Continued XXIX and On to XLVI

XXIX

Me to David Phillips Ph.D.,

Classical Studies, University of Michigan, 2000

2/21/2022 at 3:58 PM

Here is the debate to which I would love to invite either you or one of your students to continue with us

Correspondence with Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) and with Kevin R. Henke · Continued Correspondence with Kevin : XV - XXVIII

As explained in a mail also there (second link), my Greek studies were insufficient to correctly place Polybius in time. Hence the "fake news" about Hannibal no earlier sources than Livy./HGL

XXX

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/22/2022 at 1:44 AM

Re: And I missed the 1830 Tax Record

Hi Hans,

I hope that you get some needed rest. I love sugar too, especially chocolate. However, I have high blood sugar (not diabetic yet) and I should watch how much sugar I eat.

I appreciate your honesty about Hannibal. Again, we can discuss Hannibal later, if you wish. I don't understand the Swedish academic system that you mentioned in your previous email, but for now, it probably isn't critical. I hope that you can eventually finish your degree.

Again, we're getting off on the New Amsterdam/genealogy topic. Yet, I confess, I find it far more interesting than the Alexander the Great topic that I should be working on. As we can discuss later, the parish, marriage, real estate transactions, etc. records of my mom's Dutch ancestors are originals. The originals are often photocopied and the photocopies are released to the public. Depending on state regulations, people might also be able to personally inspect the originals if they're willing to travel to the archives. So, they're not handwritten copies of copies of copies of copies, etc. like the Medieval manuscripts. We are fortunate in the US not to have had extensive wars and many of our original records going back to the 17th century still exist.

You say: "Dutch genes exist independently on whether New Amsterdam existed or not. Your genealogy was known before your chromosomes were." Certainly, there was a good document trail hidden in various U.S. state and other archives before my cousins and I had our DNA analyzed and compared. However, the DNA was absolutely essential in allowing us to identify each other, compare our family trees, track down the right family documentation and it was an important confirmation that our documentation as a whole was correct. The point is, the DNA along with the documentation actually confirmed that these DNA sequences in our bodies were once in our ancestors in New Amsterdam. DNA analyses are also absolutely essential in confirming biological relationships that may not be correct on birth or adoption certificates. For example, there were rumors in my family going back over 100 years ago that my great aunt cheated on her husband and got pregnant from the farm hand. By checking the DNA of the descendants of the resulting child and the descendants of the husband, we confirmed that the dreadful rumor was false and that the husband was the father. As another example, I got a DNA match with an individual named Madeline. After checking her family tree and some documentation, I discovered that Madeline's great, great grandmother Dorothy supposedly married a Henke. After checking other documentation and most of all comparing the amount of matching DNA for Madeline and me, it was obvious that Dorothy was not an in-law of my Henke family, but my great grandfather Henke's older sister. I won't discuss it, but I think I know why Dorothy lied about the identities of her parents. So, both contemporary documentation and DNA are important in confirming genealogical relationships.

We may not be able to cross-examine the dead, but for individuals back to about the 17th century we can compare their original documents for consistency and get DNA matches from their other descendants. This is suitable forensic evidence. I accept that. You can't do that with the Genesis genealogies. You have no contemporary evidence of any kind that Moses even existed. Yes, there's no doubt that the ancient Hebrews and modern Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians sincerely believe that Moses existed, or as you say "the earliest known audience" believed in them. But, so what? What ancient people sincerely believed about people or events that supposedly occurred thousands of years before them is no evidence that their beliefs were real or their long held traditions were accurate history. People always want their ancestors to be great heroes that overcame great challenges possibly with the help of their gods, so they make up stories. As I've stated before, both modern and ancient people had all kinds of erroneous beliefs and long-held myths. We actually have to find some sort of contemporary evidence for Moses or Adam. Otherwise, the opinions of the "earlier known audience" are groundless and worthless speculation. This is especially true when the traditional beliefs involve magical creatures, like a Talking Snake. Again, both Eve and Joseph Smith claim to have seen magical creatures, where's the forensic evidence that we should believe either of these stories? At least, we know that Joseph Smith existed, we have no evidence whatsoever for Eve. A million sincere believers in the ancient Middle East can be absolutely wrong. Now, if we were to find some ancient contemporary tablet that indicated that Moses and several hundred thousand Israelites passed through Succoth, then great. We have evidence that Moses lived and he was a leader of the ancient Israelites. We can then take other statements in Exodus more seriously, like we do for 2 Kings. But, right now, you don't have any evidence for Adam or Moses, and just because people in the 1st century AD or some other early known audience believed that they were real, there is no reason at all that they actually existed.

