Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: How do we know that the writers of Genesis didn't make it up?

Friday, October 28, 2022

How do we know that the writers of Genesis didn't make it up?

Own answer to Q

How do we know that the writers of Genesis didn't make it up?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-the-writers-of-Genesis-didnt-make-it-up/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

28.X.2022

Sts Simon and Jude

For any given text, if it is a narrative, the alternative “made up” or “history” is best decided by the following question:

Did the earliest known audience (ideally the very first audience if it is still known to us) consider it as made up or history?

An author who made a story up would have trouble convincing people around him it was history that they all remembered. One shot would be “history that was lost and that NN” (the actual writer who made it up) “rediscovered” (miraculously or by archaeology). But that would leave the “scar” in the later memory of this author becoming very important as rediscovering it. Like Joseph Smith, to Mormons, “rediscovered” Book of Mormon.

This means, if the earliest known audience think of it as history and do not think of a particular man as having rediscovered it, chances are that it actually was not an invented story.

Does this by itself mean it is accurate? No, any historic text can contain some amount of error.

As a Christian, I do not accept Genesis could this, since God’s inspiration cancels out this possibility, but if I were to look on it from the perspective of the non-Christian I was my earliest years - Genesis bears more marks of accuracy than lots of other accounts.

1. It has full genealogies from the first man to the Flood and from then to times when continuous well documented history begins (in Genesis 12 - the rest of Genesis is at least as well documented as heroic generations up to Trojan War and nostoi in Greek legend);
2. Its Flood account has an Ark which is adequate for the logistics, and other accounts either lack the description or give descriptions of vessels inadequate for logistics (when the survivan wasn’t transferred from a vessel to a mountain, as in the Andes).

So, in sum, we have pretty good evidence, even before being Christians, that Genesis is history rather than fiction, and for the parts that concern the fate of mankind up to splitting up into nations, better preserved history than other nations’ histories about such times.

Darryl's Answer to Q

How do we know that the writers of Genesis didn't make it up?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-the-writers-of-Genesis-didnt-make-it-up/answer/Daryl-Hubber

Daryl Hubber

Mon 24.X.2022

St. Raphael's Day

Because in some instances they used identifiable sources, although there was certainly latitude for creativity in their reuse. We know that the Mesopotamian flood myth was the basis for the biblical deluge account, and the story of Eden is probably an amalgam of the tale of a wild man and a prostitute in the Gilgamesh epic and an older Canaanite myth about the punishment of one of the “Sons of God”. There may also be a faint literary echo of the Atrahasis plagues in the story of Moses and the plagues of Egypt. Similarly, it’s possible that the names of the patriarchs from the time of Abraham onward might depend on ancient genealogies, although there is no evidence that any of the patriarchal narratives are based on historical events.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.X.2022

“We know that the Mesopotamian flood myth was the basis for the biblical deluge account,”

No, we definitely do not know that.

Both being based on the fact is clearly also an option, and given descriptions of the Ark, the one in Genesis is more adequate to take on one couple of each kind and adequate food for them.

Daryl Hubber

27.X.2022

The older dictum of Wilfred G Lambert is still true: the flood remains the clearest case of dependence of Genesis on Mesopotamian legend (Bill Arnold, prominent evangelical scholar, Genesis, 2009, p105)
Most scholars agree that the biblical versions [of the flood story] are descended from the Babylonian versions (Ron Hendel, high profile Jewish scholar, The Book of Genesis: a Biography, 2013, p26)
Because the flood episode in Gen 6–8 matches the older Babylonian myth so well in plot and, particularly, in details, few doubt that Noah’s story is descended from a Mesopotamian account (Andrew George, leading cuneiform scholar and expert on the Gilgamesh epic, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Vol. 1, 2003, p70)
…the closest parallels to the biblical account are found in Mesopotamian flood traditions, especially the eleventh tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh and its earlier form in the Atrahasis story (Andrew Steinmann - a conservative Christian scholar, Genesis, 2019, p109)
Genesis 1–11 will show extensive interplay with ancient near eastern [mythological texts including the] flood story (especially tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh Epic)… (Tremper Longman III - another conservative-leaning biblical scholar, Genesis, 2016)
Since the time of George Smith [who was first to decipher parts of the Atrahasis flood story in the late 1800s] it has become increasingly clear that the biblical text is a relatively late Hebrew-language version of a literary mythic tradition of great antiquity. One of the earliest representatives of that tradition is the Sumerian flood tablet… The story is also told on the third tablet of Atrahasis and, in its most compete form, on the eleventh tablet of Gilgamesh… (Joseph Blenkinsopp - prominent Catholic scholar, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation, 2011, p132)

