I hate it when my mechanic *presupposes* that my car troubles are caused by mechanical failures and just dogmatically rejects the possibility of a gremlin slowly destroying it while no one is looking
Wow.... this is pretty meta o.O and as per usual, apologetists seem to be projecting pretty spectacularly. Thanks for providing actual scholarship and data rather than the dogma out there! :D
The fact that it changes , not becomes better (like physics,biology...) says everything about their confusion..I will wait untill they stick to something for more than 10 years (like in biology, physics...)
Dan, I did not realize how uniformed some of our generations are about the critical method. My parents generation and the one before (I am Gen X) who have been life time church goers, if they know anything about it, have mainly been taught to view it with suspicion and mistrust. I was also indoctrinated this way, but it didn't stick. My world blew up when I discovered Robert Alter. I knew there was so much more to this text than Sunday school lessons! We use a lot of your YT material in our BEMA discussion groups. Thank you for making academics accessible to those of us who couldn't afford seminary or secondary degrees. Looking at taking some of your classes in the new year, hopefully! Shalom!
For all of the downsides of the Internet and social media, it has allowed for unprecedented access to legitimate scholarship for those who seek it. Dan is performing a huge service, not just academically, but in combating the bigotry of some fundamentalists, which sadly we've seen on the increase in the MAGA era.
😂 As a former ordained Christian minister and apologist, I can tell you that this creator has nerve. Either that or he didn't do his homework. I would've watched some of Dan's content before engaging him. And it wouldn't have taken more than a handful of videos to realize that I was in over my head because he's bringing the goods. Not merely data but the expertise to put it into context. And....he's intellectually HONEST.
Dan, thank you, truly, you have no idea how inspiring it is to hear from someone like you, no matter the religious or non-religious background of the person coming upon this knowledge, it moves people forward and informs them about what there is, and what there is not. Also, you defences of your videos are excellent, defending one´s work sometimes is better than just making it.
I was that guy, making false equivalence of academic biblical study to something I could lampoon. (Kicking myself I never thought of Winnie the Pooh! Lol) Today I’m so thankful for these short YTs: I spent 30 yrs remonstrating against this stuff (closing my ears helped lol) - but opening my eyes has made me happy
Me too! The scales were completely over my eyes, now i can see the bible for what it is. The book doesn't have all the answers, nor is it authoritative in my life.
YES, I agree, Dan. If you study Theology of a certain Church group, it only means that you follow and study their own findings and rules and what that specific church stands for. If you question them on what they believe, they throw you out of their church and ask you never to return, because you are not allowed to think critical as you have to accept THEIR way of thinking. Thank you for your critical thinking. If you do not ask questions you will never learn. Thank you, thank you!!!!
I was fortunate when I was in Lutheran seminary in the late 60s and early 70s that the faculty approached the scriptures with text criticism processes. Further, we were taught that sermon preparation was to begin with our own translation of the text from the source manuscripts, considering the issues raised by context, source etc. There were some students among my classmates who were very much opposed to this. Beyond the opposition to biblical scholarship and textual criticism, I think the apologists' stance points to deeper issues of insecurity, fear, and fragile personalities. Although I am now an atheist, I appreciate your videos.
Similarly methodological naturalism rejects supernatural causes because hundreds of years of study have never found them. Its not a presupposition, it just results from the lack of ever finding one and having found natural causes for supposed supernatural events, such as lightning, or earthquakes, or plagues, or droughts etc.
It's revealing that apologists, rather than offering data which substantiates their beliefs, employ the rhetorical trick and logical fallacy of false equivalence. Categorize--without evidence--your opponents as being what you the apologist are: faith-based-not empiricist-worldview, intellectually dishonest, etc. Claim that neither side can "prove" the other wrong, but that your faith is more inherently reasonable than your opponents' "faith." Classic projection. I know, as a former ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist.
The old idea, "Sure I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it, so it must be true".. I forget the name of that fallacy. I think scholars can basically ignore the question of God's involvement in creating the Bible and just point to all the evidence of human authorship and editing. If people want to conclude that God is orchestrating all that messiness for some mysterious reason that's their problem to sort out. That said, from a moral and philosophical standpoint, it is easier to disagree with the slavery and genocide in the Bible if we can just attribute it to humans. But hey, if they want to attribute all the internal contradictions and gross inhumanity to God, well, that is a weird hill to die on.
For being usually calm and collected, this might be the first time I have seen someone really get on Dan's nerves. I dont think it wad due to the personal attack but some of these creators just dont listen to what they are saying.
I don't see this clip as representing Dan at his most agitated. I perceive that what really irks him is the use of the Bible to rationalize and support bigoted and harmful narratives, because of the harm they cause. Biblical literalist apologists who offer logical fallacies are annoying, for sure.
Thank you for providing this service, Dan. The fact that I address you casually here is no slight of your impressive credentials. My perception is that you aren't the kind of person who insists on or elicits being addressed as Doctor. And that, as much as your erudition and articulate, cogent presentation of the facts, is why I think you are very effective. You defy the stereotype of the condescending academic (another strawman, of course), and convey humility and sincerity. As a former ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist, I can attest that while I tried to convince myself I was approaching the evidence objectively and critically, I knew better. Apologists are like trial attorneys who parse the evidence not for the truth, but rather that which supports their case. The difference between this apologist creator critic and scholars like Dr. McClellan can be boiled down to how they respond to data. Dan will discard and/or adjust his current view if presented substantial and valid contrary evidence. The apologist will not.
As a former ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist I liken it to being in the role of a defense attorney, in respect to the evidence. It is parsed not with the objective of going wherever it leads, motivated by a desire for the truth, but rather to find whatever could be used for the case. Imagine that attorney passionately believes they already have the truth regarding the innocence of their client, to a degree that compels them to prioritize their defense over rhe data. And that doing so is morally the right thing to do.
Dan I have few heroes, except for my mother and my wife, but I have a number of people I admire for their conscientious scholarship and minds. You, my I-wana-be-your friend, are one of those I admire. Mostly by accident, I spent ten years of my life in higher education; If there ever was a rough stone rolling, I had to be one of them; Kicking and screaming, I learned to admire good teachers, good teachings and good thinkings. You, Dan are the type of scholar I learned to and still do admire. In my bestest scholarly language, may I say, "one helluva academic." I wonder, Dan, If you might view an interview I did on the backyard professor podcast with Kerry Shirts, in which I share my observations on the Roman civilization and the so-called Lehite one, suppossedly contemporaneous. After viewing episode 125, and if you find it worthy of your level of discussion, perhaps we might become colleagues.
Not when you consider that they begin with the conclusion, i.e., biblical literalism, and thus are allergic to any and all data which contradict their worldview. I know. I was one of them. The allergy manifests itself in the cognitive dissonance, and resultant headaches.
Pathetic that Christian apologists need to misrepresent evidence to make their point. The fact that this creator takes seriously a work meant as satire is telling.
I would be very open to a good faith discussion about weak spots in individuals' scholarship, or a school of thought, or the scholarly community at large. In fact, scholars challenge eachother all the time and in this way help keep eachother honest. Scholars are humans and suffer from cognitive biases like everyone else, and so should not let their guard down, BUT... the critical methodology and the culture of "how do you know that?" tends to be subversive of various biases; whereas the apologists' method generally starts with a presupposition (like the Bible's inerrancy) and argues backwards - making confirmation bias a prominent feature rather than a bug.
I think the thing about this video that should possibly inspire the most confidence in your motives is the fact that you are doing everything you can to protect the original creator from a viral criticism onslaught, from the note at the beginning of the video to not even linking his content anywhere here. I have no idea who he is or how to find him (perhaps some do). You yourself are levying the appropriate academic criticism in an extremely mature, non-combative and unemotional way (seriously, you hold back several times when you could have blasted him) rather than provoking an army of followers to simply attack this person. This clearly shows you are not posting this as retribution. Your motive, as you state in your intros, seems to simply be to correct misunderstandings. That being said, I would love to hear the rest of your responses to what he said but can't seem to find them.
