St. Christopher: History or Fiction?
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. Christopher, which is #1 on the list in Jimenez (2014):
“1) St. Christopher
I thought he was coming, like one of the crew "put out of job" as intercessors, if the new things in 1969 were valid, which they weren't.
The reasons given are, a) his story is a spiritual parable, b) an anonymous Christian martyr got it attached. Well, if that is so, this "anonymous" Christian martyr (but "delante de Dios, nunca serás heróe anónimo") is interceding for the people invoking St. Christopher. But no real reason is given to believe it did not happen.”
Lundahl (2022n) again shows off his Latin abilities:
"delante de Dios, nunca serás heróe anónimo" = Before God, you will never be an anonymous hero
As seen in Lundahl (2022n), Mr. Lundahl has a huge bias against the changes that were made in the Roman Catholic Church in 1969 after Vatican II and other reforms. Instead of just blanketly condemning these various changes, Mr. Lundahl should look at the evidence on a case-by-case basis, and try to understand why the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is now becoming more skeptical of some of their old far-fetched stories, like the ones about St. Christopher. Maybe they’re right to be skeptical. Furthermore, Lundahl (2022n) is just assuming that St. Christopher exists and is doing intercession. He provides no evidence that St. Christopher or any other dead individual is doing any intercession for anyone.
Because it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to demonstrate a negative hypothesis by providing real reasons that something did not happen or that someone did not exist, Mr. Lundahl needs to finally realize that he has the burden of evidence to demonstrate that St. Christopher actually existed and intercedes for people. Until he provides that evidence, people, including some of his fellow Roman Catholics, have every right to be skeptical about the very existence of St. Christopher.
References:
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).