Answered twice

by me, A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.X.2022

Bill Arnold, prominent evangelical scholar, - argumentum ex autoritate
Ron Hendel, high profile Jewish scholar, - argumentum ex autoritate
Andrew George, leading cuneiform scholar and expert on the Gilgamesh epic, - argumentum ex autoritate plus probably somewhat superficial such when it comes to Genesis plus there is no Mesopotamian parallel to Tower of Babel
Andrew Steinmann - a conservative Christian scholar, - argumentum ex autoritate plus he didn't deny (in the cited words) that the Hebrew version could be more faithful to actual events plus there is still no Mesopotamian parallel to Tower of Babel
Tremper Longman III - another conservative-leaning biblical scholar, - same as previous on all counts
Joseph Blenkinsopp - prominent Catholic scholar, - argumentum ex autoritate, plus he is unfaithful to Catholic teaching (Council of Trent Session IV and Biblical commission from 1905 under Pope St. Pius X).
Wilfred Lambert, George Smith, most scholars - also argumentum ex autoritate.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.X.2022

You also gave no answer on the argument from Ark models.

Daryl Hubber

3.XI.2022

Hi Hans-Georg, that’s a lot of arguments from authority! If I cited just one scholar then perhaps your argument might be valid, but the weight of scholarly opinion suggests otherwise. The conventional spelling is auctoritate - not autoritate, by the way.

It may surprise you to know that an argument from authority is not automatically invalid, particularly if the authority represents a majority opinion of experts. I have deliberately chosen scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds to rule out the possibility of representing a narrow interest group, and perhaps you missed it but according to Hendel ‘most scholars’ believe that the Genesis flood story is dependent upon the older Mesopotamian ones. These sentiments are echoed by Arnold (‘the clearest case’), George (‘few doubt’) and Blenkinsopp (‘increasingly clear’). Rejecting a majority opinion of experts places you in the same camp as climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, Jesus mythicists and conspiracy theorists.

If you want to examine the evidence for this position, I refer you to the peer-reviewed works cited. However, there are multiple parallels between the two stories appearing in an almost identical order - thus meeting the normal scholarly criterion for literary borrowing. The highly anthropomorphic description of the deity/or deities enjoying the sweet savour of the post flood offerings rules out the notion of a tribal memory, since it describes the mind of the God/gods, thus indicating a literary rather than a historical relationship. The episode of the sending out of the birds is another striking parallel that makes literary dependence practically certain.

Since you seem to enjoy thinking in terms of logical fallacies, your suggestion that there can be no literary relationship between the Mesopotamian and Genesis flood stories because ‘there is no Mesopotamian parallel to the Tower of Babel’ is a non-sequitur. There is no reason why the authors of Genesis could not borrow from Babylonian mythology in their deluge story and draw on other sources completely for the remainer of the work.

