This short format videos are great for getting introduced and/or improve one’s knowledge of Bible scholarship. Perfect snacks for those two don’t have the time to sit down for a full five course meal but still crave for intellectual nourishment. 😅
I don't know if anyone else had a special interest in art history as a kid like me, but actually the Mona Lisa does have an original form that Da Vinci painted over again and again. They found it using a form of light censoring technology to see beneath the layers of paint during a restoration. There were at least a handful of different paintings under there, not just updated versions of the Mona herself but different paintings. So that comparison was probably not as good as that creator thought it was.
I want to note (also), we have tons of first hand accounts and several autographs. For instance, the Babylonian Chronicle is a contemporary account of Alexander the Great. We have contemporaneous epigraphs of Alexander, his father Philip, of many Caesars. Likewise, and this is something that tons of people just overlook, we have numismatic evidence (coinage) that attests to these figures from their lifetime, *and* we also have papyrological data as well, i.e., we have a plethora of letters from the very lifetimes of these figures which attest to their reigns and existence. This is a key point with Tiberius. A friend of mine (Matthew Ferguson) did a review of all the evidence for Tiberius and found the following: -We have 14 Literary sources from Tiberius' lifetime (contemporary) which mention him; 0 for Jesus -Over 100+ pieces of epigraphical evidence attest to Tiberius; 0 for Jesus -Around 100 (+/- a few) pieces of papyrological remains that mention Tiberius; 0 for Jesus -3 unique archaeological sites associated with Tiberius; 0 for Jesus -Countless coins and archaeological artifacts; 0 for Jesus The data for Tiberius (whom Apologists often claim is worse attested than Jesus; I've seen actual scholars like Mike Licona claim this) is so overwhelming in comparison to that for Jesus it staggers belief. And we can do the same with a huge number of Pharoahs, Caesars, Ptolemaic dynasty, the Amarna Letters record contemporary accounts of hundreds of people, etc. Jesus also has worse attestation than many of his own followers. Paul never met Jesus. But he did meet (and attests to even some beliefs and convictions of) Peter/Cephas, James, John, and 50+ other Christians whom he wrote to and named. Paul himself is attested not only because we have his writings, but then forgeries in his name shortly thereafter. And likewise, we have Josephus' writings which attest to Josephus himself (and then within 20-30 years Suetonius mentions him in his work). Likewise, Josephus mentions several of his contemporaries. Pilate (from an engraved stone) and Caiaphas (Caiaphas from his daughter's ossuary) are known from epigraphic evidence as well. The evidence for Jesus is blown out of the water by even cursory comparison to the evidence for even some of his own followers.
another point that hardly ever gets mentioned is that the Gospels are in the genre of sacred texts, their motive is religious not factual. accurately portraying real events was not even a priority for the Gospel writers. Ancient "historical" writings were also widely embellished, but at least there was some effort to reflect reality.
@@mcosu1This is what people don't seem to understand; the nature of it all. Jesus was a humble servent, who was persecuted by the Jews and had a small, yet fast growing following of other humble people when he performed miracles. It spread by word of mouth and those filled with the Holy Spirit. He's now the most known figure throughout history, more than any Roman Emperor. If Jesus was a nobody, then he's managed to fool millions upon millions upon millions 2000 years after his death. He is the most famous man to have ever lived, because that is Gods plan.
@@TaxEvasi0n Whats your argument that it was God’s plan that Jesus become the most famous man in history? And why we are at it, what does “the most famous man in history” even mean? I don’t want to assume you mean “at this current moment in history” when you say “history”, so maybe you better explain in clear terms what you mean. And I must confess, when you gave Jesus top billing, I couldn’t help but think of Jesus Christ Superstar.
@@MarcosElMalo2 It's Gods plan that Jesus is the saviour, the seed of Abraham to bless all nations, as mentioned in Genesis. Someone to bless all nations has to be renowned among *all* nations. And since the promise of the hope and faith of Abraham has yet to come to fruition, the offer still stands, thus Jesus is still the most famous man in the world throughout the generations, obviously limited to the spread of information. But guess what? Everyone in the connected world has heard of Jesus in this era. That itself fulfills Gods promises that 1. Abraham will be a father of many nations, and 2. all nations are blessed through his seed, Jesus Christ. Who else in history has been preached about and told of for 2000 years, gaining exponentially more followers than anyone else ever? Tell me of another man who has changed more hearts than Jesus in 2000 years. Tell me someone who has stood the test of time longer than 2000 years and continues to influence people? There is no one else. Jesus is the Christ, and he is due back very soon.
I often wonder why people feel they can claim to know the "true meaning" of any part of the Bible. If we each read a translated poem, each of us would find different meaning based on our language, culture, experiences, and history.
It's because they want to give authority to it, and you can't give authority to a book where you don't even know what the author meant. You're right though - this is the wrong way to read the Bible. It's just a very old book and has a lot to say about the world in which it was written and trying to apply it to the modern world is a misapplication.
100% Most people today don't even understand that the cosmological model these people were using was completely different. "Heaven" today is some sort of alternate dimension. Back then, "Heaven" meant straight up, what we today would call outer space. Then there are all of the colloquialisms and metaphors and individual words that we're mostly just guessing at. And as always, there's the non-univocality of the texts.
Hell, we can't even agree on the "true meaning" of American Psycho, what chance have we got with a nearly 2000 year old compendium of stories, poems, sayings composed by dozens of authors!
My own analogy is the JFK assassination. We have film, audio and still living eye witnesses to this event and there is still no consensus of what, exactly, happend.
We also need to be very explicit in not confusing different uses of the word "manuscript". In modern usage a manuscript is the original work by an author as accepted by the publisher, first for editing and later for printing. In biblical studies, a manuscript is any hand-written document. I think it's fair to say that no biblical manuscript ever discovered is a manuscript in the modern sense: all are hand-written copies (of copies of copies...) of which the originals can only be reconstructed with varying degrees of confidence by the careful scholarship described by Dr McClellan. I think the distinction is important. If I owned the manuscript of, say, the novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin", I would own a national treasure. If I owned a 13th century manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew copied by an indifferent, anonymous scribe I would own an antique but otherwise unremarkable document.
