Mr. Lundahl Needs to Read Better
Kevin R. Henke
November 26, 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:
Henke's lack of reading skills? Or downright dishonesty?
I said, and I am willing to defend:
· the knowledge we all think we have of Alexander the Great cannot be rationally gleaned from archaeology as such
· but can be directly gleaned from a certain number of texts, the oldest of which happens to be in the Bible.
As seen in my teaching and publication records, my English reading and writing skills are very good in various genres (Henke 2022aq; Henke 2022kh). I’m also very honest, as I demonstrated when I admitted my mistakes in Henke (2022s) and in the September 15, 2022 correction in Henke (2022b). It’s Mr. Lundahl that has the English reading and writing problems, including his unwillingness to read some pertinent archeology because it doesn’t support his religious dogmas (e.g., Finkelstein and Silberman 2001).
As I’ve repeatedly said, we need both the texts and confirmation from archeology and/or other external sources to determine the history of Alexander the Great and other individuals and events in the past. Marciak et al. (2020a) demonstrated that the ancient histories of Alexander the Great are sometimes unclear and contradictory, and archeology has been useful in answering important questions about him (see Henke 2022b for more details). Perhaps, if Mr. Lundahl actually carefully read my essays for once and the peer-reviewed science literature, he would finally gain respect for archeology and other sciences that successfully investigate the past.
Meanwhile, archeologists Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) have demonstrated that much of the Old Testament cannot be trusted and Carrier (2014) has shown that a lot of the New Testament is fiction or otherwise unreliable. In contrast, Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022k) not only claims that Genesis 3 is history, he irrationally believes that the verses are inerrant (Henke 2022bm). Neither position has a shred of evidential support.
Reference:
Carrier, R. 2014. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield, UK, 696pp.
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.
Marciak, M., M. Sobiech and T. Pirowski. 2020a. “Alexander the Great’s Route to Gaugamela and Arbela” Klio, v. 102, n. 2, pp. 536-559. Also: Marciak, M., M. Sobiech and T. Pirowski. 2020b. “Erratum: Alexander the Great’s Route to Gaugamela and Arbela” Klio, v. 103, n. 1, p. 408. The erratum deals with acknowledgements and the authors’ affiliations, and is not important to the arguments of the text.