A master class in critical reasoning, logical arguments and how to spot the never ending apologetic arguments based on misinformation.. well done Dan we appreciate your dedication🖖
Something I struggle with is that the conclusions are only as good as the data we have and the methods we use. However, those are always changing as we get new data and develop new methods. I mean look at pretty much all scientific pursuits. #RIPplanetputo I definitely respect the work and goals of critical scholarship, lots of what Dan has said has really forced me to confront my presupositions and help me arrive at a richer spiritual faith. But it's hard to totally put my trust/faith in these systems that speak so confidently about it one way now but is guaranteed to change its tune. I'd really like to understand how people in the scientific and academic communities view that issue.
It is hard to accept that it is impossible to know the absolute truth about most things. We have a perspective from where we examine things, we come up with what is most probably the truth, but in science, there is always room for new data that may upset the apple cart.
I don't believe good scholars ever say something is absolutely true. Dan says "the data indicates". Just as we discover and recalibrate our understanding of the universe because we now have the Webb telescope. We had good info before, now we have better.
Former ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist here. I see it as empiricism vs. faith and intuition. The teleological, Kalam, etc. arguments are intuitive. Even Dawkins was forced to admit that. Accepting the reality of biological evolution was a little emotionally chafing, since it was my chief nemesis. Intellectually, not so. The observable evidence, including speciation, is overwhelming. I'm finding it more difficult to wrap my mind around what I'm learning about the concept and properties of emergence. Probably moreso due to my ignorance of the subject, but also because it's not nearly as intuitive as design. Re: empiricism vs. faith: As an apologist defending a OEC (Old Earth Creationist) stance, I would resort to quote mining, rhetorical sophistry, special pleading, etc. I knew I was. The cognitive dissonance was discomfiting. Now, I no longer fear ANY evidence, nor where it might lead. Also, I now am much more demanding and critical in terms of the substance and validity of the evidence. Essentially, it's a matter of how one responds to the data. Accept or minimize, explain away, etc. I'm sure you're aware that many Christians accept biological evolution and yet retain a belief in God, including many scientists in the field of origins. I don't belong to that cohort, but I know that the more fundamentalist one's background, the more challenging it is to accept the science on origins. I wish you the best on your journey.
@@toniacollinske2518 A lot definitely comes down to how the conclusions are communicated. A tough job in a market that rewards less nuance and more clickbait.
@@kentstallard6512 thanks for your thoughts. As I’ve gone along I’ve definitely grown more comfortable examining data that challenges my current understandings so I feel like I hear you there. I can’t say I’m 100% versed in the field of origins, I don’t recognize most of the names and concepts you brought up. But I was raised in a place, at at time, and went to a church university that doesn’t have a problem with concepts of evolution coexisting with a divine being. Maybe that’s why that one in particular has never bothered me much from a faith perspective but I’ll continue learning for sure.
Probably the best take down Dan (or anyone else for that matter) has ever done. I can’t even imagine what it would be like for an inerrantist to listen to this and try to respond.
Years ago, I read a book titled 'The Pooh Perplex' which was purely satire. It was purported to be a collection of 5 different theses on critical scholarship of Winnie The Pooh coming from 5 different (ok 12 actually) authors and their respective viewpoints (or scholarly intent). The first two were obvious - Marxist/Leninist, Christian Religionist, then from a College Freshman lit course, and i now forget the other two. I found it absolutely hilarious, and realized that it was all to easy to adhere to a particular viewpoint - whether valid or not - and then turn any action, words, or situations into support for ones' viewpoint, if one searched enough. I haven't read whatever the original creator was waving about, but just mentioning Winnie the Pooh, and I immediately remember the book. (sadly, I 'loaned' the book to a friend, and shortly he moved away before I could retrieve it.)
Did I miss the link to the Kevin Carnahan video that Dan mentions at the end? I can't seem to find Carnahan's response amongst his videos, but I would love to see it. Help?
I'm curious Dan, I know your scholarship is in the Bible, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about the Book of Mormon. I'm in the middle of trying to figure out what to do with it and would love to hear your perspective.
The projection that some people have. Dogmatic apologists claim critical scholars are actually the dogmatic individuals. Christians claim that athiests are actually the ones that have faith. Hilarious.
Yep...that's the tactic of last resort when the evidence has them backed into the corner: false equivalence, Tu Quoque fallacy, etc. 'You non-believers are just as religious as I am, and rely on faith as much as I do!' Pathetic.
@@kentstallard6512 I have heard a Christian speaker say, "Everyone has faith. You had faith that the chair you sat in would hold you up." This argument is flawed because we know that other people have sat in the chair and it has held up and that it is constructed in a way that will be supportive. If it was not, it would have been replaced by a good one. If I build a chair and test it, I am not putting it on faith that it will work, I am making a logical assumption. Totally agree on what you said.
So my question is, though true that prophecies and miracles are something that data cannot govern and can only be taken as a dogma which we choose to accept but is/are there any scholarship studies on what are the parameters that makes a text divine and if those parameters are fulfilled then whatever the text says should be accepted? Thanks.
It is always good to hear from 'real scholars' about their work and methodology. To even question Christian Apologists 'dogma' results in vicious fallacious attacks that are simply unwarranted. And that sort of ignorant attack discredits Christianity as a whole in my opinion.
You weren't hard enough on this guy. How does he think we even get translations of the Bible, divine inspiration polyglot style? Without critical thought, the very meanings of the text would be lost.
How could it possibly be? Christian apologists are often dead set at starting at a conclusion and then working backwards to get it, while secular scholars are not bound by such presuppositions. Everyone has a bias sure, but it seems Christian apologetics have more bias on this subject.
This sounds very similar to the old "it takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer", in the sense that it is calling things the opposite of what they actually are in an attempt to level the playing field. The same happens here by calling something, that is expressly not dogmatic, dogmatic. Apologists really like to turn things on their head, whether it makes sense or not.
It is wrong to be a little extra critical of scholars that are employed by institutions that have statements of faith that carry consequences for violating the statement of faith? I mean, we ought to be be critical of, well, everything I reckon, but sometimes I can't help but notice motives...
Personally I feel like your question and your use of the word "wrong" may stem from a moral judgement about your distrust of the context. If so, the answer is no. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and nothing wrong with challenging your biases. Considering potential motives or bias instilled by the instituion for which a scholar works is simply part of considering context. Could someone be biased by their own affiliations or those who employ them? Of course. If they are genuinely applying critical scholarship they are asking the same questions of themselves all the time. Its also possible for someone to not be remotely biased by their affilliations, employer or even their own personal beliefs. Consider that until the start of 2023 Dan was employed by the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He's even written papers challenging certain long held Mormon interpretations and beliefs. And no, his work isn't why he left corporate church employment. He left because his social media career is bangin' successful. He's still an active member of the Mormon church while also being an exceptionally knowledgeable Biblical critical scholar.
I don't know why apologists don't just take the position that they accept critical scholarship whilst maintaining that it doesn't disprove the idea that the texts were divinely inspired. they just look like fools otherwise
Frédérick Crewes, an English professor, gained fame by writing a satirical parody of various critical approaches, normally used for serious literature, applied to A.A. Milne’s Winnie the Pooh. The Pooh Perplex. It is good fun. Decades later, Crewes did a much nastier satirical parody of more reçent critical methods, called Postmodern Pooh.
The apologist critic has not even done an introductory historiography course. Language changes, societies change, societal beliefs change. Even a read of Genesis 1 indicates the Bible has been nailed together from different sources/traditions.