I heard 47.82% equals Officially Corrupted™ and it came from a reputable source, so I'm gonna use that for everything going forward in my life. Considering my body is 32 years old, it's replaced greater than 47.82% of its cells which I guess means I'm also Officially Corrupted™ too. Oh well 😅
If an evangelical feels there is unfair scrutiny about the preservation of the text of biblical sources compared to other works, they may reflect that that has more to do with the way that they are wielding the text. Nobody is claiming that the text of Dialogues of Plato are perfect and unchanging and nobody's is arguing for legislation based on the text that may hinge on the interpretation of a single word. It isn't that people assume that we can trust there are no "corruptions" in the transmission of other ancient texts, it is just that it doesn't so much matter. Also, religious texts are probably more likely than anything to be reworked in order to intentionally change the meaning or emphasis.
Dan, if by chance you're able to see this comment, I hope that at some point in the future you can do a video on how the basic theme/tenet of most religions is not to be a jerk, yet the more religious or devout someone is seems to make them feel empowered to be some of the biggest jerks around. They become so enamored with acting righteous they are no longer right. Anyway, you'll probably never see this. As someone who considers himself agnostic because of the righteous hypocrisy, I want to let you know you're videos are like a cool breeze on a hot day. Thank you.
On the common "none of the textual variations affect doctrine": You could remove the entire gospel of Mark from the new testament without affecting doctrine, but you could hardly call that a minor change
What coincidentally further strengthens your example is the fact that Mark is the earliest of the four canonical gospels and, a la near unanimous scholarly consensus, also a source for Matthew and Luke.
I love hearing these new, i.e., never heard before, arguments for the validity of the bible. It would be interesting to see a video tracing these arguments back in time. Seems like this one is popular with Turek, but where did he get it? Maybe his grandfather or his great-grandfather.
Whenever someone says we have more texts than any other ancient work I think, "Yeah... But nobody is claiming those ancient works are inerrant and perfect, so so what?"
It just gets me and makes me laugh every time I watch one of Dan's videos and right when someone starts to claim something Dan with the quickness is just like that's incorrect. lol
This video answers so many questions I’ve had about the Bible. If I understand correctly, it would be better to think of the Bible as an anthology rather than a monolith. Are there Bibles that publish an editorial explanation at the beginning of each book explaining when it was written, for whom, and the intended audience? None of mine have that, but it seems important. Thanks, Dan for another great lesson.
Darn that pesky data. 🙃 Thank you for everything you make to educate us, Doc. Knowledge is invaluable always and we all really appreciate you for sharing so much with us. I'm curious now... if a script passage like those from Qumran lines up with the Masoretic, does that _necessarily_ make it more reliable? If it doesn't line up, is it undoubtedly _less_ reliable? What is the primary, overarching significance as it relates to textural criticism and eclectic influence on future editions? Thanks, Doc! ♥️
In my experience and research, the old testiment bible stories have been retold and modified over thousands of years. Genesis creation story retold from the Enuma Elish for example. Yes... the bible book has been chenged and re-translated over the years to change the narritive of Yeshua. - Seek and ye shall find truth. ~ Nag Hammadi 1945.
Translation accuracy needs to take a back seat to bigger questions like authorship (did Paul actually write certain epistles or is this a fraud? Gospel authors? ) and significant contradictions with the text we have that clearly show that they're not "God breathed."
I guess my question is, to what end? If we primarily care about authorship and contradictions, then all we're really left with is the 6-7 authentic letters of Paul. Everything else comes after Paul and is either anonymous or forged. But like, I as an atheist don't care about the Bible only containing Paul. They could decide to start adding entirely new stuff to it and I'd still view it the same way I do now. Meanwhile, christians and assorted believers don't really care that any of it is unreliable. What they care most about is the sense of group identity they get from asserting that the books are true or valuable philosophy or whatever. Scholarship meanwhile is already aware of all of the problems. Apologists masquerading as scholars might try to downplay the issues, but even they are aware of them. So I'm not really sure what point is made in doing this. If you want believers to take this stuff less seriously, the problem of evil is going to take you a lot farther than pointing out that we don't know who most of these writers were or that Paul is the ideological foundation of the religion. I don't think most christians actually care.
No, you misunderstood the intent. Doing history is like recreating a crime scene. It is highly likely you will not be able to perfectly recreate the events in question. You have to recreate as best as you can with a combination of material evidence (e.g. archaeology, material culture), documentary evidence (i.e. writings, recordings), attestations from as many perspectives as possible, etc. Whereas earlier generations of settler scholars would reject oral histories, the modern researcher should not discount oral history as evidence unless it's clearly contradicted by other evidence, i.e. it should be subject to same standards as other forms of evidence.
I'm good with it. But I use several characters from Pratchett's Discworld as my moral compasses. Also, Superman's cool and all, but I think Peter Parker works better as a Savior.
Is that we have more manuscript evidence for the New Testament than for any other text in antiquity not just a quirk of mathematics? Because the New Testament isn't a single text but rather a collection of many texts that would have circulated independently before gradually being brought together? So to count those multiple texts as a single text creates a higher chance that manuscripts will survive to be recorded than when any single text is taken alone?
I admire Dan’s patience to make responses to these kind of videos. I find amazing how many people think they know better than scholars just because they have a lot of followers in social media. (Or know better than Scientist, Economists, etc.). People like Dan study and do research for years, and some of these “creators” barely have a high-school diploma, but somehow think the number of followers and likes give them a status of “subject matter experts”.
It seems we play kind of fast and loose with the word manuscript when it comes to ancient Biblical texts. Most people assume a manuscript is a substantially complete document and an original. A lot of the oldest manuscripts are fragments, the oldest papyri is a credit card sized fragment of the gospel of John. This gets counted like the uncials in that 6000 total. On the other hand, some manuscripts contain multiple fragments of several books of the Bible. Wish there were a straightforward to convey an accurate sense of the manuscript evidence.
What about the hole beween the hole between the beginning of the oral tradition and the beginning of writing them down? As you say the oral tradition had higher authority than any written scraps.
lets also keep in mind when we hear "evidence for jesus" we must not disregard the infinite characteristic trait of magic performer and be distracted by the mundane claim of being a dude.