At the time of my ten year discussion, the individual and I had no agreement to make our emails public. So, I'll keep them private. Because you weren't involved in our exchange, I've now changed my policy and I'm willing to release our emails to the public as I state on my website but only if you are willing. Obviously, I would delete your email address to protect your privacy, but I would expect that nothing else would be deleted and nothing inserted. All emails, no matter how brief and trivial, must be included. No additional commentaries should be added to the collection without the other knowing. Just all of the complete raw emails without your email address. Nevertheless, I don't think that very many people will be interested in wading through what could end up as thousands of pages of unedited emails.

Best

Kevin

XXXI

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/22/2022 at 1:45 AM

Re: a proposal : get in a qualified person in the field of Ancient History

No. Unless Dr. Phillips is an expert on the Talking Snake of Genesis 3 or has good evidence that the Talking Snake is actually Greek mythology, I have no interest in having another individual possibly provide more tangents and diversions. However, when we discuss Alexander the Great, if you need his help, feel free to consult with him and cite any relevant publications that he may have on the historical record of Alexander the Great.

Kevin

XXXII

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/22/2022 at 1:46 AM

Re: And I missed the 1830 Tax Record

No, Hans. I'm just asking you to stay on topic. If you have some direct evidence for the existence of a Talking Snake, I welcome your comments at any time and next month we'll discuss Alexander the Great. I just don' t want you skipping from topic to topic and introducing new topics all at once. Stay on topic. You'll have your chance to comment on New Amsterdam, dinosaurs, Hannibal etc. in the upcoming years, but not all once. Be patient.

Kevin

XXXIII

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/22/2022 at 2:37 AM

This Weekend

Hi Hans

I normally compose my emails during the day and send them out after 6pm Eastern time. I'm not going to email you from Thursday February 24, 6:00 pm Eastern US time to Monday, February 28, 6pm Eastern time. This will give you a quiet weekend to get some needed rest and allow me to make some needed progress on investigating Alexander the Great. If you email me on Thursday, I'll respond after 6pm on Monday, my time. Sound Ok?

Take care

Kevin

XXXIV

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/22/2022 at 1:52 PM

Re: This Weekend

Hello to you!

First, rest on a weekend is fine, but won't necessarily mean I get rest on Monday, and in fact sometimes the street I sleep is less quiet on the weekend.

Second, I have stated direct evidence, you have dismissed it, and I answer : then you'd have to dismiss lots more as well. The only way to get on with the discussion is discussing the lots more. So have you done, by introducing Joseph Smith. I haven't complained. Except that he is less apt a comparison than Alexander (or, not Hannibal but Brennus). I have no idea what could resolve this except a discussion of the lots more.

Third, I don't think my level is so bad I would regularly have to consult David Phillips at each step. I was inviting him mainly for an occasional correction (Hannibal was corrected bc I looked up the wiki article and Polybius resurfaced). And for the sake of your questions on my competence. I have not been studying at University since March 2004. I said for joke on my FB profile that I had "studied at Méjanne" - but that's a library - though a good one and one that has texts in Greek, like Photius Bibliographia. Hence my knowledge (on quite another debate) that if Photius did not per se believe angelic movers (of celestial bodies), it was still not a novel theory in the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, but one which had been discussed among Christians before Photius (who lived about 400 years earlier). I don't think completing a degree would add much to my competence, some bad habits (like sloppiness in references) are already too well set to change at a supplementary study. I am an essayist with some academic competence, not a full-blood academician.

Fourth, you are obviously welcome to mirror my publications or even to make a parallel documentation, and to link to it from your site, thanks for the clarification.

