Good Confirmation is Needed for Claims About the Past. We Shouldn’t Trust What People Say About Their “Histories” and “Scriptures”
Kevin R. Henke
November 25, 2022
In Henke 2022br2, I made the following statements:
“Lundahl (2022L) then comments on my bolded and italicized claims in Henke (2022b):
“This involves two things, from my perspective, as I disagree with the first, and agree with the second, with a qualification:
(1) 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.
This is where I diagree, and which would make Alexander's carreere unknowable. And lots of other things.
(2) There’s a big difference between an historical claim and a reliable historical claim.
Indeed. but the difference is bigger between any historical claim and straightforward fiction. This is key to my argument.
The rest actually is a padding on the routine token methodology of historians (dealing with ancient history).”
Once more, our readers have to endure Mr. Lundahl’s irrational stubbornness just because he won’t use a spell checker and modern spelling. Nevertheless, on point (1), Lundahl (2022L) is failing to realize that it’s more important to have a few historical accounts that are known to be reliable than blindly accepting a large number of claims in old manuscripts about Alexander the Great, Moses and other characters that could be either historical or imaginary. Quality of information is more important than quantity of information when it comes to history and most other disciplines. If someone claims that he has enough information to write three history books, but if none of that information has been confirmed with external evidence, then his books are not histories, but nothing more than large collections of unverified rumors and stories.
As I explained in Henke (2022b), archeology is very important in confirming the reliability of ancient written accounts and the written accounts can provide important insights into archeological discoveries and even tell archeologists where to look for possible evidence. Lundahl (2022L) is telling his readers to just blindly believe whatever the Bible or even accounts about Alexander the Great tell them. Because any document may contain lies and misinterpretations among authentic historical accounts, Mr. Lundahl’s approach to understanding the past is totally irrational and sloppy.
On point (2), I certainly see a huge difference between the archeologically confirmed history of Alexander the Great as I discussed in Henke (2022b) and the silly cartoon and probable fictional story of Genesis 3. Nevertheless, sometimes authors deliberately write fictional stories to make them look as realistic as possible. They do such a good job that many of their readers are mistakenly convinced that these novels are factual, such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin or The DaVinci Code. Uncle Tom’s Cabin was such a realistic work of fiction that it had a huge impact on changing attitudes towards slavery. Also, both secularists and conservative Christians have written extensive rebuttals to the commonly held myth that The DaVinci Code is history (e.g., Price 2005). Contrary to Mr. Lundahl’s “earliest known audience” charade, sometimes novels can be so realistic that they spur people to social justice or mislead them. Lundahl (2022L) needs to be far more careful in separating out what is probably history from what is likely fiction.” [italics original; my emphasis in bold]
Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022x) then replies to my bolded statement:
“Key : has been confirmed. If the people who accepted the book as a piece of history back then had such external evidence, that is good enough for me, even if it is lost. One such major external evidence being at least some prior knowledge to the events of the text. You know, the factor actually lacking with the Book of Mormon, because it isn't and never was as far as we know any normal history, but has been, since first audience both believers and disbelievers, "lost and spectacularily recovered history" - a gold mine for fraudsters, or at best unconscious frauds, like Joseph Smith and Finkelstein.”
How does Mr. Lundahl know that any lost “external evidence” from back then actually existed and was any good? Mr. Lundahl’s “standards” for accepting what is history are abysmal and susceptible to gullibility. The disastrous results of his approach can be readily seen in how he refused to read any of my recommended peer-reviewed references on the William Tell fable and how he too readily in Lundahl (2022n) accepted this fable as “history” (Henke 2022ek). Yes, the Book of Mormon is a fraud. However, as I repeatedly stated (e.g., Henke 2022bL), the Mormons claim that the “recovered history” in the Book of Mormon is more reliable than the human-fallible copying of copies of copies of copies… that produced the Bible.
The evidence is strong that Joseph Smith Jr, was a fraudster (e.g., Fitzgerald 2013). However, Mr. Lundahl’s horrible accusation in Lundahl (2022x) that archeologist Dr. Finkelstein, the author of Finkelstein and Silberman (2001), is a “fraud” is juvenile and nothing more than libel. I’ll deal with this groundless accusation in Henke (2022Lr).
References:
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.
Fitzgerald, D. 2013. The Complete Heretic’s Guide to Western Religion Book One: The Mormons, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 336 pp.
Price, R.M. 2005. The Da Vinci Fraud: Why the Truth is Stranger than Fiction: Prometheus: Amherst, New York, USA, 296pp.