Art historians will tell you that the Mona Lisa has been modified a lot over the centuries. It has been “restored” and retouched many times, and pre modern art “restoration” wasn’t very careful about the changes made, nor did they leave detailed notes of just what they did. At one time she was wearing a necklace, which got painted over by someone, at some time in the past.
How flawed to compare a work like the Mona Lisa, an *original* singular artefact that is professionally stored and maintained, with the bible. I guess we should thank God for preserving the Mona Lisa so well?
We have translations of the bible from the late 2nd or third century, we have nothing from the first century. We also don't know who wrote some of the books that are called the bible. We also know that there have been things added at latter times to the bible.
His whole analogy is bad since art conservation experts use special light and other techniques to determine if a painting has been modified. They may not have a photograph of the original, but they can still determine if it has been modified.
around 7:45 you're forgetting about inscriptions ordered by individual magistrates (including emperors) during their lifetimes, and about actual letters preserved on papyrus. In the later case we have actual texts in the individual's own hand (or his secretary's hand).
Hey Dan! In love with everything you’re doing. I think “Data over Dogma” is an inspirational approach to all disciplines that everyone should look at. This may bs a dumb request, and if so, you can definitely deny my request - not connected emotionally at all. I consider myself to be pretty intelligent, but when I listen to you speak, I get the gist but I don’t think I’m getting the full picture. Is there a way that you could possibly dumb it down? Or am I just too dumb? Thanks!
As an eclectic text, wouldn't it be filtered through the negotiation with the texts of the compiler? So original doctrine will always be a best guess at most? So even granting the original authors divine authority, it seems unlikely to me that the KJV has much of the original intent even available within it. Am I missing something?
See he's right that many Skeptics wouldn't know how to answer this but theres several that I personally know: 1. Pierced in Psalm 22. It doesn't say pierced in the Hebrew text and reads like "like a lion, they're at my hands and my feet". Goes from a possible Jesus prophesy to a passage purely about David. 2. Daniel 7. Reads differently in the Hebrew text vs the Christian Bible. The Christian Bible breaks up the years while the Hebrew text doesn't. If it's a prophesy about the future and a specific future year when certain events take place, whether the "weeks" are broken up or not is very important. 3. The Virgin Birth Prophesy vs the passage saying Young Woman. This passage goes from being a prediction about a young woman giving birth to a virgin giving birth. Believe that's in Isaiah and then that's quoted by Christians for the NT narratives within Matthew and Luke. 4. While I'd need to look up various passages to substantiate this, the reason why the King James Version exists is because he thought the previous popular version of the Bible within England at the time was too anti Monarchist. So you could compare versions and say "oh is this passage referencing a King or is the KJV correct"? The history of the KJV Bible is intriguing. 5. I'd point to general mistranslations within the KJV Bible which have been corrected since the 1600s. The modern KJV Bible isn't the same as the original version. Sure they've corrected errors but this just means there were errors within Bibles for centuries. Nowadays Bibles use both Septuigent and the Masoretic Text to construct their versions. Likely if a passage reads in a pro Christian way in the Septuigent but not in the Masoretic, they'll go with the Septuigent and put the Masoretic version in the footnotes. The original Christian Bibles were (to my knowledge) based off the Septuagint and not Hebrew versions of Old Testament Scripture. So the Bible you're holding isn't the same Bible as the ones the Jews hold and it's not the same Bible the Catholics hold and it's not the same Bible Christians held even decades ago. While it's not the best argument against the inerrancy of the Bible, there are mistranslations lol. It's a fact. Just like it's a fact that some verses were added by scribes.
I'll add another case of (mis)interpretation. Apparently there are a few cases of "the Holy Spirit" in Luke and John that technically don't say *the* Holy Spirit in Greek but *a* holy spirit. Translating it as "the" seems to add more power to a case for the personhood of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity being present in the NT.
I actually read it from the Tanakh, but this does not change anything, for Jesus was hung on the cross, at His right hand, a sinner, and on His left, another both spitting on Him, cursing Him. The whip which He was beaten with used bonefragments and metal to tear the skin from the flesh causing the vessels to excrete more blood to tire the person to be placed on the cross, at His feet they were screaming, chanting “if you truly are the son of God, save yourself” and let’s not neglect the entirety of the text, this is a clear picture, but also let’s take it further, read the Isaiah Scroll, read all of Zachariah, these are prophecies of the coming messiah, and they fit so perfectly with Jesus coming during the glory of the Roman Empire. There’s no getting around it, go and read all before you judge with just a bit of perceived evidence.
Dan, I've heard the claim that the Masoretic Text is a more corrupt text than the Septuagint, due to the Masoretic Text having unclear/obscure readings in places. Examples: Psalm 22 Masoretic: "like a lion (at) my hands and my feet" Septuagint: ""they pierced my hands and my feet" Psalm 34 Masoretic: "The young lions suffer want and hunger; but those who seek the Lord lack no good thing" Septuagint: "The rich have become poor and hungry: but they that seek the Lord diligently shall not want any good thing." Are these examples of corruption, metaphor in Hebrew being translated to be clearer in Greek, variants that have always been around and the Masoretic and Septuagint texts just chose particular ones (like how in Britain, there are a dozen ways to call the game, but in America it's always called Tag), or something else?
I just saw a very disturbing ad for a transphobic film or show (Epoch Tv?) on this video. Is that what you support, Dan? If not can you disable any advert categories to try to stop that?
@maklelan Hey Dan- I'd love to hear your opinion on why Constantine decided to make Christianity legal and of his conversion. Most historians I have read do not believe that Constantine was a full convert and that he perhaps saw the rising growth of Christianity as a means to an end to bring the extremely diverse and fracturing empire together. Do you have thoughts?
@@joshridinger3407 you're correct it was not. However, patronage by the Emperor of a quickly growing religion says something. Also, him Christianizing the empire did allow some kind of political gain. It doesn't appear to be a true conversion or full conversion, so why did he do it?