Fifth, enjoy the time off.

The one thing I'd like to answer even before you get time to see Alexander is, the data you can check with gene tests and documents are important for accuracy - not for your basic knowledge that your family's past in New Amsterdam is history rather than fiction. If you had had no "Dutch" genes, the ancestors from there could have been genetically atypical for Dutch ethnicity or they could have been your legal ancestors with some adoptions involved (though adoptions do tend to stay within ethnic group until recently). It would not have meant you had to reassess that ancestry as Spiderman and Menaechmi. Let's make clear that when I argue historicity rather than fiction from "first known audience took it as history" this does not mean necessarily complete accuracy. Was there a Battle at Ravenna at which Theoderic of Verona beat Ermaneric? Yes and no. There were two battles of Ravenna, Ermaneric was involved 100 years earlier than Theoderic. But the Battle of Ravenna is not a role playing game that Theoderic and Ermaneric played around a drink of wine. Battles in real historic fact is what gives battles in legend.

A historic account can be challenged - if there is specific reason for it. But the fact that fictions and frauds exist is as it happens not a specific reason.

Hans Georg Lundahl

XXXV

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/22/2022 at 2:51 PM

To think about before Alexander

Please wait with the answer to when you are prepared to bring on Alexander the Great.

"We may not be able to cross-examine the dead, but for individuals back to about the 17th century we can compare their original documents for consistency and get DNA matches from their other descendants."

Yes. But even that involves narrative from the past.

"This is suitable forensic evidence. I accept that."

For most of the past, you can't do that.

"You can't do that with the Genesis genealogies. You have no contemporary evidence of any kind that Moses even existed."

I have no contemporary evidence as you define it Julius Caesar existed. OK, coins, so Pallas Athena and Harry Potter exist ....

"Yes, there's no doubt that the ancient Hebrews and modern Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians sincerely believe that Moses existed, or as you say "the earliest known audience" believed in them."

The main thing for the discussion is:

• ancient Hebrews
• and no earlier known audience for whom Moses would have been known if real but was denied.

The criterion is earli-EST KNOWN, not just an earl-Y, and also not a hypothetical earli-ER but UNKNOWN.

"But, so what? What ancient people sincerely believed about people or events that supposedly occurred thousands of years before them is no evidence that their beliefs were real or their long held traditions were accurate history."

For "accurate" you have a point. But for history vs fiction, not so.

"People always want their ancestors to be great heroes that overcame great challenges possibly with the help of their gods, so they make up stories."

You have given no example that I find convincing. Your principle would involve Alexander being suspect of fictionality bc battle of Issos was a great challenge overcome, and with no contemporary evidence.

"As I've stated before, both modern and ancient people had all kinds of erroneous beliefs and long-held myths."

How many of these clearly involve taking fiction for normally transmitted history?

"We actually have to find some sort of contemporary evidence for Moses or Adam. Otherwise, the opinions of the "earlier known audience" are groundless and worthless speculation."

I did not say "earli-ER known" but "earli-EST known".

"This is especially true when the traditional beliefs involve magical creatures, like a Talking Snake."

I thought you claimed to be an agnostic. As such, you have no ground to single out stories that if true would need either divine or angelic, and for angelic either good or fallen intervention to work. Please note, a cultural preference shared with the Atheists you claim not to be one of, is not a valid ground.

"Again, both Eve and Joseph Smith claim to have seen magical creatures, where's the forensic evidence that we should believe either of these stories?"

We do not have forensic evidence for the battle of Issus. Or even Waterloo.

http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/archaeologists-to-unearth-ancient-town-of-issus.html

"Die offizielle Website der Gemeinde Erzin vertritt die Auffassung, dass die antike Stadt Issos auf dem Kreisgebiet belegen ist 4. Ein langes Aquädukt mit rund hundert erhaltenen Bogen durchquert die Ebene und endet an einem Standort 7 km westlich der Stadt. Dieser Fundort hat durch die intensive Bodenbearbeitung über Jahre hinweg schwere Beschädigungen der oberflächennahen archäologischen Zeugnisse erfahren. Es handelt sich zweifellos nicht um Issus, das sich am Meer 5 oder unter Berücksichtigung der Anschwemmungen seit der Antike in einiger Entfernung von der Küste befinden müsste, aber die hier gefundenen Zeugnisse finden sich auf mindestens 40 m Höhe."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzin

"At least, we know that Joseph Smith existed, we have no evidence whatsoever for Eve."