A lot of “rejecting authorship” isn’t even really that; nothing about the books of the Torah themselves would lead you to believe they were written by Moses, for example.
Do you think critics of critics wonder if they have become worst whovthey are crititzing. Least those whom they are criticizing have experience. These prople should find jobs where they make a difference, not just sprout their halfass thoughts.
Apologetics are like little kids in the sandbox and most often loose arguments with good scholars. Apologetics have some disdain for truth and all you have to do is watch some of the big churches on TV. There's one pastor who crows and wants a big war in the middle east. He's that rather large fellow that idolizes eschatology. People like Dan bring out the truth of the Bible, the who, the what, the when and where. To me, scholars have allowed me to have a stronger faith.
This is the entire problem with their revelatory epistemology, you have no avenue to challenge the arbitrary exemptions we allow the privileged texts to posses.
not "dogmatic" the christina tries to use that word and uses it incorrectly. The word he wants is that critical scholarship uses facts and he doesn't like that. He has to plead for "charity" for his baseless nonsense that not even other christians agree with.
But to be counter-fair, obviously SOMEONE existed to write these books. It's sort of like how, even if we aren't sure that anything Paul tells us about himself is true, there was a guy who authored all the genuine epistles and that guy, for all intents and purposes, is Paul. The author of Daniel is known to not be Daniel, but the mere fact he isn't Daniel and that we lack evidence of who he was doesn't mean he didn't exist. It just means some guy existed who wasn't Daniel and wrote the book as a singular author. There WERE people behind these works, but most of them seem to have vanished into the legends told about them or been subsumed by legendary figures.
@@Uryvichk You could argue however that Paul wasn't really Paul if analysis of the Pauline letters led to the conclusion that they couldn't have been written in the time and context they're about. Like, if one person wrote them, but he was clearly writing 100 years later, long after the early spread of Christianity, but was writing from the point of view of the character Paul who'd established many of those early Churches among the Gentiles. Paul is both a writer of texts and a character in those texts who played a role in early Christianity. If those aren't the same person, then Paul the writer isn't really Paul the character. The same basically holds true for the Gospel texts. The same dude wrote Luke and Acts, we're pretty sure about that, but that doesn't mean that he's, for all intents and purposes, Luke. Luke the companion of Paul is not "Luke" the gospel writer. Now, if there's a text with a traditional authorship, where the traditional author doesn't figure in their own text or elsewhere in Biblical (or Church) history, then it would make sense to say the author of that text was really, for all intents and purposes, that person, since there's nothing else known about them, but authoring that text. If we had a Gospel According to Bob that just told the story as Bob knew it that would make sense. But I'm not sure we have that anywhere in the Bible. Not in the New Testament, since apostolic authorship was one of the things those setting the canon considered.
So everyone has the wrong version of Christianity but those who agree with you and your interpretation? Your post proves Dan's point: the Bible is not univocal. Thousands of Christian denominations, one Bible.
@@kentstallard6512 I am not a Christian. The Bible is most definitely not Univocal or inerrant. My comment was just a thought I had when I compared the behavior of apologists to the supposed behavior of Jesus. It more or less seems like they are becoming what he preached against. They are the new Pharisees.
Because that would be an argument from authority. Just because someone is educated formally or informally, or has peer review papers, doesn't mean they're right. In the same way, just because someone is uneducated or hasn't published, doesn't mean they're wrong.
No but people that have an education or formal training in a given subject tend to no more and are more trustworthy. It’s also a way of filtering information. I require peer review and education on professional and formal topics unless the individual is siting a professional. The same way when I have a medical issue I don’t ask my mechanic.
I was thought documentary hipothesis at theology college by a proffesor who treated it as a dogma. I am glad that that dogma is debunked.That was just one of numerous protestant hilarious dogmas. Protestants constantly change their beliefs but they allways insist that the newest one is the right one....Also,when you say dogma, you have to be specific: is it christian dogma or antichristian dogma,.....
Making short sharp videos that are straightforward debunkings of false claim make the most sense. The claim is X, but in actual fact it's Y, very simple get in and get out. But once things get more complicated and nuanced -- this is not a serious argument, this is a parody, but it's not a good parody, because it strawmans it's target -- it might make more sense to slow down and explain it carefully instead of rushing through it in just 90 seconds.
I am a lapsed Mormon and no longer believe the Church’s core truth claims. I’m honest enough to say that up front. Dan should stop calling himself a “faithful Mormon” if he rejects any divine origin for the Bible or B of M. It’s profoundly dishonest.
Hmmm. Lots of finger pointing going on here. I think both sides have some legitimate complaints. What I really want to hone in on, however, is Dan's assumption that the academic approach he is using (higher criticism) is objective and superior. Dan's academic approach is fundamentally skeptical, meaning it prioritizes empirical evidence and rational argument to substantiate claims. Academic skeptics take evidence that can be seen or touched or otherwise apprehended by the senses (or extensions of the senses like a microscope), and make reasonable claims from that evidence. That word "reasonable" is really important. Skeptics are always going to argue for what is most likely based on their own experience and will always hold a heavy bias against anomalous events, or events that are exceptions to the patterns of everyday life. They also tend to be heavily biased against any kind of metaphysical or supernatural evidence that might be brought to an argument, because those types of evidence are not empirical. Dan obviously prefers the skeptic worldview, but let's not pretend that his worldview is objective and unbiased. A great example of this bias is the claims made about Jesus' resurrection. Dan and other skeptics will immediately throw out the possibility of Christ's resurrection because the event is both unreasonable and anomalous. All our understanding of the physical world points to it being impossible, AND it only happened once. This is something that, at it's core, would be incredibly difficult for a skeptic to accept as true. But this skepticism heavily biases people like Dan against the evidence. If we had the same number and kind of sources that we have now attesting to Christ's resurrection, but they were about a meal he had on a Tuesday, Dan and his colleagues would all accept that meal as a historical fact. Entire theories of ancient anthropology have been built on far less evidence. I have seen huge sweeping claims made based on the discovery of a few stone idols at an archaeological site. When Dan says "the data do not support that," he is simply stating the lack of empirical evidence for a particular claim. What is hidden behind that statement is a bias which says, "If physical proof doesn't exist, then I am going with an explanation which assumes no supernatural intervention." The data absolutely do support the claim that Christ rose from the dead, but they don't prove it. So Dan's says some other explanation of the evidence is more reasonable. But none of the claims of higher criticism can be "proven" either. It's easy for a Christian to apply the core ideas of such criticism to the Biblical text; they will just be working from a different bias with different core assumptions. These videos would bother me far less if Dan simply acknowledged his bias and just said, "I don't believe it. I don't like the Bible and its truth claims and I'm looking for empirical/rational explanations for the Bible as a cultural text devoid of any true divinity." Religious people are not dummies. They don't magically lose their rational faculties when they come to faith. Yes they are biased. But so are you.
@@wheat3226 Lazarus was raised from the dead by Christ. No one was there to raise Christ from the dead. Also, according to Christian theology, Christ was not only raised from the dead, but he was raised never to die again. Presumably, Lazarus eventually died of old age. The point still stands regardless. Both events defy reason from a skeptic's point of view.
So are you okay with singular supernatural instances as valid data when those instances are from Hinduism or Islam? Or only in the text you prefer? Scholarship and skepticism are not the same thing, though in some ways they are similar.