@lde-m8688 it doesn't seem to me that there was any political advantage to converting. if anything you have this backwards: his conversion seems partial or incomplete because he had to put up appearances and pander to traditional roman religion for political reasons
@joshridinger3407 I'm not misunderstanding or even stating that is my position. I'm reporting what many historians have claimed. I asked because I wanted Dan's opinion on it.
94% of the manuscripts are 800 years++ later than Jesus. So it doesnt matter how many there are. Moreover they dont go back to Jesus or the disciples and were not written by them. Moreover the authors of Matthew and Luke copied Mark. John is the least reliable gospel.
Example of bible tampering. Look to Matthew 5;20 It sounds completely out of character for Jesus Christ to say this since he hated the Pharisees and scribes and callled them hypocrite and bided sceplicers (which they where) However Matthew 5;20 says that you won't get into the kingdom of heaven unless you are more rightious then the Pharisees and scribes I have it on good suspicion to believe this verse was added or edited because Jesus again hated the Pharisees and scribes and called out their so called fake 'rightiousness'.
Armchair Apologists on their way here to complain about "cobbled together" and dropping tired tropes of "God inspired the scribes and various councils to pick the right words/books"...
When even UA-cam atheists such as AronRa, in referring to 1Cor 15:3, can vocalize "Jesus" where "Christ" is clearly printed on screen, one must wonder how often over the past two millennia, Christian copyists have not done likewise - conflating the two literary figures.
The use of the word corruption properly in the application toward Biblical understanding is based on the motive for such an action. Why would anyone change the context of any material purposely? Purposely over accidental or lack of full understanding. Motivation for good or gain. Corruption or corrupted are strong words. The result and consequences of such actions, or simply the harm caused affecting decisions are enough. The scriptures have been corrupted. Of course one question would be how much. Another what would be what would be needed to offset such deceptive reasoning. Already answered.
There are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources.. 1John 5:7-8 John 7:53 John 8:11 Mark 16:11 Just a few insertions modifications made. Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew was changed to "Virgin in future tense . Mathew 17 :21 removed Erasmus and Martin Luther refused to add 1 John 5:7-8 Father son ghost admitted insertion. There are over 30 thousand sects of Christian churches today all argue with each other who is "correct" and had wars between themselves for centuries in Christian Europe killing millions of people such as the 30 years war up until Northern Ireland versus Protestants and Croatia versus Serbia genocides...
It doesn’t even matter. Some of the stuff the Bible says is beyond belief. Why should anyone believe it’s anything but a story? Why does it matter so much to you? And you will dismiss without any thought at all any other religious text. You haven’t made your case that there is a god anyway. What’s the evidence?
Oh yeah! This makes a VERY refreshing change from Bart Ehrman and his "historical certainty" that Jesus existed. Dan McClellan, your honesty is a breath of fresh air.
@@scambammer6102 it would be unlikely for any scholar in the early or middle part of their career to openly come out as a Jesus mythicist (imho), when everybody can see how Carrier has been ostracised. Despite what people like Bart Ehrman say, Jesus mythicists aren't ostracised because of a lack of credibility in their theses, but because academic consensus in any field will always circle the wagons when faced with challenges that they perceive as being too challenging. Carrier, Lataster and the like are just the Galileo Galilei of our time. Saying that, I would find it difficult to believe that Dan McClellan would actually say that Jesus might not exist, because isn't he a member of a Christian faith of some sort? They usually confess that Jesus lived, was crucified and was raised from the dead, right?
@@integrationalpolytheism I don't know what Dan's religion is. Rumor is he was or is Mormon, but he doesn't show it. The fundamental problems with mythicism are: (1) their positions are vague and inconsistent, (2) they assert that the existence of myths are evidence against historicity, which is a non sequitur, and (3) they cherry-pick their data.
@@scambammer6102 well, I personally am not convinced that Jesus was a historical person, and none of those three things applies to me. It sounds like you are lumping a lot of people into the same basket and judging them all on the basis of the most deranged of the bunch. For my part, all I did was look at all of the evidence and weigh the probabilities. I'm not sure if I qualify as a mythicist, though, since I say I'm not convinced, and a lot of people assert that mythicists say that it's definite that Jesus didn't exist. On the other hand, this sounds very similar to when the faithful assert that atheists claim there is no god, when actually atheists just say they're not convinced by the evidence.
@@integrationalpolytheism "you are lumping a lot of people into the same basket" the "basket" is people who call themselves "mythicists" and you lot lump yourselves together. The fact you don't even know if you are one proves my point #1. I'm not convinced there was a historical jesus either, but I'm sure no mythicist. I'm just an old school skeptic, and mythicism is a cult.
Its all non sense. Who cares how real it is. It makes it clear that we all came from somewhere. This world didnt create itself, so there must be a Creator somewhere. So on that notion, just have faith in the Creator and He will express Himself in many different ways!
.. first you break the Unity of a species, by language barriers that leads to cultures which leads to religions, and then division that leads to destructive wars like the middle east, north and south Korea, white and black and so on and so on ..in turn stalling the evolution of a race of human beings, in Sumer there were ethnic markers civilized man and Demigod alike, no such thing as hate,or race just a diverse species of human beings, the part about us (not reaching the heavens) or using advanced gifts left behind, there is no telling what we would have become,but we would not be where we are today , shortly after the great pyramid was disabled and before Egypt was founded, that's where Sumer fell and the seeds of culture spread out across the earth, the garden of The city of Edin was Gobekli Tepe that's where Titi and Adappa, got kicked out by Enlil.. while Tiamat and Adamu were in South Africa,it was supposed to be Civilized man and Demigods living here on earth together.. The demigods did survive the great flood, Enlil committed genocide against them then tower of babel ="went off to make war with the remnant" by further dividing humanity , creating this chaotic world today you see ,"feet like a bear" vandalism and refurbished great sphinx like the Harthor face and vandalism..it originally had a face like a man or like the Sumarian sphinx,see the step like pattern under the neck, that's traces of the altering of it,and then the removal of the original Stella between the paws, clearly stating who built it and why ,the names of blasphemy on the heads are the divisive religions created by Enlil ,he was the great red dragon who became the oppressor of humanity
There are no original greek texts from none of the Ancient Greek writings , yet some scholars somehow believe the New Testament supposedly plagiarized from Homer. Most of the surviving Greek writings from Homer , post date the New Testament manuscripts by many years.