Or for Brennus? Or Alexander?

"A million sincere believers in the ancient Middle East can be absolutely wrong."

About their religion, granted. About claims of recently di[s]closed much more ancient history, or secret societies reaching back long in time, equally granted. But about claims of what seem to them normally transmitted history, not so.

How come a million sincere believers in your approach to history can't be wrong?

"Now, if we were to find some ancient contemporary tablet that indicated that Moses and several hundred thousand Israelites passed through Succoth, then great. We have evidence that Moses lived and he was a leader of the ancient Israelites. We can then take other statements in Exodus more seriously, like we do for 2 Kings."

We have no ancient contemporary tablet that indicates Alexander invaded Babylon, as far as you have so far presented.

You mentioned a Babylonian account, I suppose this would be by Berossos. We cannot prove he wasn't born after Alexander died, and only parts of his Histories are preserved.

"BEROSSUS, in the first book of his history of Babylonia, informs us that he lived in the age of Alexander the son of Philip. And he mentions that there were written accounts, preserved at Babylon with the greatest care, comprehending a period of above fifteen myriads of years: and that these writings contained histories of the heaven and of the sea; of the birth of mankind; and of the kings, and of the memorable actions which they had achieved."
https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/af/af02.htm

In the first book? Doesn't sound like he was telling the battle of Issus, more like giving an intro to himself. And stating Babylonians had 150 000 years of written history. This is insufficient to show what the situation of Alexander was. And the words are not by him, but by Alexander Polyhistor, who lived c. 100 to c. 40 BC. No doubt Alexander Polyhistor may have cited Berossus on that too, but on your principle, a citation by Alexander Polyhistor is insufficient, since not contemporary.

"But, right now, you don't have any evidence for Adam or Moses, and just because people in the 1st century AD or some other early known audience believed that they were real, there is no reason at all that they actually existed."

Your ancestors in New Amsterdam arguably believed Calvin was a real person ... now, we arguably do have real evidence from Genève, but what if that were gone?

How long after an event is past and participants are dead can the now available evidence reach and the evidence still be good?

How far from the ideals of forensic evidence can history go and still not be myth?

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, I wanted to schedule sending time to beginning of March, but that is a premium feature, so I send it now .../HGL

XXXVI

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/22/2022 at 6:12 PM

Re: This Weekend

Hi Hans

I'm so sorry to hear that you are homeless, especially during the winter. I hope your situation improves soon. I noticed that you had previously made a reference in passing to being homeless, but I thought you meant something else.

I think it's important to have a narrow topic in depth at one time. If we're discussing a wide variety of topics at once, such as: Joseph Smith, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, etc. we're more likely to make mistakes and not catch the other's mistakes.

I will spend this weekend concentrating on Alexander the Great. Otherwise, my wife and I have a very hectic life. My daughter needs a lot of support. We have the grandkids after school, I drive my son to work at 10:30 pm on certain days. Walking the dogs 5 km per day. I'm researching a book on the New Testament, etc. It's certainly not as bad as your situation, but still it doesn't give me much spare time.

I have detected no evidence of adoptions or other irregularities in the Dutch branch of my family tree. The DNA analyses for my cousins and I are consistent with our family trees for every generation going back to New Amsterdam. As I mentioned in one of my last emails, both the DNA and the documentation detected an inconsistency in Dorothy Henke's claims about her parents. So other branches of my family tree are not as simple.

I now see from your second email from today that you want me to wait until next week before replying. That's fine. This is my last email until next week.

Have a good rest of the week and weekend.

Kevin

XXXVII

Kevin R. Henke to me

3/1/2022 at 1:44 AM

This Week

Hi Hans,

I hope that you are doing well.

