Lundahl (2022t) Continues to Take the Wrong Approach towards Oral Traditions and Exodus
Kevin R. Henke
October 26, 2022
In Henke (2022bh) and Henke (2022b), I stated the following:
“Mr. Lundahl fails to realize that ancient histories by themselves cannot be trusted, especially if they were written centuries or millennia after the supposed event that they are describing or if the documents are copies of copies of copies of copies... and not the originals Even if an ancient history happens to be an original copy describing an event that occurred at the time that the document was written, unless a claim in an ancient history is confirmed with independent external evidence, either in another manuscript or from archeology, there’s no reason to accept it as reliable history. There’s a big difference between an historical claim and a reliable historical claim.” [my original emphasis in italics; my emphasis in bold]
Lundahl (2022t) then comments on my bolded phrase:
“If there are earlier or otherwise more reliable versions, I will tend to prefer them. I still prefer a text written after 1000 years of oral tradition or (between event and Exodus) 3689 years of at least partially oral tradition, over a reconstruction from no text at all.”
Although the earliest text is usually more reliable, without external evidence, there’s no reason to think that the original story was reliable at all. There’s also no reason to trust any account involving oral tradition (Neisser and Harsch 1992; Dennett 2006, pp. 141-151; Henke 2022bx; Henke 2022b). Furthermore, Mr. Lundahl assumes that the Exodus actually happened despite the total lack of evidential support (e.g., Finkelstein and Silberman 2001).
References:
Dennett, D.C. 2006. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon: Viking Penguin: London, UK, 448pp.
Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts: The Free Press: New York, USA, 385pp.
Neisser, U. and N. Harsch. 1992. “Phantom flashbulbs: False Recollections of Hearing the News about Challenger” in E. Winograd and U. Neisser (eds.), Affect and Accuracy in Recall: Studies of "Flashbulb" Memories, Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–31.