This man is a tik tok loudmouth. He speaks more like an evangelical minister than a biblical scholar. He has an agenda and therefore, his scholarly opinion is null and void. Thank God for Dan.
@@jsworpin Even 3-4 is a stretch. I've only heard of one extra-biblical account from a known historian that we are confident is not a forgery, but that is not a first-hand account.
There's not a single one contemporary extra biblical text about jesus. Which is odd considering how well the Romans kept their records. All the extra biblical mentions of jesus were 100+ years after he was supposed to have lived.
@@jsworpin um yes. Yes we do. The Koran provides great evidence. The Apocrypha provides plenty of accounts of Jesus and his teachings. As does the Book of Mormon. That should be more than enough for skeptics. But it's not. Eventually you'll have to turn to faith, it won't be spoon fed to you.
Reject "the original", embrace "the earliest available form(s) of the text".
Even if we had "originals" it would be no guarantee they described real events...
@@ritawing1064 And it would be hard to even ascertain that they truly were "the originals".
@@NataliePine quite so, how could we tell?
Enough talk, which version do I need to read to insure I get into Heaven?
@@ritawing1064smh
This short format videos are great for getting introduced and/or improve one’s knowledge of Bible scholarship. Perfect snacks for those two don’t have the time to sit down for a full five course meal but still crave for intellectual nourishment. 😅
I don't know if anyone else had a special interest in art history as a kid like me, but actually the Mona Lisa does have an original form that Da Vinci painted over again and again. They found it using a form of light censoring technology to see beneath the layers of paint during a restoration. There were at least a handful of different paintings under there, not just updated versions of the Mona herself but different paintings. So that comparison was probably not as good as that creator thought it was.
I was hoping someone would point this out. If someone is confidently ignorant in one subject, they probably are in multiple.
I want to note (also), we have tons of first hand accounts and several autographs. For instance, the Babylonian Chronicle is a contemporary account of Alexander the Great. We have contemporaneous epigraphs of Alexander, his father Philip, of many Caesars. Likewise, and this is something that tons of people just overlook, we have numismatic evidence (coinage) that attests to these figures from their lifetime, *and* we also have papyrological data as well, i.e., we have a plethora of letters from the very lifetimes of these figures which attest to their reigns and existence.
This is a key point with Tiberius. A friend of mine (Matthew Ferguson) did a review of all the evidence for Tiberius and found the following:
-We have 14 Literary sources from Tiberius' lifetime (contemporary) which mention him; 0 for Jesus
-Over 100+ pieces of epigraphical evidence attest to Tiberius; 0 for Jesus
-Around 100 (+/- a few) pieces of papyrological remains that mention Tiberius; 0 for Jesus
-3 unique archaeological sites associated with Tiberius; 0 for Jesus
-Countless coins and archaeological artifacts; 0 for Jesus
The data for Tiberius (whom Apologists often claim is worse attested than Jesus; I've seen actual scholars like Mike Licona claim this) is so overwhelming in comparison to that for Jesus it staggers belief. And we can do the same with a huge number of Pharoahs, Caesars, Ptolemaic dynasty, the Amarna Letters record contemporary accounts of hundreds of people, etc.
Jesus also has worse attestation than many of his own followers. Paul never met Jesus. But he did meet (and attests to even some beliefs and convictions of) Peter/Cephas, James, John, and 50+ other Christians whom he wrote to and named. Paul himself is attested not only because we have his writings, but then forgeries in his name shortly thereafter. And likewise, we have Josephus' writings which attest to Josephus himself (and then within 20-30 years Suetonius mentions him in his work). Likewise, Josephus mentions several of his contemporaries. Pilate (from an engraved stone) and Caiaphas (Caiaphas from his daughter's ossuary) are known from epigraphic evidence as well.
The evidence for Jesus is blown out of the water by even cursory comparison to the evidence for even some of his own followers.
Jesus was a Galilean rabbi, not the Roman emperor. Jesus didn't have an army, a senate, official court biographers and effing coinage
another point that hardly ever gets mentioned is that the Gospels are in the genre of sacred texts, their motive is religious not factual. accurately portraying real events was not even a priority for the Gospel writers. Ancient "historical" writings were also widely embellished, but at least there was some effort to reflect reality.
@@mcosu1This is what people don't seem to understand; the nature of it all. Jesus was a humble servent, who was persecuted by the Jews and had a small, yet fast growing following of other humble people when he performed miracles. It spread by word of mouth and those filled with the Holy Spirit. He's now the most known figure throughout history, more than any Roman Emperor. If Jesus was a nobody, then he's managed to fool millions upon millions upon millions 2000 years after his death.
He is the most famous man to have ever lived, because that is Gods plan.
@@TaxEvasi0n Whats your argument that it was God’s plan that Jesus become the most famous man in history? And why we are at it, what does “the most famous man in history” even mean? I don’t want to assume you mean “at this current moment in history” when you say “history”, so maybe you better explain in clear terms what you mean.
And I must confess, when you gave Jesus top billing, I couldn’t help but think of Jesus Christ Superstar.
@@MarcosElMalo2 It's Gods plan that Jesus is the saviour, the seed of Abraham to bless all nations, as mentioned in Genesis. Someone to bless all nations has to be renowned among *all* nations. And since the promise of the hope and faith of Abraham has yet to come to fruition, the offer still stands, thus Jesus is still the most famous man in the world throughout the generations, obviously limited to the spread of information.
But guess what? Everyone in the connected world has heard of Jesus in this era. That itself fulfills Gods promises that 1. Abraham will be a father of many nations, and 2. all nations are blessed through his seed, Jesus Christ.
Who else in history has been preached about and told of for 2000 years, gaining exponentially more followers than anyone else ever? Tell me of another man who has changed more hearts than Jesus in 2000 years. Tell me someone who has stood the test of time longer than 2000 years and continues to influence people?
There is no one else.
Jesus is the Christ, and he is due back very soon.