@jarredvalls7951 I agree that everyone should get a fair shot when entering into these kinds of debates. I actually bear no ill will toward Dan's academic discipline. We need people who are willing to look at archaeological evidence and at the texts themselves so that we can better understand such an important part of human history. I feel frustrated when I watch some of Dan's videos (like this one) because he uses his position as a scholar to project confidence and certainty that I think is unwarranted. I'm actually not in love with the apologist video for the same reasons. Dan is a talented writer and speaker. He chooses his words carefully so that he cannot be accused directly of saying anything false. But in this video and other videos, he often takes the tone of educating poor misguided folks on the real, actual truth about the meaning of the Bible and its history. He even tells a story in this video about a poor misguided graduate student who came from a seminary and needed to be "gently corrected" on his assumptions about mosaic authorship by more informed scholars. Some very smart Christian scholars have made very reasonable arguments for mosaic authorship. You don't have to agree with those arguments (Dan clearly doesn't) but to act like these arguments are only made my misguided, uninformed (and possibly less smart) people is unfair. This kind of condescension bothers me. And to be fair, I don't like it when apologists take similar tacks (Ken Ham drives me crazy in this respect). The purpose of my comment was to point out from a philosophical perspective the inherent bias in skeptical approaches to scholarship. Skeptics assume beforehand the implausibility of the Biblical narrative. Believers, because of their personal experiences with deity, take the opposite approach; because God has revealed himself to them personally, they are willing to accept the possibility of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the parting of the Red Sea. These approaches greatly impact the evidence each group finds convincing. For instance, believing Christians will put much heavier emphasis on authorship claims made by those who shared and compiled Biblical texts anciently, while skeptics will be more likely to throw those claims out because they believe early Christians might not have been careful enough or that they aren't trustworthy because they believe in impossible things like resurrection or virgin birth. Both perspectives are biased. I just wish Dan would admit that bias instead of speaking as if he has the truth and is simply sharing it with his audience.
CS Lewis wrote and essay or three about this - when he was an Oxford undergrad Homer had been debunked and assigned to any number of authors - but by the 1950s Homer was back and nearly no so chopped up. Most famously he wrote 'Fernseeds and Elephants', which exactly desribes the reductionist trivialism of Wellhausen/DocHype proponents which Danny boy so perfectly represents here and now
This video literally pre empts and thoroughly debunks your comment. Not sure why you waste time posting this if you're not even going to engage with the content of what you're supposedly responding to.
The ignorance of this comment is so loud my ears are burning. There’s clearly wiggle room on how the composite structure of the text is understood with several prevailing theories of how the Pentateuch was put together. But, even inerrantists like Michael Heiser and John Sailhammer acknowledge that the Pentateuch is a composite text (with a Mosaic core). And, contemporary advocates of the classical understanding of the DH are hardly confined to theological liberals, as relatively moderate and even conservative Christians and Jews have come around on this particular point to varying degrees. Even if one holds to some form of Divine Inspiration of the text, its composition, and its recognition as canonical (which I do BTW), this need not be subverted by critical scholarship simply because this is beyond the purview of its methodology, and because such claims are not falsifiable. If anything critical scholarship has liberated faith communities from the laconic, ossified, and categorically incoherent nature of fundamentalist literalism. All to say, you need to go do some more homework bro. There are plenty of believers who welcome and benefit from critical scholarship.
@@pansepot1490 clearly the best inspired rage poetry of all time. And, who wouldn’t want to spend a little time knocking around on the wine dark sea and stumble upon the lovely Circe for a spell?
CS Lewis was not a theologian, philosopher, scholar, or textual critic. CS Lewis was an author of bad fantasy and mediocre science fiction. He had a very high opinion of his own philosophical perspectives (having reasoned himself into his laughable position), but very little perspective on anything that serious scholars were considering. He is a layperson whose assertions appear convincing to laypeople, but he would not be agreed with even by conservative religious scholars who know better. Also, even if the Iliad and Odyssey have a single author, it doesn't make Homer real. Moses never existed even if a single group of priests composed the Torah. God never told Moses anything because there was no Moses to tell anything; whether God inspired whoever actually wrote the book is another matter, but it wasn't Moses (God doesn't write books though).
Ok, all wives are different, and I am speaking from a 21st century North American perspective, but if you really are married, I don't think your wife would be happy with the wrinkled shirt on your youtube channel. Dude, if you are doing your own laundry, fold it right out of the dryer.
Other prudish types would be alarmed at the lack of collar, but hey, you do you with your particular hang-ups on dress code. I’d prefer a wife that is responsible for having just mauled those wrinkles onto my t-shirt.
@@boboak9168 wrote "I’d prefer a wife that is responsible for having just mauled those wrinkles onto my t-shirt." True that, but we don't even know if there is a separation of duties in that house. This ain't OT times, but I cut the grass, take out the trash and do the dishes, my wife does the clothes. It seems to fall that way often.
The inherent problems with "higher criticsm" (aka "historical criticism"), despite the romanticized name, are that it's an approach to BIBLICAL scholarship specifically, not to "interrogate all kinds of literature," and that because it isn't taught until well after you've been indoctrinated, it comes with a very high potential risk for confirmation bias. The Winnie the Pooh paper may be satire, but that fact by no means makes this entire method any less questionable in and of itself.
I was a religious studies major. I can’t speak for everyone but there was no indoctrination before I learned higher criticism. We learned to follow data not presuppositions. I’ve also seen the technique applied to literature and myth.
@@VirtualBilly What faith? I have zero faith except where data leads me. And it has lead me in different directions over the years. I questioned my teachers and their methods because they encouraged me to. I am okay with uncertainty. It’s not a pretense.
@@DavidAlastairHayden You just defended a fundamentally religious study method that was developed by religious people to study religious evidence, and now you’re asserting that you have no faith? Look up the word “introspection” and talk to me again when you’re less confused.
I hate it when my mechanic *presupposes* that my car troubles are caused by mechanical failures and just dogmatically rejects the possibility of a gremlin slowly destroying it while no one is looking
Right!!? I HATE car-eating gremlins!!!! 😂
That's not necessarily true. Sometimes the gremlin destroys it suddenly.
😂
Wow.... this is pretty meta o.O and as per usual, apologetists seem to be projecting pretty spectacularly. Thanks for providing actual scholarship and data rather than the dogma out there! :D
Meta is the right word for this one
Most efficient tactics available? I guess the pot calling the white apron black.
God I love the hardcore and relentless logic Dan brings to these things
...and with the personality of a guy you'd like to have a beer with. That makes his facts and arguments even more effective.
Scholarship changes with more data whereas dogma remains the same despite new data
That's it in essence. 💯
Very succinctly said.
Not towards Christianity only in the opposite direction of their conformation bias!
Exactly.
The fact that it changes , not becomes better (like physics,biology...) says everything about their confusion..I will wait untill they stick to something for more than 10 years (like in biology, physics...)
Dan, I did not realize how uniformed some of our generations are about the critical method. My parents generation and the one before (I am Gen X) who have been life time church goers, if they know anything about it, have mainly been taught to view it with suspicion and mistrust. I was also indoctrinated this way, but it didn't stick. My world blew up when I discovered Robert Alter. I knew there was so much more to this text than Sunday school lessons! We use a lot of your YT material in our BEMA discussion groups. Thank you for making academics accessible to those of us who couldn't afford seminary or secondary degrees. Looking at taking some of your classes in the new year, hopefully! Shalom!
For all of the downsides of the Internet and social media, it has allowed for unprecedented access to legitimate scholarship for those who seek it.
Dan is performing a huge service, not just academically, but in combating the bigotry of some fundamentalists, which sadly we've seen on the increase in the MAGA era.
Please donate to Dan's A/V equipment fund. Those mic drops add up.
😂
As a former ordained Christian minister and apologist, I can tell you that this creator has nerve. Either that or he didn't do his homework.
I would've watched some of Dan's content before engaging him. And it wouldn't have taken more than a handful of videos to realize that I was in over my head because he's bringing the goods. Not merely data but the expertise to put it into context.
And....he's intellectually HONEST.
