kind of very modern production (including no doubt also comic books, but in the case he want's to shoehorn me into, modern academic papers) which is his daily fare of words.”

Again, until Lundahl (2022h) finally gave us his Challoner reference, most of us probably would not have known anything about Bishop Challoner or the source of the Challoner quotation in Lundahl (2022a). Actually, Mr. Lundahl should be “flabberghasted” [sic, flabbergasted] with his horrible writing and referencing, and how he fails to consider the needs of our readers. He needs to provide reliable information rather than relying on the opinions of someone from 300 years ago on a Bible story that has no evidence of ever happening. Again, Mr. Lundahl (2022a) started this mess because he is unwilling to properly cite his references and use bibliographies. Yes, bishops and other clergy do tell jokes in sermons to keep the audience’s attention. And considering the conspiratorial nonsense possibly involving the old Soviet KGB from the links that Mr. Lundahl cites in Lundahl (2022f), I considered the possibility that Mr. Lundahl misinterpreted a joke in a sermon. Also, I can read English very well, Mr. Lundahl, but no one is going to have an easy effort trying to decipher your rants.

After posting Lundahl (2022h), Mr. Lundahl in his May 17, 2022 (12:41 US Eastern Time) email makes more excuses for his omission. He just expects his readers to figure out that Bishop Challoner is a Roman Catholic Bible commenter:

“While it is true a non-Catholic might not have known who Bishop Challoner was, a non-Catholic with more in common with me would have seen from the verse number identic to a Bible verse containing words identical to those quoted that Bishop Challoner was a Bible commenter.”

“He would then probably have proceeded to actually look him up. He might then politely have suggested I add a link to the Bible page containing Numbers 22 with some comments by Challoner, as it would have clarified things.”

But, why should Mr. Lundahl expect his readers to hunt down his references or try to contact him for more information on his sources? Why should he expect a reader of Lundahl (2022a) to search for a link to Bishop Challoner’s comments that is hidden in Lundahl (2022h)? Readers might even begin to wonder if Mr. Lundahl is trying to hide something by not fully identifying his sources. It’s the authors’ responsibility to provide complete references for all of their quotations.

Then, Mr. Lundahl in his May 16 (6:40 AM US Eastern time) email had the gall to expect me to explain to our readers who Bishop Challoner is/was for him when I supposedly revise Henke (2022b):

“You can remake your essay [Henke 2022b] and call it "round two version bis" (we obviously keep the essays as they stand but call it "interlude" or "skirmish before round two") instead of "b" and in it you can delete references to your own incompetence as a reader as well (legitimate concerns as who Bishop Challener was can be adressed [sic, spelling] like "I had no clue who bishop Challoner was, but as HGL explained in the interlude, it was the Catholic commenter on the Bible text" or words to similar effect) as most obviously the wrong reading order for my essays.” [my emphasis]

Notice that in this paragraph, he spells the Bishop’s name two different ways. How would that help anyone track down who he is/was?

Finally, no thanks, Mr. Lundahl. I will not help you clean up your mess. Do your own referencing and do it properly, promptly, and responsibly. You created yet another mess with your lack of referencing, now you deal with it.