Henke 2022jt

The “Earliest Known Audience” Scam is Neither Good Nor a Proof

Kevin R. Henke

November 6, 2022

In Henke (2022bi), I made the following statements:

“Previously, I discussed the alchemy stories associated with Theophrastus Paracelsus in Henke (2022b) and Henke (2022bg). Lundahl (2022k) then makes some additional comments about Paracelsus and the Enlightenment:

“I do not need to believe Paracelsus had an actual contract with the devil, since that could be a misunderstanding on the part of his contemporaries, just as Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II, if I recall correctly) was considered as having made such a contract, because he was exceptionally using some not commonly used mathematical algorithms, probably no more diabolic than long division.

That there is in the Enlightenment era a story about his changing a copper penny into gold doesn't break this, since the Enlightenment era was (like Henke) obnoxiously negligent of distinctions about historicity and generally started to believe legends were a sort of fiction, to which one could obviously add.

However, it could be that the Küssdenpfennig legend should actually be classified as fake history (rather than entertaining fiction) : the owners of that house wanting to obliterate a memory of stingy rich people who "kissed each penny" like Uncle Scrooge, by claiming (falsely) it came from a "near miracle" by Paracelsus, done to sympathetic poor people.”

In this case, I at least agree with Lundahl (2022k) that there is no rational reason to believe any of these stories about Paracelsus or others having contracts with the devil. However, I’m the skeptic in this debate. It’s Mr. Lundahl that cannot separate cartoonish delusions (e.g., Genesis 3) from reality (e.g., an ancient Earth). I also do not automatically believe any story coming out of the Enlightenment. All stories must be verified with evidence, no matter if they are in today’s New York Times, recorded in the Enlightenment or found in the Bible. As I state in Henke (2022b), Henke (2022dv) and Henke (2022eu), the first reaction to any claim should be skepticism. Skepticism is the default position. This is why good evidence should always accompany a new claim. If the purveyors of a claim simply promise to provide evidence later or if they claim that large numbers of people already accept it as fact or that the “earliest known audience” believed it, it’s wise not to accept the claim until reliable evidence comes forward.”

Lundahl (2022v) then comments on my bolded statement:

“Yes, and "earliest known audience" is a good proof, not directly for total factuality (misunderstandings and lies do occur), but for historicity as opposed to deliberate fiction being the original status of the story.”

No. As I demonstrated many times in this debate, Mr. Lundahl’s “earliest known audience” scam is neither good nor a proof. No amount of Mr. Lundahl repeating this baseless claim will change the fact that his scheme didn’t work with the William Tell story (Henke 2022ek), the St. Philomena Hoax (Henke 2022es), Russian propaganda about Ukraine, and the widespread, but mistaken belief, that Trump won the 2020 Presidential Election (Henke 2022cc). Mr. Lundahl has to come up with a better strategy to demonstrate (NOT PROVE!!) that Genesis 3 actually happened. So far, he has failed to do so.

As I’ve stated many times before, “proof” means absolute certainty and that can’t be achieved when evaluating past events (Henke 2022ad; Henke 2022jf; Albert 1986). I agree that no history is infallible. Even the best documented histories are likely to contain errors (Henke 2022bh). Nevertheless, Mr. Lundahl fails to realize that sometimes works of fiction are cleverly disguised as “histories” (e.g., the New Testament Gospels; Carrier 2014, pp. 387-509). These false histories can fool large numbers of people over the centuries or even millennia. Mr. Lundahl finally needs to come up with a strategy involving the use of good evidence to separate history from fiction.

References:

Albert, L.H. 1986. “’Scientific’ Creationism as a Pseudoscience”, Creation/Evolution Journal, v. 6, no. 2, pp. 25-34.

Carrier, R. 2014. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield, UK, 696pp.