Dan, thank you, truly, you have no idea how inspiring it is to hear from someone like you, no matter the religious or non-religious background of the person coming upon this knowledge, it moves people forward and informs them about what there is, and what there is not. Also, you defences of your videos are excellent, defending one´s work sometimes is better than just making it.
I thought most realized if all your education comes from only like minded people you are in a very small impermeable bubble = cult
I was that guy, making false equivalence of academic biblical study to something I could lampoon. (Kicking myself I never thought of Winnie the Pooh! Lol)
Today I’m so thankful for these short YTs: I spent 30 yrs remonstrating against this stuff (closing my ears helped lol) - but opening my eyes has made me happy
Can I so relate to this.
That unrelenting cognitive dissonance is headache inducing, isn't it? 😁
Me too! The scales were completely over my eyes, now i can see the bible for what it is. The book doesn't have all the answers, nor is it authoritative in my life.
YES, I agree, Dan. If you study Theology of a certain Church group, it only means that you follow and study their own findings and rules and what that specific church stands for. If you question them on what they believe, they throw you out of their church and ask you never to return, because you are not allowed to think critical as you have to accept THEIR way of thinking.
Thank you for your critical thinking.
If you do not ask questions you will never learn.
Thank you, thank you!!!!
I was fortunate when I was in Lutheran seminary in the late 60s and early 70s that the faculty approached the scriptures with text criticism processes. Further, we were taught that sermon preparation was to begin with our own translation of the text from the source manuscripts, considering the issues raised by context, source etc. There were some students among my classmates who were very much opposed to this. Beyond the opposition to biblical scholarship and textual criticism, I think the apologists' stance points to deeper issues of insecurity, fear, and fragile personalities. Although I am now an atheist, I appreciate your videos.
Similarly methodological naturalism rejects supernatural causes because hundreds of years of study have never found them. Its not a presupposition, it just results from the lack of ever finding one and having found natural causes for supposed supernatural events, such as lightning, or earthquakes, or plagues, or droughts etc.
It's revealing that apologists, rather than offering data which substantiates their beliefs, employ the rhetorical trick and logical fallacy of false equivalence.
Categorize--without evidence--your opponents as being what you the apologist are: faith-based-not empiricist-worldview, intellectually dishonest, etc. Claim that neither side can "prove" the other wrong, but that your faith is more inherently reasonable than your opponents' "faith."
Classic projection. I know, as a former ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist.
The old idea, "Sure I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it, so it must be true".. I forget the name of that fallacy. I think scholars can basically ignore the question of God's involvement in creating the Bible and just point to all the evidence of human authorship and editing. If people want to conclude that God is orchestrating all that messiness for some mysterious reason that's their problem to sort out.
That said, from a moral and philosophical standpoint, it is easier to disagree with the slavery and genocide in the Bible if we can just attribute it to humans. But hey, if they want to attribute all the internal contradictions and gross inhumanity to God, well, that is a weird hill to die on.
For being usually calm and collected, this might be the first time I have seen someone really get on Dan's nerves.
I dont think it wad due to the personal attack but some of these creators just dont listen to what they are saying.
Dan: you may attack me, but you will never attack critical scholarship!!
En garde!
I don't see this clip as representing Dan at his most agitated.
I perceive that what really irks him is the use of the Bible to rationalize and support bigoted and harmful narratives, because of the harm they cause.
Biblical literalist apologists who offer logical fallacies are annoying, for sure.
Critical scholarship is of vital importance to remove the literalism that the church has held to for hundreds of years
Indeed, especially when considering the harm that such literalism can lead to, as Dan points out so often.
This isn't merely academic.
Thank you for providing this service, Dan. The fact that I address you casually here is no slight of your impressive credentials. My perception is that you aren't the kind of person who insists on or elicits being addressed as Doctor.
And that, as much as your erudition and articulate, cogent presentation of the facts, is why I think you are very effective. You defy the stereotype of the condescending academic (another strawman, of course), and convey humility and sincerity.
As a former ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist, I can attest that while I tried to convince myself I was approaching the evidence objectively and critically, I knew better. Apologists are like trial attorneys who parse the evidence not for the truth, but rather that which supports their case.
The difference between this apologist creator critic and scholars like Dr. McClellan can be boiled down to how they respond to data. Dan will discard and/or adjust his current view if presented substantial and valid contrary evidence. The apologist will not.
Apologists are a wild group. They attempt to frame and blame only to hide the weakness of their argument.
As a former ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist I liken it to being in the role of a defense attorney, in respect to the evidence. It is parsed not with the objective of going wherever it leads, motivated by a desire for the truth, but rather to find whatever could be used for the case.
Imagine that attorney passionately believes they already have the truth regarding the innocence of their client, to a degree that compels them to prioritize their defense over rhe data. And that doing so is morally the right thing to do.
Thank you for this.
Dan I have few heroes, except for my mother and my wife, but I have a number of people I admire for their conscientious scholarship and minds. You, my I-wana-be-your friend, are one of those I admire. Mostly by accident, I spent ten years of my life in higher education; If there ever was a rough stone rolling, I had to be one of them; Kicking and screaming, I learned to admire good teachers, good teachings and good thinkings. You, Dan are the type of scholar I learned to and still do admire. In my bestest scholarly language, may I say, "one helluva academic." I wonder, Dan, If you might view an interview I did on the backyard professor podcast with Kerry Shirts, in which I share my observations on the Roman civilization and the so-called Lehite one, suppossedly contemporaneous. After viewing episode 125, and if you find it worthy of your level of discussion, perhaps we might become colleagues.
One of the best vids you’ve made in a while. More like this please.
Thank you!
Love your work and commitment to truth, Dan ❤
Love this. Hope sometimes you will do more vids explaining scholarship and how it works.
Wow! Just amazing! Wow! ❤
So many of these "creators" seem just allergic to science. It's weird.
Not when you consider that they begin with the conclusion, i.e., biblical literalism, and thus are allergic to any and all data which contradict their worldview.
I know. I was one of them. The allergy manifests itself in the cognitive dissonance, and resultant headaches.
Pathetic that Christian apologists need to misrepresent evidence to make their point. The fact that this creator takes seriously a work meant as satire is telling.
Amazing! Great video
I would be very open to a good faith discussion about weak spots in individuals' scholarship, or a school of thought, or the scholarly community at large. In fact, scholars challenge eachother all the time and in this way help keep eachother honest.
Scholars are humans and suffer from cognitive biases like everyone else, and so should not let their guard down, BUT...
the critical methodology and the culture of "how do you know that?" tends to be subversive of various biases;
whereas the apologists' method generally starts with a presupposition (like the Bible's inerrancy) and argues backwards - making confirmation bias a prominent feature rather than a bug.
As always, spot on Dan
I think the thing about this video that should possibly inspire the most confidence in your motives is the fact that you are doing everything you can to protect the original creator from a viral criticism onslaught, from the note at the beginning of the video to not even linking his content anywhere here. I have no idea who he is or how to find him (perhaps some do). You yourself are levying the appropriate academic criticism in an extremely mature, non-combative and unemotional way (seriously, you hold back several times when you could have blasted him) rather than provoking an army of followers to simply attack this person. This clearly shows you are not posting this as retribution. Your motive, as you state in your intros, seems to simply be to correct misunderstandings.
That being said, I would love to hear the rest of your responses to what he said but can't seem to find them.
Outstanding sir
Special pleading and double standards. They have to smear anyone they fear.
There it is 🔥
A master class in critical reasoning, logical arguments and how to spot the never ending apologetic arguments based on misinformation.. well done Dan we appreciate your dedication🖖
Something I struggle with is that the conclusions are only as good as the data we have and the methods we use. However, those are always changing as we get new data and develop new methods. I mean look at pretty much all scientific pursuits. #RIPplanetputo I definitely respect the work and goals of critical scholarship, lots of what Dan has said has really forced me to confront my presupositions and help me arrive at a richer spiritual faith. But it's hard to totally put my trust/faith in these systems that speak so confidently about it one way now but is guaranteed to change its tune. I'd really like to understand how people in the scientific and academic communities view that issue.
