Mr. Lundahl Fails to Deal With Hypotheses #3 and #4 by Demonstrating Hypothesis #1 is More Probable As Part of His Burden of Evidence
Kevin R. Henke
November 25, 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 Henke (2022bq), 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]
In my previous essays, Henke (2022Lj) through Henke (2022Ln), I responded to Mr. Lundahl’s (2022x) comments on some of my statements in the above quotation from Henke (2022bq). Now, notice in the following quotation from Lundahl (2022x) that Mr. Lundahl only quotes the first portion of my bolded sentence before responding to it in red:
Henke (2022bq): ‘Even if Mr. Lundahl eventually manages to dismiss Hypothesis #3 as a likely explanation for Genesis 3, he still has to dismiss Hypothesis #4…’
“For #3, the process is only shown in the margins of otherwise good fact. For #4, Mr. Henke has failed to provide a credible modus operandi for the deceiver.”
As usual, Mr. Lundahl fails to responsibly promote Hypothesis #1 of Henke (2022a; 2022b) with good external evidence. Furthermore, not only does he fail to demonstrate that Hypothesis #1 is superior to Hypotheses #3 and #4, but Mr. Lundahl also fails to demonstrate that Hypothesis #1 is any better than Hypothesis #2.
The St. Philomena Hoax is a good example of Hypothesis #4 (people believing that fictional stories or “prophecies” actually happened) (Henke 2022es). As stated in Henke (2022ek), the William Tell story is a good example of Hypothesis #3 (people misinterpreting fiction as history). As can be seen with the William Tell fable and similar stories, Hypothesis #3 is not “in the margins of otherwise good fact”, but it is a common explanation for why many people believe that works of fiction, misinterpretations and false rumors are “fact.” Furthermore, I don’t need to demonstrate either Hypothesis #3 or #4. These hypotheses are the default explanations for the origin of Genesis 3 because they are the most probable explanations considering that human lies and misinterpretations are very common, but there’s no evidence whatsoever that angels, demons, a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees ever existed.
So, Mr. Lundahl has the burden of evidence to demonstrate that Hypothesis #1 in Henke (2022a; 2022b) is the best solution to the origin of Genesis 3. He has utterly failed to do so. If he had been successful, then alternative Hypotheses #2-#4 would have been refuted as far less probable.