I often wonder why people feel they can claim to know the "true meaning" of any part of the Bible. If we each read a translated poem, each of us would find different meaning based on our language, culture, experiences, and history.
It's because they want to give authority to it, and you can't give authority to a book where you don't even know what the author meant. You're right though - this is the wrong way to read the Bible. It's just a very old book and has a lot to say about the world in which it was written and trying to apply it to the modern world is a misapplication.
100%
Most people today don't even understand that the cosmological model these people were using was completely different. "Heaven" today is some sort of alternate dimension. Back then, "Heaven" meant straight up, what we today would call outer space.
Then there are all of the colloquialisms and metaphors and individual words that we're mostly just guessing at.
And as always, there's the non-univocality of the texts.
Also true if reading in the original language.
Hell, we can't even agree on the "true meaning" of American Psycho, what chance have we got with a nearly 2000 year old compendium of stories, poems, sayings composed by dozens of authors!
My own analogy is the JFK assassination. We have film, audio and still living eye witnesses to this event and there is still no consensus of what, exactly, happend.
We also need to be very explicit in not confusing different uses of the word "manuscript". In modern usage a manuscript is the original work by an author as accepted by the publisher, first for editing and later for printing. In biblical studies, a manuscript is any hand-written document. I think it's fair to say that no biblical manuscript ever discovered is a manuscript in the modern sense: all are hand-written copies (of copies of copies...) of which the originals can only be reconstructed with varying degrees of confidence by the careful scholarship described by Dr McClellan.
I think the distinction is important. If I owned the manuscript of, say, the novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin", I would own a national treasure. If I owned a 13th century manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew copied by an indifferent, anonymous scribe I would own an antique but otherwise unremarkable document.
Spot on.
I heard 47.82% equals Officially Corrupted™ and it came from a reputable source, so I'm gonna use that for everything going forward in my life. Considering my body is 32 years old, it's replaced greater than 47.82% of its cells which I guess means I'm also Officially Corrupted™ too. Oh well 😅
Sadly cellular copying errors will one day do you in, if something else doesn’t get you first 😕
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
If an evangelical feels there is unfair scrutiny about the preservation of the text of biblical sources compared to other works, they may reflect that that has more to do with the way that they are wielding the text.
Nobody is claiming that the text of Dialogues of Plato are perfect and unchanging and nobody's is arguing for legislation based on the text that may hinge on the interpretation of a single word.
It isn't that people assume that we can trust there are no "corruptions" in the transmission of other ancient texts, it is just that it doesn't so much matter.
Also, religious texts are probably more likely than anything to be reworked in order to intentionally change the meaning or emphasis.
Dan, if by chance you're able to see this comment, I hope that at some point in the future you can do a video on how the basic theme/tenet of most religions is not to be a jerk, yet the more religious or devout someone is seems to make them feel empowered to be some of the biggest jerks around. They become so enamored with acting righteous they are no longer right. Anyway, you'll probably never see this. As someone who considers himself agnostic because of the righteous hypocrisy, I want to let you know you're videos are like a cool breeze on a hot day. Thank you.
Well I think it's the element of controlling others combined with devoutness, not just devoutness.
i don't think the most basic tenet of any religion is to not be a jerk.
@@joshridinger3407 Fair. How about (1) obedience, then (2)not be a jerk?
On the common "none of the textual variations affect doctrine":
You could remove the entire gospel of Mark from the new testament without affecting doctrine, but you could hardly call that a minor change
What coincidentally further strengthens your example is the fact that Mark is the earliest of the four canonical gospels and, a la near unanimous scholarly consensus, also a source for Matthew and Luke.
I love hearing these new, i.e., never heard before, arguments for the validity of the bible. It would be interesting to see a video tracing these arguments back in time. Seems like this one is popular with Turek, but where did he get it? Maybe his grandfather or his great-grandfather.
Whenever someone says we have more texts than any other ancient work I think, "Yeah... But nobody is claiming those ancient works are inerrant and perfect, so so what?"
It just gets me and makes me laugh every time I watch one of Dan's videos and right when someone starts to claim something Dan with the quickness is just like that's incorrect. lol
This video answers so many questions I’ve had about the Bible.
If I understand correctly, it would be better to think of the Bible as an anthology rather than a monolith.
Are there Bibles that publish an editorial explanation at the beginning of each book explaining when it was written, for whom, and the intended audience? None of mine have that, but it seems important.
Thanks, Dan for another great lesson.
Darn that pesky data. 🙃
Thank you for everything you make to educate us, Doc. Knowledge is invaluable always and we all really appreciate you for sharing so much with us.
I'm curious now... if a script passage like those from Qumran lines up with the Masoretic, does that _necessarily_ make it more reliable? If it doesn't line up, is it undoubtedly _less_ reliable? What is the primary, overarching significance as it relates to textural criticism and eclectic influence on future editions? Thanks, Doc! ♥️
Dan, your teachings are brilliant! You are revelatory and refreshing.
In my experience and research, the old testiment bible stories have been retold and modified over thousands of years. Genesis creation story retold from the Enuma Elish for example.
Yes... the bible book has been chenged and re-translated over the years to change the narritive of Yeshua. - Seek and ye shall find truth. ~ Nag Hammadi 1945.
Translation accuracy needs to take a back seat to bigger questions like authorship (did Paul actually write certain epistles or is this a fraud? Gospel authors? ) and significant contradictions with the text we have that clearly show that they're not "God breathed."
I guess my question is, to what end?
If we primarily care about authorship and contradictions, then all we're really left with is the 6-7 authentic letters of Paul. Everything else comes after Paul and is either anonymous or forged.
But like, I as an atheist don't care about the Bible only containing Paul. They could decide to start adding entirely new stuff to it and I'd still view it the same way I do now.
Meanwhile, christians and assorted believers don't really care that any of it is unreliable. What they care most about is the sense of group identity they get from asserting that the books are true or valuable philosophy or whatever.
Scholarship meanwhile is already aware of all of the problems. Apologists masquerading as scholars might try to downplay the issues, but even they are aware of them.