It is hard to accept that it is impossible to know the absolute truth about most things. We have a perspective from where we examine things, we come up with what is most probably the truth, but in science, there is always room for new data that may upset the apple cart.
I don't believe good scholars ever say something is absolutely true. Dan says "the data indicates". Just as we discover and recalibrate our understanding of the universe because we now have the Webb telescope. We had good info before, now we have better.
Former ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist here.
I see it as empiricism vs. faith and intuition.
The teleological, Kalam, etc. arguments are intuitive. Even Dawkins was forced to admit that. Accepting the reality of biological evolution was a little emotionally chafing, since it was my chief nemesis. Intellectually, not so. The observable evidence, including speciation, is overwhelming. I'm finding it more difficult to wrap my mind around what I'm learning about the concept and properties of emergence. Probably moreso due to my ignorance of the subject, but also because it's not nearly as intuitive as design.
Re: empiricism vs. faith: As an apologist defending a OEC (Old Earth Creationist) stance, I would resort to quote mining, rhetorical sophistry, special pleading, etc. I knew I was. The cognitive dissonance was discomfiting. Now, I no longer fear ANY evidence, nor where it might lead. Also, I now am much more demanding and critical in terms of the substance and validity of the evidence.
Essentially, it's a matter of how one responds to the data. Accept or minimize, explain away, etc.
I'm sure you're aware that many Christians accept biological evolution and yet retain a belief in God, including many scientists in the field of origins. I don't belong to that cohort, but I know that the more fundamentalist one's background, the more challenging it is to accept the science on origins.
I wish you the best on your journey.
@@toniacollinske2518 A lot definitely comes down to how the conclusions are communicated. A tough job in a market that rewards less nuance and more clickbait.
@@kentstallard6512 thanks for your thoughts. As I’ve gone along I’ve definitely grown more comfortable examining data that challenges my current understandings so I feel like I hear you there.
I can’t say I’m 100% versed in the field of origins, I don’t recognize most of the names and concepts you brought up. But I was raised in a place, at at time, and went to a church university that doesn’t have a problem with concepts of evolution coexisting with a divine being. Maybe that’s why that one in particular has never bothered me much from a faith perspective but I’ll continue learning for sure.
And other great one Dan
@04:42 Graduate School at Trinity Western University shout out!
Represent.
Probably the best take down Dan (or anyone else for that matter) has ever done. I can’t even imagine what it would be like for an inerrantist to listen to this and try to respond.
Dan is the best
Great lesson and video. Love the apologetics to the apologists!
Interesting discussion. I would be interested on what criticisms Dan has about the Book of Mormon.
You have a talent, man.
A very important talent.
Most epic roast of the decade thus far
Dan drops the mic in such a soft spoken, controlled, rational manner.
Makes the sound of the mic hitting the floor even louder. 😁
🔥🔥🔥
You heard it directly from batman.
Years ago, I read a book titled 'The Pooh Perplex' which was purely satire. It was purported to be a collection of 5 different theses on critical scholarship of Winnie The Pooh coming from 5 different (ok 12 actually) authors and their respective viewpoints (or scholarly intent). The first two were obvious - Marxist/Leninist, Christian Religionist, then from a College Freshman lit course, and i now forget the other two. I found it absolutely hilarious, and realized that it was all to easy to adhere to a particular viewpoint - whether valid or not - and then turn any action, words, or situations into support for ones' viewpoint, if one searched enough. I haven't read whatever the original creator was waving about, but just mentioning Winnie the Pooh, and I immediately remember the book. (sadly, I 'loaned' the book to a friend, and shortly he moved away before I could retrieve it.)
Did I miss the link to the Kevin Carnahan video that Dan mentions at the end? I can't seem to find Carnahan's response amongst his videos, but I would love to see it. Help?
I'm curious Dan, I know your scholarship is in the Bible, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about the Book of Mormon. I'm in the middle of trying to figure out what to do with it and would love to hear your perspective.
The projection that some people have. Dogmatic apologists claim critical scholars are actually the dogmatic individuals. Christians claim that athiests are actually the ones that have faith. Hilarious.
Yep...that's the tactic of last resort when the evidence has them backed into the corner: false equivalence, Tu Quoque fallacy, etc.
'You non-believers are just as religious as I am, and rely on faith as much as I do!'
Pathetic.
@@kentstallard6512 I have heard a Christian speaker say, "Everyone has faith. You had faith that the chair you sat in would hold you up." This argument is flawed because we know that other people have sat in the chair and it has held up and that it is constructed in a way that will be supportive. If it was not, it would have been replaced by a good one. If I build a chair and test it, I am not putting it on faith that it will work, I am making a logical assumption. Totally agree on what you said.
@@BluStarGalaxy Exactly.
So my question is, though true that prophecies and miracles are something that data cannot govern and can only be taken as a dogma which we choose to accept but is/are there any scholarship studies on what are the parameters that makes a text divine and if those parameters are fulfilled then whatever the text says should be accepted? Thanks.
Sarcasm is hard to convey in written form.
It is always good to hear from 'real scholars' about their work and methodology. To even question Christian Apologists 'dogma' results in vicious fallacious attacks that are simply unwarranted. And that sort of ignorant attack discredits Christianity as a whole in my opinion.
I think the batman scholar is better looking... that's my dogma. The other stuff is too complex for me.
Holy Indifference, Batman! 😄
Not snarking....I liked your post.
When one has to lie, to one's self first and foremost, to protect presuppositions, as apologists so often do, one might just consider rethinking.
Apologetics trying to throw cheap shots at Dan. So petty!
This guy's microphone looking phallic
😅
Now look what you've done...the fundamentalists will read your post and claim that Dan is the "branch" of Ezekiel 8:17. 😂
OH NO!! Not exposure to Critical Thinking!!! NOOOOO!!! 😂😂😂
I always think the word Pentateuch sounds like a cuss word…
Apologists - conclusion guides the data
🖖🏾🤘🏾✊🏾
You weren't hard enough on this guy. How does he think we even get translations of the Bible, divine inspiration polyglot style? Without critical thought, the very meanings of the text would be lost.
Sounds like he just hating on Dan nothing more that's why it makes no sense
How could it possibly be? Christian apologists are often dead set at starting at a conclusion and then working backwards to get it, while secular scholars are not bound by such presuppositions. Everyone has a bias sure, but it seems Christian apologetics have more bias on this subject.
This sounds very similar to the old "it takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer", in the sense that it is calling things the opposite of what they actually are in an attempt to level the playing field.
The same happens here by calling something, that is expressly not dogmatic, dogmatic. Apologists really like to turn things on their head, whether it makes sense or not.
For someone out of the loop: What's an MDiv?
Master of Divinity. It's a type of master's degree you usually get from a divinity school.
It is wrong to be a little extra critical of scholars that are employed by institutions that have statements of faith that carry consequences for violating the statement of faith? I mean, we ought to be be critical of, well, everything I reckon, but sometimes I can't help but notice motives...
Personally I feel like your question and your use of the word "wrong" may stem from a moral judgement about your distrust of the context. If so, the answer is no. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and nothing wrong with challenging your biases. Considering potential motives or bias instilled by the instituion for which a scholar works is simply part of considering context. Could someone be biased by their own affiliations or those who employ them? Of course. If they are genuinely applying critical scholarship they are asking the same questions of themselves all the time. Its also possible for someone to not be remotely biased by their affilliations, employer or even their own personal beliefs. Consider that until the start of 2023 Dan was employed by the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He's even written papers challenging certain long held Mormon interpretations and beliefs. And no, his work isn't why he left corporate church employment. He left because his social media career is bangin' successful. He's still an active member of the Mormon church while also being an exceptionally knowledgeable Biblical critical scholar.