I will probably send my report on Alexander the Great and the Talking Snake to you tomorrow evening or maybe Wednesday evening my time (Easten US). If you decide to respond, I would like you to take two or even more weeks and construct an essay that is well referenced, coherent and thought out. Certainly, respond to my comments and certainly feel free to check my references to make sure that I've properly cited them. I expect you to use at least some peer-reviewed references and not just Wikipedia. I also don't want to watch videos. I only want to see written references in your response. Unfortunately, I'm only literate in English and I don't trust computer translators, so your references will have to be in English if you want me to be able to read them. I apologize for my language limitations. Also, as stated on my website, you're going to have to track down the references that I use and get your own copies. I will not violate copyright restrictions by sending you copies.

I really want you to construct a good response, as if you were submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal. Also, to make sure that you're not distracted, I will not email you until you finish your response and I ask that you not distract yourself by sending me emails while you're working on your response. I'll have more to say about this when I send my report.

Sincerely

Kevin

XXXVIII

Me to Kevin R. Henke

3/1/2022 at 10:40 AM

Re: This Week

I'm fairly fine with this, but if I give a reference in French, German, Latin, will you trust my translation for the quote?

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS - a lack of an actual paper stating that Berossus did not survive to us as to battle of Issos will not stop me from using it./HGL

XXXIX

Kevin R. Henke to me

3/1/2022 at 2:24 PM

Re: This Week

Hi Hans,

If you could just quote the French, German, Latin, etc. from the reference with your translation that would be great.

If a work is lost, such as Berossus or Papias, just cite the source that quoted the work (Eusebius, Syncellus, etc.) and briefly remind me that the original author's work is lost. I tend to overreference my statements. For example, if I write: "Conservative Christians generally believe that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John", I would still cite a conservative reference or two to back up what most people consider obvious. I recognize that what I find obvious, the reader may not.

I have others needing me to help them with some projects and paper reviews. If you could wait to get back to me with your response and any other emails until March 15 or even later, that would be great . If you get done early, please just wait until March 15 before responding. That would give me a couple of weeks to catch up on some other urgent projects that people want me to work on and that will leave you undisturbed to work on your response and deal with any other issues.

Thanks,

Kevin

XL

Me to Kevin R. Henke

3/1/2022 at 4:28 PM

Re: This Week

There are however Conservative Christians who think that the Apostle John was not one of the Twelve, when we talk of the Gospeller.

THE great reference being:

TH n°010 L'ÉNIGME DU DISCIPLE QUE JÉSUS AIMAIT, Jean COLSON
EAN/ISBN : 9782701000442, Nb de pages : 128 p, Année : 1969
https://www.editions-beauchesne.com/product_info.php?products_id=353

Long story short, the gospeller arguably was a Cohen (could host the Mother of God from Good Friday on, so arguably had a house in Jerusalem, was known to the Priests, while not one of the Twelve - absence of Eucharistic institution - was nevertheless present at the last Seder, and memorised the speech about the Holy Ghost), the beloved disciple doesn't rhyme too well with being one of the Boanerges whose mother asked about favours and who were going to die martyrs both of them.

Hans Georg Lundahl

XLI

Kevin R. Henke to me

3/1/2022 at 5:04 PM

Re: This Week

I agree. Here in the US, fundamentalist Protestant Christians insist that John the son of Zebedee was an apostle and that he must have written the Gospel of John, Revelation, and 1-3 John. They think that only the 11 apostles had permission from God to write the New Testament. That's exactly why it's important to include references for statements that many would think was obvious. See Hodge (2008). You can argue that with them if you wish. Now, I'll get back to my report.

Hodge, B., 2008, A Look at the Canon: How Do We Know that 66 Books of the Bible are from God?: Answers in Depth, v. 3, pp. 1-12, https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/a-look-at-the-canon/.

Best Kevin

XLII

Me to Kevin R. Henke

3/1/2022 at 7:54 PM

Re: This Week

John the Son of Zebedee was an apostle, one of the twelve apostles. Like his brother.

"They think that only the 11 apostles had permission from God to write the New Testament."

They can't, since Sts Paul, Marc and Luke weren't among them, and according to many not St James of the Epistle either.