In actual fact, the story of the city of Babel is steeped in Mesopotamian lore since it lampoons the founding of the city of Babylon (the Hebrew word translated “Babel” is the same word used for “Babylon” elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible) and its monumental architecture. The likely target is the Babylonian Creation Myth (Enuma Elish) that describes creation by violent conquest on the part of Babylon’s patron deity and ends with the establishment of a great ziggurat and the founding of Babylon as the gateway of the gods and head of the nations. Scholars almost invariably mention the building of the ziggurat Etemenanki in conjunction with this story since it was completed by Nebuchadnezzar II during the period of the Babylonian exile - the time when the early chapters of Genesis were probably composed. This would also explain the authors’ access to Mesopotamian lore and literature but would make little sense in earlier periods since Babylon was not a traditional enemy of Judah. Another work that is commonly cited here by commentators is the myth of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, a Sumerian story that describes the efforts of an ancient king of Uruk to build a temple for one of its patron deities and involves the unification of language as a tool of conquest and imperial control.

Tremper Longman, incidentally, does not believe in a global flood but submits that the Genesis account goes back to a local flood in the ancient near east that is ‘described by figurative language as a global flood in order to communicate an important theological message’. See this link: Genesis and the Flood: Understanding the Biblical Story - Article - BioLogos [not linked to here] This is very similar to the suggestion that the Mesopotamian flood myth goes back to a historical flood that wiped out the city of Shuruppak and some neighboring cities around 2900 BCE (since Shuruppak is the home of the flood hero in both Gilgamesh and Atrahasis), then was later exaggerated and mythologised in the Mesopotamian epics.

As for citing centuries-old Catholic pronouncements on the historicity of Genesis, you obviously haven’t kept up to date with current Catholic theology. In 1905 most Catholic theologians still believed that Daniel was composed in the sixth century BCE! The majority now, of course, accept a second century BCE date. Just a little later in the 20th century Pius XII states:

“In simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured,” the first eleven chapters of Genesis “both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people” (Humani Generis 38 - emphasis mine).

The general tenor of Catholic teaching these days seems to be that belief in historical and scientific reliability is permitted, but that the creation stories do not contradict scientific discoveries on human evolution and are theological rather than historical accounts. Similar leniency is applied to the flood account, with modern Catholic teaching leaning towards an ancient local flood rather than a global event.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3.XI.2022

"The conventional spelling is auctoritate - not autoritate, by the way."

Classic, I'm more into Medieval.

"If I cited just one scholar then perhaps your argument might be valid, but the weight of scholarly opinion suggests otherwise."

No. It is still called argumentum ex autoritate - or auctoritate if you prefer the Classic spelling.

"It may surprise you to know that an argument from authority is not automatically invalid,"

Some would say wikipedia is a good starting point, but one needs to see the authorities cited. I find that over the top, mostly wikipedian articles will cite correctly.

Expert opinion is like wikipedia. The important issue is not the outlet, but the arguments that outlet refers back to.

"I have deliberately chosen scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds to rule out the possibility of representing a narrow interest group,"

I fully admit that the group think you are referring to is from a numerically wider group by now.

It is still group think.

"and perhaps you missed it but according to Hendel ‘most scholars’ believe that the Genesis flood story is dependent upon the older Mesopotamian ones."

I didn't. "Most scholars" is definitely an argument from authority. And one should not ask, how many scholars believe this, but why they do so.

"Rejecting a majority opinion of experts places you in the same camp as climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, Jesus mythicists and conspiracy theorists."

I am a moderate antivaxxer. If the vaccine is against bacteria or if the viruses were cultivated on cells not from human feti, and if there is no coercion about the vaccine, then, and only then, is the vaccine morally licit. It is still a question of individual prudence.

"If you want to examine the evidence for this position, I refer you to the peer-reviewed works cited."

No. You don't. If you cite a work, you kind of pretend you have read it or read reasonable portions of it. At least you pretend to have a reasonable certainty what you cite is knowledge. If I cite a Latin grammar, "ludimagister" means school teacher in primary school years, I would have a decent view on where that came from, like all the poems and prose texts from such centuries, including Horace complaining of his own such, the plagosus Orbilius. If I cited a historian on Christophe de Thou living from 1508 to 1582 (I grabbed this from wikipedia), I would have a reasonable inference that a historian had seen documents calling him "barely 40" in early 1548, or the noble family had a family record citing him as born 28.X.1508. I'd be perfectly willing to debate the reliability of this kind of information. So, if you cite "most scholars" you need to be able to see what kind of arguments they use, not how many they are.