Has Doctor Frank ever claimed he doesn't have enough faith to be a biblical scholar?
I don't know why apologists don't just take the position that they accept critical scholarship whilst maintaining that it doesn't disprove the idea that the texts were divinely inspired. they just look like fools otherwise
Frédérick Crewes, an English professor, gained fame by writing a satirical parody of various critical approaches, normally used for serious literature, applied to A.A. Milne’s Winnie the Pooh. The Pooh Perplex. It is good fun. Decades later, Crewes did a much nastier satirical parody of more reçent critical methods, called Postmodern Pooh.
The apologist critic has not even done an introductory historiography course. Language changes, societies change, societal beliefs change. Even a read of Genesis 1 indicates the Bible has been nailed together from different sources/traditions.
A lot of “rejecting authorship” isn’t even really that; nothing about the books of the Torah themselves would lead you to believe they were written by Moses, for example.
Long due video
Do you think critics of critics wonder if they have become worst whovthey are crititzing. Least those whom they are criticizing have experience.
These prople should find jobs where they make a difference, not just sprout their halfass thoughts.
To paraphrase Dr Justin Sledge, if you let your beliefs dictate your scholarship, you betray both of them.
Apologetics are like little kids in the sandbox and most often loose arguments with good scholars. Apologetics have some disdain for truth and all you have to do is watch some of the big churches on TV. There's one pastor who crows and wants a big war in the middle east. He's that rather large fellow that idolizes eschatology. People like Dan bring out the truth of the Bible, the who, the what, the when and where. To me, scholars have allowed me to have a stronger faith.
Stirring
This is the entire problem with their revelatory epistemology, you have no avenue to challenge the arbitrary exemptions we allow the privileged texts to posses.
not "dogmatic" the christina tries to use that word and uses it incorrectly. The word he wants is that critical scholarship uses facts and he doesn't like that. He has to plead for "charity" for his baseless nonsense that not even other christians agree with.
OK, but to be fair, the authors of those Bible books are not actually known, as there is no legit evidence that any of those people even existed.
But to be counter-fair, obviously SOMEONE existed to write these books. It's sort of like how, even if we aren't sure that anything Paul tells us about himself is true, there was a guy who authored all the genuine epistles and that guy, for all intents and purposes, is Paul. The author of Daniel is known to not be Daniel, but the mere fact he isn't Daniel and that we lack evidence of who he was doesn't mean he didn't exist. It just means some guy existed who wasn't Daniel and wrote the book as a singular author. There WERE people behind these works, but most of them seem to have vanished into the legends told about them or been subsumed by legendary figures.
@@Uryvichk You could argue however that Paul wasn't really Paul if analysis of the Pauline letters led to the conclusion that they couldn't have been written in the time and context they're about. Like, if one person wrote them, but he was clearly writing 100 years later, long after the early spread of Christianity, but was writing from the point of view of the character Paul who'd established many of those early Churches among the Gentiles. Paul is both a writer of texts and a character in those texts who played a role in early Christianity. If those aren't the same person, then Paul the writer isn't really Paul the character.
The same basically holds true for the Gospel texts. The same dude wrote Luke and Acts, we're pretty sure about that, but that doesn't mean that he's, for all intents and purposes, Luke. Luke the companion of Paul is not "Luke" the gospel writer.
Now, if there's a text with a traditional authorship, where the traditional author doesn't figure in their own text or elsewhere in Biblical (or Church) history, then it would make sense to say the author of that text was really, for all intents and purposes, that person, since there's nothing else known about them, but authoring that text. If we had a Gospel According to Bob that just told the story as Bob knew it that would make sense.
But I'm not sure we have that anywhere in the Bible. Not in the New Testament, since apostolic authorship was one of the things those setting the canon considered.
Apologists don’t really believe in Jesus or what he taught. They’re more interested in using the Bible as a means to justify their Fascist worldview.
💯👍
What does that even mean? Lmao
So everyone has the wrong version of Christianity but those who agree with you and your interpretation?
Your post proves Dan's point: the Bible is not univocal. Thousands of Christian denominations, one Bible.
@@kentstallard6512 I am not a Christian. The Bible is most definitely not Univocal or inerrant. My comment was just a thought I had when I compared the behavior of apologists to the supposed behavior of Jesus. It more or less seems like they are becoming what he preached against. They are the new Pharisees.
If the guy he is responding to is not an educated scholar with peer reviewed research why should we care what he thinks.
Because that would be an argument from authority. Just because someone is educated formally or informally, or has peer review papers, doesn't mean they're right. In the same way, just because someone is uneducated or hasn't published, doesn't mean they're wrong.
No but people that have an education or formal training in a given subject tend to no more and are more trustworthy. It’s also a way of filtering information. I require peer review and education on professional and formal topics unless the individual is siting a professional. The same way when I have a medical issue I don’t ask my mechanic.
The guy simply doesn't get science.
Nope, it's just more honest.
Hah, hah! Well if we allow reality to dictate our research how will we reach the conclusion we've already decided upon? 😂
Unlike God i can actually seen all the Batmans, but Ben Affleck is not Batman.
Which is more likely, a book made over time, for many reasons, by many people or GOD made all this? When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebra.
You are too kind when you stop at calling apologists' claims "caricatures." The term "lies" would fit well.
I was thought documentary hipothesis at theology college by a proffesor who treated it as a dogma. I am glad that that dogma is debunked.That was just one of numerous protestant hilarious dogmas. Protestants constantly change their beliefs but they allways insist that the newest one is the right one....Also,when you say dogma, you have to be specific: is it christian dogma or antichristian dogma,.....
Making short sharp videos that are straightforward debunkings of false claim make the most sense. The claim is X, but in actual fact it's Y, very simple get in and get out.
But once things get more complicated and nuanced -- this is not a serious argument, this is a parody, but it's not a good parody, because it strawmans it's target -- it might make more sense to slow down and explain it carefully instead of rushing through it in just 90 seconds.
I am a lapsed Mormon and no longer believe the Church’s core truth claims. I’m honest enough to say that up front. Dan should stop calling himself a “faithful Mormon” if he rejects any divine origin for the Bible or B of M. It’s profoundly dishonest.
Hmmm. Lots of finger pointing going on here. I think both sides have some legitimate complaints. What I really want to hone in on, however, is Dan's assumption that the academic approach he is using (higher criticism) is objective and superior. Dan's academic approach is fundamentally skeptical, meaning it prioritizes empirical evidence and rational argument to substantiate claims. Academic skeptics take evidence that can be seen or touched or otherwise apprehended by the senses (or extensions of the senses like a microscope), and make reasonable claims from that evidence. That word "reasonable" is really important. Skeptics are always going to argue for what is most likely based on their own experience and will always hold a heavy bias against anomalous events, or events that are exceptions to the patterns of everyday life. They also tend to be heavily biased against any kind of metaphysical or supernatural evidence that might be brought to an argument, because those types of evidence are not empirical.
Dan obviously prefers the skeptic worldview, but let's not pretend that his worldview is objective and unbiased. A great example of this bias is the claims made about Jesus' resurrection. Dan and other skeptics will immediately throw out the possibility of Christ's resurrection because the event is both unreasonable and anomalous. All our understanding of the physical world points to it being impossible, AND it only happened once. This is something that, at it's core, would be incredibly difficult for a skeptic to accept as true. But this skepticism heavily biases people like Dan against the evidence. If we had the same number and kind of sources that we have now attesting to Christ's resurrection, but they were about a meal he had on a Tuesday, Dan and his colleagues would all accept that meal as a historical fact. Entire theories of ancient anthropology have been built on far less evidence. I have seen huge sweeping claims made based on the discovery of a few stone idols at an archaeological site.