However, the 12 Apostles were not the only set known as Apostles, we also consider the 72 Disciples as sometimes also known as Apostles. Arguably St. John the Beloved, the Gospeller, was among these as well as being a Cohen.

Since these guys think the Bible has "66 books" they get the answer to the question wrong. If they went by the local or regional Councils of Carthage and Rome (between Nicaea I and Constantinople I) and their confirmation by Trent, they would get "72 books, or 73 if Baruch is counted separately from Jeremiah" and "as the Church, relying on Her tradition, tells us".

The mistake about what John wrote the Johannine books doesn't change it is by the disciple who witnessed the Crucifixion and took God's Mother home, as being now Her stepson. And it is also not in the universal tradition of the Church, but contradicted, arguably, by some Church Fathers and martyrologies, as Fr. Colson dug up./HGL

XLIII

Kevin R. Henke to me

3/1/2022 at 8:08 PM

Re: This Week

Hi Hans,

Interesting perspective. You can debate this with the US fundamentalist Protestants because I don't agree with their position either. Because these fundamentalists are a strong political and religious force in the US, I encounter them all the time. They also dominate young-Earth creationism in the US. Meanwhile, I have to pick up my granddaughter from school and I want to get my essay to you in about 6 hours, so I won't email you further until I see your response in a couple of weeks. Then you can share more with me on the origin and inspiration of the New Testament, if you wish.

Best

Kevin

XLIV

Kevin R. Henke to me

3/2/2022 at 1:41 AM

Alexander the Great and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3

PDF attached.

Hi Hans,

My essay is attached as a pdf. Again, I would like you to take until at least March 15 to think about the issues as you respond. Certainly, respond to my comments and feel free to check my references to make sure that I've properly cited them. But, I also want you to thoroughly promote and defend, with the best evidence that you have, that the Talking Snake is just as historical or even more so than Alexander the Great. Please deal with all four hypotheses that I have raised for the Talking Snake story and why or why not you accept them. Feel free to add your own hypotheses. Don't just say that the story should be accepted because the earliest known Hebrews believed it. That doesn't work for hypothesis #4.

I also don't want you to chop my essay and make comments after every sentence or two as you often do in your responses. That's not acceptable. Your essay will eventually be released to the public at both of our websites, and no one would want to read through such a chopped up mess. Our readers would want a coherent, well thought out and well-referenced essay. So, I really want you to construct a good response, as if you were submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal. After I see your response on March 15 or later, I'll either respond to it or we can go onto the next topic.

Feel free to simply acknowledge that you received this email and that you can open and read the pdf. However, otherwise I don't want you emailing me until March 15. I want you to concentrate undistracted on your response like I concentrated on mine over the last week. (Plus, I was working on my essay part time earlier than that.) So, two weeks or more seems appropriate for a good response. If you happen to finish your response early, please wait until March 15 to send it. I have other urgent commitments.

Finally, this essay is 100% my work. No one reviewed or coauthored it.

Thanks and Best to you,

Kevin

XLV

Me to Kevin R. Henke

3/2/2022 at 12:44 PM

Re: Alexander the Great and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3

In response : I have read it through.

I won't make a pdf, and I don't know how to link to it from my blog, so unless you give permission to copy it, I can't show it from my blog - or you could make it into a link that ends in pdf, it would be included.

My response will be a blog post and I will link to Spencer McDaniel from it.* When you provide a link that ends in .pdf, I will add that in a footnote.

Hans Georg Lundahl

*Spencer McDaniel

wrote: Tales of Times Forgotten : What Evidence Is There for the Existence of Alexander the Great? Quite a Lot.
Spencer McDaniel Posted on June 14, 2019
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/14/what-evidence-is-there-for-the-existence-of-alexander-the-great-quite-a-lot/

XLVI

Kevin R. Henke to me

3/2/2022 at 2:24 PM

Re: Alexander the Great and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3

Hi Hans,

I've included a copy of my essay below.* Hope this helps. I'll talk to you in a couple of weeks.

Best

Kevin

*Kevin R. Henke

wrote (mirrored on my blog) Kevin R. Henke's Essay: Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3: History?
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2022/03/kevin-r-henkes-essay-alexander-great.html