Otherwise you could be citing a Pope for Christ NOT rising from the dead (not even stated in such terms by recent anti-popes), which is nonsense, since Popes are just outlets for a particular kind of evidence called Bible and Tradition. Now, scholars and their publications are just an outlet for evidence and analyses of it.

"However, there are multiple parallels between the two stories appearing in an almost identical order - thus meeting the normal scholarly criterion for literary borrowing."

The criterium is being misused, if you forget that:

A may be borrowing from B
B may be borrowing from A
A and B may both be borriwing from a third source, including actual event.

So, Bible borrowing from Sumerian and Akkadian sources is one option.
Sumerian and Akkadian sources borrowing from Genesis is another one - and I add, it is certainly less likely.
Bible and Sumero-Akkadian sources both inheriting a factual account is the third option.

If all scholars alive today overlook the third option, or reject it on Hume's antimiraculous prejudice, that would invalidate the reasoning process of all scholars alive today and does invalidate the reasoning process of the scholars you are referring to.

"The highly anthropomorphic description of the deity/or deities enjoying the sweet savour of the post flood offerings rules out the notion of a tribal memory, since it describes the mind of the God/gods, thus indicating a literary rather than a historical relationship."

Ooh, what a blooper! Even if the theology were wrong (which is the case with one of the versions mentioned, the Sumero-Akkadian one), the historic memory is very certainly transmitted in literary ways and usually involves reference to God or to gods.

You reasoned as if:

all reports of God speaking to man were ruled out in advance from facthood
and all real tribal historic memories were automatically formulated like the ones of Atheistic modern Marxist historians.

The first is a blooper in philosophy, the second a blooper even in common sense. The Iliad contains Diomede wounding a goddess, not because Homer was writing a poem, but because Diomede misunderstood what had happened, involving his views on the theology of Greek gods and goddesses. Or someone misunderstood what Diomede had said.

"The episode of the sending out of the birds is another striking parallel that makes literary dependence practically certain."

Unless birds were in fact sent out, of course.

"Since you seem to enjoy thinking in terms of logical fallacies, your suggestion that there can be no literary relationship between the Mesopotamian and Genesis flood stories because ‘there is no Mesopotamian parallel to the Tower of Babel’ is a non-sequitur."

I did not say "there is no literary relationship" (directly or indirectly), I said the Hebrew account was not borrowed from the Sumero-Akkadian one.

"There is no reason why the authors of Genesis could not borrow from Babylonian mythology in their deluge story and draw on other sources completely for the remainer of the work."

There is no reason why they would need to borrow Babylonian mythology in their deluge story in the first place. Unless you start out with what you are trying to prove with "literary borrowing" namely that there was no such event.

"In actual fact, the story of the city of Babel is steeped in Mesopotamian lore since it lampoons the founding of the city of Babylon (the Hebrew word translated “Babel” is the same word used for “Babylon” elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible) and its monumental architecture. The likely target is the Babylonian Creation Myth (Enuma Elish) that describes creation by violent conquest on the part of Babylon’s patron deity and ends with the establishment of a great ziggurat and the founding of Babylon as the gateway of the gods and head of the nations."

If Moses, via Abraham and Peleg's father Heber, was heir to the real story, Enuma Elish is explainable as Amorrhaeans / Amorrhites wiping off the dishonour of the original Babel, by making a facsimile far from the original location (but about same distance in each case from Niniveh), and using this to obfuscate any memory Babylonians could have of abandoning the original Babel. In this context, Graham Hancock has referred to an object found in Ur, namely a model closely mirroring Göbekli Tepe. Babylonian pagans were suckers for Nimrod's project, which explains both the wiping out of this memory and the remake of the story in Enuma Elish.

