Hypotheses #3 and #4 are Still Far More Probable than Genesis 3 Actually Being History
Kevin R. Henke
November 23, 2022
Lundahl (2022x) extensively discusses my essay, Henke (2022bq): “Mr. Lundahl Still Fails to Respond to Secular Hypotheses #3 and #4, which Rationally Explain the Origin of the Talking Snake Myth of Genesis 3.” In my essay, I stated the following:
“Again, point #8 mentions secular Hypotheses #3 and #4 from Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b), which explain the origin of the Talking Snake myth of Genesis 3. Lundahl (2022k) makes the following comments about point #8:
“I already refuted that claim, his hypotheses #3 and #4 basically involving a process where made up stories (comedy's like Menaechmi, novels like Apuleius' Golden Ass, comic books like Spiderman, fantasy novels like Lord of the Rings) for no reason at all get to be considered as historically transmitted arguably true stories.”
No. As I explained in Henke (2022b) and my other essays, Lundahl (2022c) and his other essays totally failed to refute Hypotheses #3 and #4. Also, in the above quotation from Lundahl (2022k) on point #8, Mr. Lundahl is totally confusing and improperly equating Hypothesis #4 with #3. In his paragraph, Lundahl (2022k) doesn’t realize that the two hypotheses have very different origins. As explained in Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b), Hypothesis #3 states that the Talking Snake story arose because a group of people misinterpreted a campfire story or another work of fiction and thought that the story actually happened. On a smaller scale, this was also seen in one of President Reagan’s speeches, where he and his staff mistook a work of fiction about WWII as an actual event (Henke 2022a; 2022b). Fortunately, President Reagan’s mistake was quickly caught by fact checkers in the media before it could spread and become widely believed as an urban legend. In ancient times, fast checking and the rebuttal of misinterpretations was not so efficient. As I explain in Henke (2022a; 2022b; 2022ek), there have always been cases where large groups of people have misinterpreted works of fiction as something that actually happened.
While Hypothesis #3 involves people making accidental misinterpretations, in Hypothesis #4 people are deliberately deceived with propaganda and other lies by influential people. That is, in Hypothesis #4, powerful religious and/or political leaders deliberately deceive a large number of people through oral or written transmissions (Henke 2022a; 2022b; 2022es). Currently, this type of deception is being seen in how a majority of Russians believe the propaganda from Putin’s government on how Russia is supposedly “liberating” Ukraine from NAZIs. Also, see Henke (2022cc) for discussions on how tens of millions of Americans currently believe the lies that President Trump actually won the 2020 election. The fantasy involving St. Philomena is another prime example of how Hypothesis #4 can occur (Henke 2022es). A delusional 19th century nun invents a biography about an early saint and the 19th century Roman Catholic Church, as well as Mr. Lundahl and some other current conservative Catholics, blindly accept and believe that the lies are real.
Even if Mr. Lundahl eventually manages to dismiss Hypothesis #3 as a likely explanation for Genesis 3, he still has to dismiss Hypothesis #4, find acceptable evidence for his preferred Hypothesis #1 and then demonstrate that it’s more likely than Hypothesis #2. So far, he has not succeeded in any of his lofty goals. All of his talk about “first known audiences” is worthless rhetoric.” [my emphasis]
Lundahl (2022x) initially responds to the bolded sentence from Henke (2022bq):
“A process not shown as active, other than at the very margins of well established fact.”
To fully comprehend what Hypothesis #3 in Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b) is actually saying, an individual needs to understand what a scientific hypothesis really is. Scientific hypotheses are proposed explanations. Initially, they may or may not have any supporting evidence. Scientific hypotheses are simply possibilities. After they are proposed, scientists attempt to test them and find evidence. Unfortunately, the evidence of who wrote Genesis 3 and when is long gone (e.g., Henke 2022kb). Mr. Lundahl’s appeals to tradition, the “historical” genre of Genesis and his “first known audience” scam are worthless in separating myths from history (Henke 2022Lg; Henke 2022Lc; Henke 2022iw; Henke 2022bh, Henke 2022cc, Henke 2022dn, Henke 2022ee, Henke 2022ek, Henke 2022fL, Henke 2022gc, Henke 2022gg, Henke 2022jt, Henke 2022ju). Nevertheless, the Hebrew textural evidence as explained in Finkelstein and Silberman (2001, pp. 10-24, 358-359) and their references indicate that multiple authors wrote the Pentateuch over a long period of time.
Because we have no evidence of who wrote Genesis 3 and when, how plausible are hypotheses #1-4 in Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b)? Is there any evidence for the existence of a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees? No. Is there any evidence for the existence of angels and demons? No!! Is there evidence that people lie or misinterpret past events? Yes, all the time! On just the basis of these facts alone, the idea that Genesis 3 resulted from lies or a work of fiction being misinterpreted and widely promoted as fact (hypotheses #3 and #4) is far more probable than the story actually being history (hypotheses #1 and #2). Mr. Lundahl fails to understand this.
Now, Henke (2022bq) and Henke (2022b) mention an account where President Reagan mistook a fictional WWII story as actually happening and Lundahl (2022x) discusses this story further. However, the case of William Tell is an even better example of Hypothesis #3, where a large number of Swiss citizens mistakenly took a likely Scandinavian fable as an historical account (Henke 2022ek).
Reference:
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.