St. George and the Dragon: Any Evidence that Any of This is History? Mr. Lundahl’s Continuing Erroneous Approach to Studying the Past
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).
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. George and the dragon, which is #2 on the list in Jimenez (2014):
2) St. George ...
Jimenez (2014) says:
‘Pope Gelasius admitted that George is one of those saints “whose actions are known only to God.” He is so shrouded in legend that some people believe he never existed at all or is just a Christianized version of an older, pagan myth.’
In fact, the version with the dragon is not given in the Roman martyrology, and believing as I do that dinosaurs were on the Ark, both St. George killing the dragon and Perseus killing another one and Beowulf and Siegfried killing two more such seems legitimate to me. But it is not essential to the story.
23 Aprilis Natalis sancti Georgii Martyris, cujus illustre martyrium inter Martyrum coronas Ecclesia Dei veneratur.
Birthday (meaning heavenly birthday, death to the body, soul going directly to heaven same day and not passing through unknown time in purgatory) of holy martyr George, whose illustrious martyrdom the Church of God venerates among the Crowns of martyrs.
Pope Gelasius said his deeds were known only to God, not that his sufferings were so. He also lived near 200 years after St. George.
So, Catholics venerate him, so do Orthodox who broke off in 1053 - George the Trophy-bearer, so do Copts who broke off against Chalcedon, St. George the Prince of Martyrs (Parmoute 23rd) is also known as St. George of Cappadocia, a city in modern-day Turkey. Of all the saints named George, he is the most known. So do presumably Armenians : The Armenian Apostolic Church of St. George and they also broke off against Chalrcedon, and so do Nestorians, who broke off already against Ephesus:
There is but one church at Asheetha, which is dedicated to Mar Gheorghees (S. George), a favourite saint among the Nestorians.
Wikisource, The Nestorians and their Rituals,
Volume 1 by George Percy Badger, Chapter 15
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Nestorians_and_their_Rituals/Volume_1/Chapter_15
No reason at all to not consider him historic. Btw, The Council of Chalcedon .... convened in the city of Chalcedon, Bithynia (modern day Kadikoy, Turkey) from 8 October to 1 November 451 AD. And the Council of Ephesus was a council of Christian bishops convened in Ephesus (near present-day Selçuk in Turkey) in AD 431. Since he died in 303, this means he was honoured by all Christians within 128 years. A good reason to believe him historic.
Contrary to the beliefs expressed in Lundahl (2022n) and his worthless Hovind reference in Lundahl (2022a), there’s not a shred of evidence to support Noah’s Flood, that Medieval dragon stories actually involved dinosaurs or that dinosaurs could breathe fire (Siebert 2013; Henke 2022b; Henke 2022bc). Geology thoroughly refutes Flood geology (e.g., here).
Lundahl (2022n) also claims that the dragon is “not essential to the story” about St. George. No, this is incorrect. The dragon story most certainly is relevant. If the dragon story is a myth, which is very likely, then how can anyone trust what else is said about St. George, including that he even existed? Just because a lot of Christians honor St. George and a council came to believe that he existed 128 years or so after his death, that’s not good enough evidence that he ever existed. (By the way, at least some of the Nestorians, a group mentioned by Lundahl (2022n), were condemned as heretics by the Roman Catholic Church. As a conservative Roman Catholic, why would Mr. Lundahl want to trust what they said?)
“Heretical” Gnosticism and Marcionism in the name of Christ also arose within 128 years after the death of Jesus (Ehrman 2003). Does Mr. Lundahl accept their claims about Jesus or the Apostles? Granted, it may be possible that St. George actually lived and that the dragon myth was added later as Jimenez (2014) suggests. Nevertheless, we still need to find good evidence to verify the existence of St. George. Currently, we simply don’t have enough evidence to claim that he existed.
Once more, Lundahl (2022n) is approaching history in the totally wrong way. Instead of saying that there’s “no reason at all” to not consider St. George historic, Mr. Lundahl should be asking if there’s any good evidence that St. George ever existed? Considering how quickly false stories and rumors can spread and be believed (e.g., Hill 2014; Senter 2019; Henke 2022b, Henke 2022eo), 128 years is more than enough time to explain how false information involving St. George could arise.
References:
Ehrman, B.D. 2003. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew: Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 294pp.
Hill, S. 2014. “Prehistoric Survivors? They are Really Most Sincerely Dead, Skeptical Inquirer, https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/prehistoric-survivors-they-are-really-most-sincerely-dead/ (accessed July 26, 2022).
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).
Siebert, E. 2013. “Monsters and Dragons and Dinosaurs: Oh My: Creationist Interpretations of Beowulf”, Skeptical Inquirer, v. 37, n. 1.
Senter, P.J. 2019. Fire-Breathing Dinosaurs? The Hilarious History of Creationist Pseudoscience at Its Silliest: Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 211pp.