When Dan says "the data do not support that," he is simply stating the lack of empirical evidence for a particular claim. What is hidden behind that statement is a bias which says, "If physical proof doesn't exist, then I am going with an explanation which assumes no supernatural intervention."
The data absolutely do support the claim that Christ rose from the dead, but they don't prove it. So Dan's says some other explanation of the evidence is more reasonable. But none of the claims of higher criticism can be "proven" either. It's easy for a Christian to apply the core ideas of such criticism to the Biblical text; they will just be working from a different bias with different core assumptions.
These videos would bother me far less if Dan simply acknowledged his bias and just said, "I don't believe it. I don't like the Bible and its truth claims and I'm looking for empirical/rational explanations for the Bible as a cultural text devoid of any true divinity." Religious people are not dummies. They don't magically lose their rational faculties when they come to faith. Yes they are biased. But so are you.
Resurrection only happened once?? I guess you don't believe then the evidence supports the resurrection of Lazarus.
@@wheat3226 Lazarus was raised from the dead by Christ. No one was there to raise Christ from the dead. Also, according to Christian theology, Christ was not only raised from the dead, but he was raised never to die again. Presumably, Lazarus eventually died of old age.
The point still stands regardless. Both events defy reason from a skeptic's point of view.
@@mrdevonscook And you believe all other religions supernatural claims? And I thought God was there to raise Christ from the dead.
So are you okay with singular supernatural instances as valid data when those instances are from Hinduism or Islam? Or only in the text you prefer?
Scholarship and skepticism are not the same thing, though in some ways they are similar.
@jarredvalls7951 I agree that everyone should get a fair shot when entering into these kinds of debates. I actually bear no ill will toward Dan's academic discipline. We need people who are willing to look at archaeological evidence and at the texts themselves so that we can better understand such an important part of human history.
I feel frustrated when I watch some of Dan's videos (like this one) because he uses his position as a scholar to project confidence and certainty that I think is unwarranted. I'm actually not in love with the apologist video for the same reasons. Dan is a talented writer and speaker. He chooses his words carefully so that he cannot be accused directly of saying anything false. But in this video and other videos, he often takes the tone of educating poor misguided folks on the real, actual truth about the meaning of the Bible and its history. He even tells a story in this video about a poor misguided graduate student who came from a seminary and needed to be "gently corrected" on his assumptions about mosaic authorship by more informed scholars. Some very smart Christian scholars have made very reasonable arguments for mosaic authorship. You don't have to agree with those arguments (Dan clearly doesn't) but to act like these arguments are only made my misguided, uninformed (and possibly less smart) people is unfair. This kind of condescension bothers me. And to be fair, I don't like it when apologists take similar tacks (Ken Ham drives me crazy in this respect).
The purpose of my comment was to point out from a philosophical perspective the inherent bias in skeptical approaches to scholarship. Skeptics assume beforehand the implausibility of the Biblical narrative. Believers, because of their personal experiences with deity, take the opposite approach; because God has revealed himself to them personally, they are willing to accept the possibility of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the parting of the Red Sea. These approaches greatly impact the evidence each group finds convincing. For instance, believing Christians will put much heavier emphasis on authorship claims made by those who shared and compiled Biblical texts anciently, while skeptics will be more likely to throw those claims out because they believe early Christians might not have been careful enough or that they aren't trustworthy because they believe in impossible things like resurrection or virgin birth. Both perspectives are biased. I just wish Dan would admit that bias instead of speaking as if he has the truth and is simply sharing it with his audience.
Im so confused by this guy.... Is he religious?
He's Mormon.
CS Lewis wrote and essay or three about this - when he was an Oxford undergrad Homer had been debunked and assigned to any number of authors - but by the 1950s Homer was back and nearly no so chopped up. Most famously he wrote 'Fernseeds and Elephants', which exactly desribes the reductionist trivialism of Wellhausen/DocHype proponents which Danny boy so perfectly represents here and now
This video literally pre empts and thoroughly debunks your comment. Not sure why you waste time posting this if you're not even going to engage with the content of what you're supposedly responding to.
The ignorance of this comment is so loud my ears are burning. There’s clearly wiggle room on how the composite structure of the text is understood with several prevailing theories of how the Pentateuch was put together. But, even inerrantists like Michael Heiser and John Sailhammer acknowledge that the Pentateuch is a composite text (with a Mosaic core). And, contemporary advocates of the classical understanding of the DH are hardly confined to theological liberals, as relatively moderate and even conservative Christians and Jews have come around on this particular point to varying degrees. Even if one holds to some form of Divine Inspiration of the text, its composition, and its recognition as canonical (which I do BTW), this need not be subverted by critical scholarship simply because this is beyond the purview of its methodology, and because such claims are not falsifiable. If anything critical scholarship has liberated faith communities from the laconic, ossified, and categorically incoherent nature of fundamentalist literalism.
All to say, you need to go do some more homework bro. There are plenty of believers who welcome and benefit from critical scholarship.
C’mon everyone knows that Homer was inspired by the muses, Calliope in particular. 😊
@@pansepot1490 clearly the best inspired rage poetry of all time. And, who wouldn’t want to spend a little time knocking around on the wine dark sea and stumble upon the lovely Circe for a spell?
CS Lewis was not a theologian, philosopher, scholar, or textual critic. CS Lewis was an author of bad fantasy and mediocre science fiction. He had a very high opinion of his own philosophical perspectives (having reasoned himself into his laughable position), but very little perspective on anything that serious scholars were considering. He is a layperson whose assertions appear convincing to laypeople, but he would not be agreed with even by conservative religious scholars who know better.
Also, even if the Iliad and Odyssey have a single author, it doesn't make Homer real. Moses never existed even if a single group of priests composed the Torah. God never told Moses anything because there was no Moses to tell anything; whether God inspired whoever actually wrote the book is another matter, but it wasn't Moses (God doesn't write books though).
Ok, all wives are different, and I am speaking from a 21st century North American perspective, but if you really are married, I don't think your wife would be happy with the wrinkled shirt on your youtube channel. Dude, if you are doing your own laundry, fold it right out of the dryer.
Other prudish types would be alarmed at the lack of collar, but hey, you do you with your particular hang-ups on dress code.
I’d prefer a wife that is responsible for having just mauled those wrinkles onto my t-shirt.
@@boboak9168 wrote "I’d prefer a wife that is responsible for having just mauled those wrinkles onto my t-shirt."
True that, but we don't even know if there is a separation of duties in that house. This ain't OT times, but I cut the grass, take out the trash and do the dishes, my wife does the clothes. It seems to fall that way often.
Irrelevant.
The inherent problems with "higher criticsm" (aka "historical criticism"), despite the romanticized name, are that it's an approach to BIBLICAL scholarship specifically, not to "interrogate all kinds of literature," and that because it isn't taught until well after you've been indoctrinated, it comes with a very high potential risk for confirmation bias. The Winnie the Pooh paper may be satire, but that fact by no means makes this entire method any less questionable in and of itself.
I was a religious studies major. I can’t speak for everyone but there was no indoctrination before I learned higher criticism. We learned to follow data not presuppositions.
I’ve also seen the technique applied to literature and myth.
@@DavidAlastairHayden Your faith undermines your pretense of non-bias.
@@VirtualBilly What faith? I have zero faith except where data leads me. And it has lead me in different directions over the years. I questioned my teachers and their methods because they encouraged me to.
I am okay with uncertainty.
It’s not a pretense.
@@DavidAlastairHayden You just defended a fundamentally religious study method that was developed by religious people to study religious evidence, and now you’re asserting that you have no faith? Look up the word “introspection” and talk to me again when you’re less confused.