Lundahl (2022o) is Ineffective in Distinguishing the Genre of Bible Stories
Kevin R. Henke
September 15, 2022; Footnote added on November 25, 2022
In Henke (2022a), I proposed four hypotheses to explain the origin of the Talking Snake story in Genesis 3. They are:
1. The Talking Snake existed and the account in Genesis 3 was accurately passed down by Adam to Moses. Moses then wrote it down in Genesis. There would have been no human eyewitnesses for most of the events in Genesis 1-2:14. If Genesis 1-2:14 is history, God would have to have given the information in these verses as visions.
2. Moses saw Genesis 1-3 and perhaps most or even all of everything else in Genesis through visions given by God. There didn’t need to be a continuous human transmission of information from Adam to Moses. Visions from God would not be open to errors unlike written or oral transmissions from Adam to Moses.
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. Of course, in the United States, pro-abortionists regularly use fictional TV shows to convince Americans that abortion is a good thing. Even though they are fiction, many people believe the propaganda. Right now, a lot of Russians are believing the fictional propaganda their government is inventing about Ukraine. People also often pick and choose parts of fictional stories that they want to believe and ignore the rest, such as individuals believing in the existence of “The Force” from the Star Wars movies, while recognizing that the rest of the movies are fiction. A lot of people are gullible and believe fictions are real.
4. “Prophets” or others claimed to have visions from God about events that supposedly happened thousands of years earlier. These visions were delusions or outright lies, but a lot of people came to believe them. Joseph Smith also did this and Kat Kerr continues with this nonsense in the US.
As a conservative Roman Catholic, Lundahl (2022c) prefers Hypothesis #1. As I further discussed in Henke (2022b), other conservative Christians or Orthodox Jews might prefer Hypothesis #2 as an explanation of how Moses obtained information on Genesis 3 and perhaps all of Genesis. As a secularist, I think that either Hypotheses #3 or #4 are far more probable. In Henke (2022b), Henke (2022bh), Henke (2022dL), Henke (2022ee), Henke (2022ej) and my other essays, I responded to Mr. Lundahl’s defense of Hypothesis #1 in Lundahl (2022c) and his subsequent essays.
Lundahl (2022c) also criticizes Hypotheses #2 through #4. In Henke (2022b), I further commented on Hypothesis #2 and how Lundahl (2022c) unfavorably reacted to it:
“Hypothesis #2 is a potential explanation that some conservative Christians and Orthodox Jews might embrace instead of Hypothesis #1. Lundahl (2022c) does not like Hypothesis #2. Obviously, any extensive visions of Genesis in Hypothesis #2 sound too much like the lying visions given by Joseph Smith Jr. or the delusions of “prophets” like Kat Kerr, and Mr. Lundahl does not want Genesis to be based on false claims of visions like the Book of Mormon or the Candy Land in Heaven promoted by Kat Kerr (Knox 2021). Lundahl (2022c) even admits this when he denigrates Hypothesis #2 as a “parody” and “ideally suited for those not believing it.” In other words, he admits that Hypothesis #2 allows supporters of Hypotheses #3 and #4 to argue that Genesis is based on false claims of visions just like the Book of Mormon.”
In response to this paragraph from Henke (2022b), Lundahl (2022o) further tries to demonstrate that Genesis and, in particular Genesis 3, is actually a human-transmitted history rather than a series of visions from God (Hypothesis #2) or a myth (Hypotheses #3 and #4). He first tries to eliminate Hypothesis #2 by arguing that Genesis reads more like a history rather than the result of visions:
“Indeed. There is very little Biblical history that is based on prophecy, part being Daniel, part being certain chapters of Apocalypse, and as such upcoming, and part being Genesis 1:1 to 2:4.
But this is not all.
· Genesis 12 to 50 reads very much like a chronicled family saga. Also, final generations of that one is not very far back from Moses himself (see Exodus 6).
· Genesis 2:5 to 11:32 reads like short snippets learned by heart.