"Scholars almost invariably mention the building of the ziggurat Etemenanki in conjunction with this story since it was completed by Nebuchadnezzar II during the period of the Babylonian exile - the time when the early chapters of Genesis were probably composed."

Or Nebuchadnezzar II peeped into a Hebrew scroll, and tried to wipe off the old dishonour.

"This would also explain the authors’ access to Mesopotamian lore and literature but would make little sense in earlier periods since Babylon was not a traditional enemy of Judah."

Traditionally, Judah had been kind of harrassed from both Egypt and Babylon. After King Solomon, and taking a mild side for Babylon in the time of Hezechia. This is obviously not in any way shape or form an argument against King Solomon already having a scroll of Genesis in the Temple.

The argument being made is in fact presuming, once again, what needs to be proven - that the lore doesn't go back to actual events.

I know sufficiently of modern academia to know this is a model actively pressured onto researchers these days.

"Another work that is commonly cited here by commentators is the myth of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, a Sumerian story that describes the efforts of an ancient king of Uruk to build a temple for one of its patron deities and involves the unification of language as a tool of conquest and imperial control."

Precisely - it does not involve any explanation of why there were different languages (unlike Babel of Genesis 11), it only involves a desire to unify language. So not a model.

"Tremper Longman, incidentally, does not believe in a global flood but submits that the Genesis account goes back to a local flood in the ancient near east that is ‘described by figurative language as a global flood in order to communicate an important theological message’."

Since you are referring to BioLogos, reminds me, it was a few weeks since I took on Richard Middleton, who is also one of their team.

There is a problem when you refer to a team which has as actual policy to presume Genesis as non-historical. And especially if it regularly reasons "text A has theological message I, and can be explained as expressing that theological message, therefore not historical, text B has theological message II, and can be explained as expressing that theological message, therefore not historical" - the underlying presumption that real history would not neatly fit a theological message is incompatible with Christianity. If they were at least atheists, openly.

"This is very similar to the suggestion that the Mesopotamian flood myth goes back to a historical flood that wiped out the city of Shuruppak and some neighboring cities around 2900 BCE (since Shuruppak is the home of the flood hero in both Gilgamesh and Atrahasis), then was later exaggerated and mythologised in the Mesopotamian epics."

Satan knew in advance how carbon dates would work out (having been told so by God) and was able to arrange both the destruction of Shuruppak and its inclusion into Sumero-Akkadian lore in what would carbon date as 2900 BC. The Sumero-Akkadians holding on to real chronology of the Flood in the written sources, since the Flood actually happened, world wide, in 2957 BC. But that’s carbon dated 39 000 BP.

However, all the sources we have for Atrahasis or Utnapishtim getting on an "ark" in Shuruppak also involve his landing c. 800 metres higher up above sea level, which would not happen in a local flood.

The reason for the exaggeration or how it would be even remotely believable in the face of populations not descending from Atrahasis, if just a local hero, is left in blanks.

"As for citing centuries-old Catholic pronouncements on the historicity of Genesis, you obviously haven’t kept up to date with current Catholic theology. In 1905 most Catholic theologians still believed that Daniel was composed in the sixth century BCE!"

I believe in Catholic theology. I do not believe in "current Catholic theology" that being a contradiction in terms. The theologians who were a majority in 1905 are still the ones who are truly Catholic now ...

"The majority now, of course, accept a second century BCE date."

... as I just mentioned under a video by The Crusader Pub, Evolutionists are not Catholics. The community accepting "Pope Francis" as its Pope may still contain Catholics - I consider The Crusader Pub as one - but it is a by now largely non-Catholic community and it is not identic to the Catholic Church.

"Just a little later in the 20th century Pius XII states"

Pope Michael considered that Pius XII had his problems, if I did not accept him as the last pope we had (he died Aug 2 this year), I would tend to consider Pius XII as a non-Pope. But not for what you quoted, which doesn't float your non-Ark boat.

Using metaphors doesn't mean telling a story which is non-literal as a story.

Let's take §38 bit by bit:

"Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies."