So I'm not really sure what point is made in doing this. If you want believers to take this stuff less seriously, the problem of evil is going to take you a lot farther than pointing out that we don't know who most of these writers were or that Paul is the ideological foundation of the religion. I don't think most christians actually care.
To what level can we trust oral tradition? Here in Canada, I’ve heard that we can trust oral tradition for all indigenous history.
No, you misunderstood the intent. Doing history is like recreating a crime scene. It is highly likely you will not be able to perfectly recreate the events in question. You have to recreate as best as you can with a combination of material evidence (e.g. archaeology, material culture), documentary evidence (i.e. writings, recordings), attestations from as many perspectives as possible, etc. Whereas earlier generations of settler scholars would reject oral histories, the modern researcher should not discount oral history as evidence unless it's clearly contradicted by other evidence, i.e. it should be subject to same standards as other forms of evidence.
Go Dan. What does it even mean to ask if the Bible is corrupted? You explain the situation very well.
"we have these manuscripts about Jesus therefore Jesus existed"
I have here a comic book about Superman. You all see where I'm going with this yeah?
I'm good with it. But I use several characters from Pratchett's Discworld as my moral compasses. Also, Superman's cool and all, but I think Peter Parker works better as a Savior.
Is that we have more manuscript evidence for the New Testament than for any other text in antiquity not just a quirk of mathematics? Because the New Testament isn't a single text but rather a collection of many texts that would have circulated independently before gradually being brought together? So to count those multiple texts as a single text creates a higher chance that manuscripts will survive to be recorded than when any single text is taken alone?
I admire Dan’s patience to make responses to these kind of videos.
I find amazing how many people think they know better than scholars just because they have a lot of followers in social media. (Or know better than Scientist, Economists, etc.). People like Dan study and do research for years, and some of these “creators” barely have a high-school diploma, but somehow think the number of followers and likes give them a status of “subject matter experts”.
It seems we play kind of fast and loose with the word manuscript when it comes to ancient Biblical texts. Most people assume a manuscript is a substantially complete document and an original. A lot of the oldest manuscripts are fragments, the oldest papyri is a credit card sized fragment of the gospel of John. This gets counted like the uncials in that 6000 total. On the other hand, some manuscripts contain multiple fragments of several books of the Bible. Wish there were a straightforward to convey an accurate sense of the manuscript evidence.
Just mention the Johanian comma, the woman in adultery, the ending of Mark....
Umm are we ignoring Matthew 5:18? Nothing should’ve changed and since it has it shows that the book is not inerrant word of “god”
My understanding is that many old testament translations were based on oral stories anyway...
The tribulation period was never meant for Christians to start with. Our Heavenly Father is GOOD.
What about the hole beween the hole between the beginning of the oral tradition and the beginning of writing them down? As you say the oral tradition had higher authority than any written scraps.
lets also keep in mind when we hear "evidence for jesus" we must not disregard the infinite characteristic trait of magic performer and be distracted by the mundane claim of being a dude.
I'm no expert but I feel like King Tut's mummy is probably a lot better evidence of his existence than manuscripts.
Art historians will tell you that the Mona Lisa has been modified a lot over the centuries. It has been “restored” and retouched many times, and pre modern art “restoration” wasn’t very careful about the changes made, nor did they leave detailed notes of just what they did.
At one time she was wearing a necklace, which got painted over by someone, at some time in the past.
I don't see the citations to the resources. Could you please add them in the description? Thank you :-) Without them it's not terribly effective.
How flawed to compare a work like the Mona Lisa, an *original* singular artefact that is professionally stored and maintained, with the bible.
I guess we should thank God for preserving the Mona Lisa so well?
We have translations of the bible from the late 2nd or third century, we have nothing from the first century. We also don't know who wrote some of the books that are called the bible. We also know that there have been things added at latter times to the bible.
3:39 The Deep Drinks Podcast has a youtube episode with Kipp Davis that goes over those 2nd century fragments. Highly recommended.
His whole analogy is bad since art conservation experts use special light and other techniques to determine if a painting has been modified. They may not have a photograph of the original, but they can still determine if it has been modified.
around 7:45 you're forgetting about inscriptions ordered by individual magistrates (including emperors) during their lifetimes, and about actual letters preserved on papyrus. In the later case we have actual texts in the individual's own hand (or his secretary's hand).
Hey Dan! In love with everything you’re doing. I think “Data over Dogma” is an inspirational approach to all disciplines that everyone should look at. This may bs a dumb request, and if so, you can definitely deny my request - not connected emotionally at all. I consider myself to be pretty intelligent, but when I listen to you speak, I get the gist but I don’t think I’m getting the full picture. Is there a way that you could possibly dumb it down? Or am I just too dumb? Thanks!
Think about who wrote it and why.
That causes a lot of doubt.
As an eclectic text, wouldn't it be filtered through the negotiation with the texts of the compiler? So original doctrine will always be a best guess at most? So even granting the original authors divine authority, it seems unlikely to me that the KJV has much of the original intent even available within it. Am I missing something?
See he's right that many Skeptics wouldn't know how to answer this but theres several that I personally know:
1. Pierced in Psalm 22. It doesn't say pierced in the Hebrew text and reads like "like a lion, they're at my hands and my feet". Goes from a possible Jesus prophesy to a passage purely about David.
2. Daniel 7. Reads differently in the Hebrew text vs the Christian Bible. The Christian Bible breaks up the years while the Hebrew text doesn't. If it's a prophesy about the future and a specific future year when certain events take place, whether the "weeks" are broken up or not is very important.
3. The Virgin Birth Prophesy vs the passage saying Young Woman. This passage goes from being a prediction about a young woman giving birth to a virgin giving birth. Believe that's in Isaiah and then that's quoted by Christians for the NT narratives within Matthew and Luke.
4. While I'd need to look up various passages to substantiate this, the reason why the King James Version exists is because he thought the previous popular version of the Bible within England at the time was too anti Monarchist. So you could compare versions and say "oh is this passage referencing a King or is the KJV correct"? The history of the KJV Bible is intriguing.