It doesn't seem like the kind of thing a visionary would get, either by hearing or by sight. Or feign to have gotten that way.”
Yet, as discussed in Henke (2022es), Lundahl (2022n) fully accepts the story of St. Philomena. The detailed “life story” of St. Philomena with its dates, people, and other details supposedly from centuries ago solely came from the “visions” of a 19th century nun. Now, if a 19th century nun could make up a detailed biography of a girl that probably never existed and have that biography widely accepted by millions of people in the Roman Catholic Church, why couldn’t an ancient Israelite priest make up a story about Adam or Moses and have those stories widely accepted by millions of people? Conservative Christians often complain that no Q or JEPD manuscripts have ever been found. They also complain that there’s no evidence of the Mormon’s golden plates. They have a point. No manuscript copies of these hypothetical documents have ever been found. However, where is the evidence that Moses ever had any documents describing the events of Genesis as promoted in Hypothesis #1?
Notice, that Lundahl (2022o) gives two very subjective opinions on the genre of Genesis when he states that “Genesis 12 to 50 reads very much like a chronicled family saga” and that “Genesis 2:5 to 11:32 reads like short snippets learned by heart” [my emphasis]. Well, when I read Genesis, I don’t see history at all, and unlike Lundahl (2022o), I have biological and other evidence to support my interpretations. Instead of history, others and I see a lot of silly myths in Genesis that have no basis in reality. Because talking snakes and magic fruit are not known to exist, Genesis 3 reads like a bad Walt Disney or Warner Brothers cartoon. The account of angels and people breeding to produce the Nephilim (Genesis 6:1-4) is also unbelievable. Where is the evidence that angels even exist and that they are capable of breeding with humans? For anyone that breeds livestock, Genesis 30:31-43 is exceptionally silly (World English Bible):
“Jacob said, “You shall not give me anything. If you will do this thing for me, I will again feed your flock and keep it. 32 I will pass through all your flock today, removing from there every speckled and spotted one, and every black one among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats. This will be my hire. 33 So my righteousness will answer for me hereafter, when you come concerning my hire that is before you. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and black among the sheep, that might be with me, will be considered stolen.34 Laban said, “Behold, let it be according to your word.35 That day, he removed the male goats that were streaked and spotted, and all the female goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the black ones among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons. 36 He set three days’ journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob fed the rest of Laban’s flocks.37 Jacob took to himself rods of fresh poplar, almond, and plane tree, peeled white streaks in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. 38 He set the rods which he had peeled opposite the flocks in the watering troughs where the flocks came to drink. They conceived when they came to drink. 39 The flocks conceived before the rods, and the flocks produced streaked, speckled, and spotted. 40 Jacob separated the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the streaked and all the black in Laban’s flock. He put his own droves apart, and didn’t put them into Laban’s flock. 41 Whenever the stronger of the flock conceived, Jacob laid the rods in front of the eyes of the flock in the watering troughs, that they might conceive among the rods; 42 but when the flock were feeble, he didn’t put them in. So the feebler were Laban’s, and the stronger Jacob’s. 43 The man increased exceedingly, and had large flocks, female servants and male servants, and camels and donkeys.”
Of course, as a geologist, the Flood story is also incompatible with the geologic record (Strahler 1999) and reads like a fairy tale.
Lundahl (2022o) also claims that the final generations mentioned in Genesis are “…not very far back from Moses himself (see Exodus 6).” Considering that Moses was supposedly adopted by Pharoah’s daughter as an infant (Exodus 2:1-10), Mr. Lundahl needs to explain to advocates of Hypothesis #2 how Moses ever knew that Aaron was his brother or other details about his family history unless God told him.* Of course, from the perspectives of Hypotheses #3 and #4, the whole Moses story in Exodus through Deuteronomy was probably just made up and/or taken from earlier myths.
*It turns out that Moses’ sister supposedly saw Pharoah’s daughter take Moses (Exodus 2:4). If this event ever happened, it could explain how Moses knew that Aaron was his brother.
Reference:
Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: 2nd ed., Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 552 pp.