Note, wrongly. Perhaps they were prone to take the "metaphoric" part as meaning the story as a whole were metaphoric, for instance?

"This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes;"

I would not agree with it's being historic only in a vague sense needing further study, and I also would not consider Homer and Pliny as excluded from the best Greek and Latin writers.

"the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people."

The part you just quotemined. And probably the part quotemined by those wrongly citing it.

"If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents."

I'd go even further. Even without divine inspiration, trusting a popular narration because it is already that of one's people, would hit historic general factuality, if not necessarily accuracy of detail perhaps 90 % of the time. The remainder being fan fictions inserted into bigger pictures that weren't fictional.

"The general tenor of Catholic teaching these days seems to be that belief in historical and scientific reliability is permitted"

The problem is, the "Catholic teaching these days" you cite is not Catholic.

But thank you very much for "permitted" - though I am far from being treated that way in practise!

"but that the creation stories do not contradict scientific discoveries on human evolution and are theological rather than historical accounts."

I would say they are theological because they are historical. By the way, anything beyond Genesis 2 is after the creation account.

I would also say the "scientific discoveries" are not discoveries, and are not scientific. At least those that are on human evolution.

Discovering a Neanderthal or Denisovan doesn't contradict the creation stories any more than discovering Negros or Chinamen - meant Black Gentlemen or Gentlemen of Colour for the first, and not to exclude Japanese from the second - discredits all of us descending from Noah's three sons.

Daryl Hubber

Tue, 18.VII.2023

Well, Hans, it’s reassuring to know that leading experts on the Hebrew Bible and cuneiform literature are all wrong, that the origin myths of Genesis are all based on historical fact (suggesting that most of the world’s paleontologists, archaeologists, geologists, geneticists, anthropologists and physicists are also wrong - although this doesn’t really matter since citing any of them would simply amount an argument from authority), that the Catholic church is not really “Catholic”, that Christians who disbelieve in the creation and flood stories are not really Christian, and that Satan not only deliberately meddled with the carbon dating method but also - displaying God-like foreknowledge and power - sent the flood that destroyed the city of Shuruppak to undermine the Genesis flood story! I’ll leave you and your wild imagination to the judgement of others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue, 18.VII.2023

"reassuring to know that leading experts on the Hebrew Bible and cuneiform literature are all wrong"

I did not say all experts were wrong. While you seem to want to make it sound like that, I can however not pinpoint you to directly saying so.

If you had said "experts on x are all wrong" you would have attributed that to me. But you resumed my position as "leading experts on x are all wrong" ... sure. The ones who are leading in the direction you think of, they are wrong and misleading ...

"that the origin myths of Genesis are all based on historical fact"

Well, who says origin myths can't be historical facts? Isn't "Declaration of Independence" an origin myth about the USA?

"suggesting that most of the world’s paleontologists, archaeologists, geologists, geneticists, anthropologists and physicists are also wrong"

Most of people overall are wrong today, which means most of the experts will be so too.

It's a vicious circle involving schools as third party.

"that the Catholic church is not really “Catholic”,"

You mean that the Vatican II Sect is not really Catholic? Link to very relevant video at the end.

"and that Satan not only deliberately meddled with the carbon dating method but also - displaying God-like foreknowledge and power - sent the flood that destroyed the city of Shuruppak to undermine the Genesis flood story!"

No need for Satan to meddle with the carbon dating method. It's enough that he knew of it, and could meddle with a much smaller destruction in Shuruppak plus the bad record keeping of Babylonians in history (prior to Assyrians).

EDIT : “displaying God-like foreknowledge and power”

Causing a local Flood with God’s permission and being told things by God which he used for planning the end times deception do not add up to being godlike.

[very relevant video]

Sedevacantism Visualised
TVC, 30 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ArKXEuY_48

Same Question

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Pages

Friday, October 28, 2022

How do we know that the writers of Genesis didn't make it up?

No comments:

About Me

Fighting Totalitarian Takeovers