St. Eustace: History, Fable, or Uncertain? More Outdated Non-Answers from Lundahl (2022n)
Kevin R. Henke
September 15, 2022
In Henke (2022a), I list four hypotheses to explain the Talking Snake story of Genesis 3. Hypothesis #3 compares the Talking Snake story to an ancient work of fiction or a “campfire story” that was mistakenly taken by the ancient Israelites as being real. I also linked to a webarticle by Jimenez (2014), which argues that some Roman Catholic saints are likely examples of works of fiction that were eventually taken as being true. Here is the relevant section from Hypothesis #3 from Henke (2022a):
3. The Talking Snake of Genesis 3 was part of a made-up campfire story, a parable or based on a pagan myth that eventually was taken as fact by the ancient Israelites, like how President Reagan and his fans mistook fictional stories from World War 2 as real. William Tell (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-search-of-william-tell-2198511/ ) and a number of Roman Catholic saints (https://listverse.com/2014/05/17/10-beloved-saints-with-fictitious-biographies/ ) are probably also myths.
Lundahl (2022c) then responded to this section from Henke (2022a):
“Modern scholars dispute the historicity of William Tell and Protestant scholars dispute that of lots of Catholic saints (and the modern scholars you provide are culturally Protestant. I may take up separate posts when trying to deal with these links, but Smithsonian Mag is not my best academic resource for European History of the Middle Ages and Listverse is trusted when providing lists, but not quite as trusted with backing up each detail on each list with good scholarship.”
This statement is from an individual that relies on Wikipedia (e.g., Lundahl 2022d; Lundahl 2022o), deliberately avoids using the actual peer-reviewed references that I give him, and shuns providing bibliographies (e.g., Henke 2022at; Henke 2022e). Mr. Lundahl knows nothing about good scholarship.
In Henke (2022b), I replied to Lundahl (2022c):
“In my discussions of Hypothesis #3 in Henke (2022a), I mentioned that stories about William Tell and some Roman Catholic Saints are additional examples of works of fiction that are now widely misinterpreted as historical fact. I linked to the following webarticles:
In Search of William Tell (Robert Wernick, Smithsonian Magazine)
Listverse: 10 Beloved Saints the Church Just Made Up by Larry Jimenez and fact checked by Jamie Frater.
Lundahl (2022c) complains about the reliability of my references (Smithsonian Magazine and Listverse). He also states that he may give a separate response on these topics later.
Granted, my preliminary links on William Tell and some of the Roman Catholic saints were not articles from peer-reviewed journals. They simply provided some background information on how these individuals were probably not historical. Nevertheless, Mr. Lundahl could consult Jean-François Bergier’s Guillaume Tell (1988), which is mentioned in the Smithsonian Magazine article, if he did not like the summary in the article. The Listverse article on the Catholic saints also contains links with additional information and documentation. Nevertheless, here’s a journal article that discusses more about the origin of William Tell:
Hughes, S.C. 2012. “The Limits of Cultural Nationalism: Italian Switzerland from a Risorgimento Perspective”, Nations and Nationalism, v. 18, n. 1, pp. 57-77.”
I further discuss the William Tell story in Henke (2022ek). In this essay, I reply to comments in Lundahl (2022n) about another one of the ten Roman Catholic saints discussed in Jimenez (2014) and how he might not have ever existed. Of course, Mr. Lundahl, being a conservative Roman Catholic, does not like any Bible stories and probably not any Roman Catholic saints being identified as likely myths. Lundahl (2022n) then attempts to defend the authenticity of the stories about the ten questionable saints identified in Jimenez (2014).
Lundahl (2022n) provides the following comments on St. Eustace (or Eustachius), which is #3 on the list in Jimenez (2014):
“3) St. Eustace (or Eustachius) ...
Jimenez (2014) states:
‘However, the Martyrologium Romanum has dubbed him “completely fabulous,” referring to his story’s authenticity, not his style of dress.’
Checking, september 20th ...
Romae passio sanctorum Martyrum Eustachii et Theopistis uxoris, cum duobus filiis Agapito et Theopisto, qui, sub Hadriano Imperatore, damnati ad bestias, sed Dei ope ab iis nullatenus laesi, tandem, in bovem aeneum candentem inclusi, martyrium consummarunt.
Translation by Lundahl (2022n):
‘In Rome, passion of the holy martyrs Eustachius and his wife Theopistis (or Godfaith), with their two sons Agapitus and Theopistus (also Godfaith, but in masculine version), who, under Emperor Hadrian, condemned to (be eaten by) the beasts, but by God's assistance not the least hurt by them, at last, shut into a brass bull glowing hot, fulfilled their martyrdom.’
It says nothing of "completely fabulous" in the Roman Martyrology that I accept, the reference is probably to some production of 1969 by people too cowed down by modern scholarship (why don't they try tea leaves?).”
The feast day for St. Eustace is September 20. The link (“The Saint Who Never Was” 2013 by kateshrewsday) cited by Jimenez (2014) uses the Martyrologium Romanum Libreria Editrice Vaticana edition from 2001. Mr. Lundahl’s preferred version is apparently from MDCCXLIX or 1749. Perhaps, Mr. Lundahl’s version is outdated and does not comply with the most recent research on St. Eustace. Instead of just dismissing modern scholarship on St. Eustace or other Roman Catholic saints as the equivalent of “reading tea leaves”, Mr. Lundahl should investigate the 21st century claims on the saints rather than just believing whatever a 1749 book and other old Roman Catholic documents happen to say about them. If Mr. Lundahl does not find the website used by Jimenez (2014), that is, “The Saint Who Never Was” (2013), to contain enough details, there’s always more detailed articles, such as Arzhantseva (2011-2012). In some ways, the story of St. Eustace is similar to Job’s, where an individual remains faithful under suffering, except that Eustace’s story does not have a happy ending.
Again, it’s possible that St. Eustace actually lived, but Mr. Lundahl should be relying on 21st historical and archeological research to confirm his existence. It’s more likely than not that a book from 1749 is hopelessly outdated and that modern scholarship is better. Mr. Lundahl’s approach to history is no better than reading tea leaves.
References:
Arzhantseva, I. 2011-2012. “The Cult of Saint Eustace in the Northern Caucasus” Nāme-ya Irān-e Bāstān, v. 11, n. 2, pp. 1-12.
Jimenez, L. 2014. “10 Beloved Saints The Church Just Made Up”, Listverse, https://listverse.com/2014/05/17/10-beloved-saints-with-fictitious-biographies/ (accessed July 25, 2022).