5. I'd point to general mistranslations within the KJV Bible which have been corrected since the 1600s. The modern KJV Bible isn't the same as the original version. Sure they've corrected errors but this just means there were errors within Bibles for centuries. Nowadays Bibles use both Septuigent and the Masoretic Text to construct their versions. Likely if a passage reads in a pro Christian way in the Septuigent but not in the Masoretic, they'll go with the Septuigent and put the Masoretic version in the footnotes. The original Christian Bibles were (to my knowledge) based off the Septuagint and not Hebrew versions of Old Testament Scripture. So the Bible you're holding isn't the same Bible as the ones the Jews hold and it's not the same Bible the Catholics hold and it's not the same Bible Christians held even decades ago.
While it's not the best argument against the inerrancy of the Bible, there are mistranslations lol. It's a fact. Just like it's a fact that some verses were added by scribes.
I'll add another case of (mis)interpretation. Apparently there are a few cases of "the Holy Spirit" in Luke and John that technically don't say *the* Holy Spirit in Greek but *a* holy spirit. Translating it as "the" seems to add more power to a case for the personhood of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity being present in the NT.
I actually read it from the Tanakh, but this does not change anything, for Jesus was hung on the cross, at His right hand, a sinner, and on His left, another both spitting on Him, cursing Him. The whip which He was beaten with used bonefragments and metal to tear the skin from the flesh causing the vessels to excrete more blood to tire the person to be placed on the cross, at His feet they were screaming, chanting “if you truly are the son of God, save yourself” and let’s not neglect the entirety of the text, this is a clear picture, but also let’s take it further, read the Isaiah Scroll, read all of Zachariah, these are prophecies of the coming messiah, and they fit so perfectly with Jesus coming during the glory of the Roman Empire. There’s no getting around it, go and read all before you judge with just a bit of perceived evidence.
Dan, I've heard the claim that the Masoretic Text is a more corrupt text than the Septuagint, due to the Masoretic Text having unclear/obscure readings in places. Examples:
Psalm 22
Masoretic: "like a lion (at) my hands and my feet"
Septuagint: ""they pierced my hands and my feet"
Psalm 34
Masoretic: "The young lions suffer want and hunger; but those who seek the Lord lack no good thing"
Septuagint: "The rich have become poor and hungry: but they that seek the Lord diligently shall not want any good thing."
Are these examples of corruption, metaphor in Hebrew being translated to be clearer in Greek, variants that have always been around and the Masoretic and Septuagint texts just chose particular ones (like how in Britain, there are a dozen ways to call the game, but in America it's always called Tag), or something else?
I just saw a very disturbing ad for a transphobic film or show (Epoch Tv?) on this video. Is that what you support, Dan? If not can you disable any advert categories to try to stop that?
Do you think if we spotted Dan from using “laughable” or “laughably” to describe these other UA-camrs theories he’d fall over 😀
@maklelan Hey Dan- I'd love to hear your opinion on why Constantine decided to make Christianity legal and of his conversion. Most historians I have read do not believe that Constantine was a full convert and that he perhaps saw the rising growth of Christianity as a means to an end to bring the extremely diverse and fracturing empire together. Do you have thoughts?
christianity was still smaller than judaism in his day so i don't really buy it
@@joshridinger3407 you're correct it was not. However, patronage by the Emperor of a quickly growing religion says something. Also, him Christianizing the empire did allow some kind of political gain. It doesn't appear to be a true conversion or full conversion, so why did he do it?
@lde-m8688 it doesn't seem to me that there was any political advantage to converting. if anything you have this backwards: his conversion seems partial or incomplete because he had to put up appearances and pander to traditional roman religion for political reasons
@joshridinger3407 I'm not misunderstanding or even stating that is my position. I'm reporting what many historians have claimed. I asked because I wanted Dan's opinion on it.
his mom was christian. some things never change.
Has Dan done a video on Exodus?
94% of the manuscripts are 800 years++ later than Jesus. So it doesnt matter how many there are. Moreover they dont go back to Jesus or the disciples and were not written by them. Moreover the authors of Matthew and Luke copied Mark. John is the least reliable gospel.
Proof? People like this don't know what proof is.
They'll say that a newborn baby or a beautiful sunset is proof that God exists.
what do you think of james white dan?
Example of bible tampering. Look to Matthew 5;20
It sounds completely out of character for Jesus Christ to say this since he hated the Pharisees and scribes and callled them hypocrite and bided sceplicers (which they where)
However Matthew 5;20 says that you won't get into the kingdom of heaven unless you are more rightious then the Pharisees and scribes
I have it on good suspicion to believe this verse was added or edited because Jesus again hated the Pharisees and scribes and called out their so called fake 'rightiousness'.
Armchair Apologists on their way here to complain about "cobbled together" and dropping tired tropes of "God inspired the scribes and various councils to pick the right words/books"...
When even UA-cam atheists such as AronRa, in referring to 1Cor 15:3, can vocalize "Jesus" where "Christ" is clearly printed on screen, one must wonder how often over the past two millennia, Christian copyists have not done likewise - conflating the two literary figures.
The big fish 🐠
The use of the word corruption properly in the application toward Biblical understanding is based on the motive for such an action. Why would anyone change the context of any material purposely? Purposely over accidental or lack of full understanding. Motivation for good or gain. Corruption or corrupted are strong words. The result and consequences of such actions, or simply the harm caused affecting decisions are enough. The scriptures have been corrupted. Of course one question would be how much. Another what would be what would be needed to offset such deceptive reasoning. Already answered.
There are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources..
1John 5:7-8
John 7:53
John 8:11
Mark 16:11
Just a few insertions modifications made.
Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew was changed to "Virgin in future tense .
Mathew 17 :21 removed
Erasmus and Martin Luther refused to add 1 John 5:7-8 Father son ghost admitted insertion.
There are over 30 thousand sects of Christian churches today all argue with each other who is "correct" and had wars between themselves for centuries in Christian Europe killing millions of people such as the 30 years war up until Northern Ireland versus Protestants and Croatia versus Serbia genocides...
🤘
It doesn’t even matter. Some of the stuff the Bible says is beyond belief. Why should anyone believe it’s anything but a story? Why does it matter so much to you? And you will dismiss without any thought at all any other religious text. You haven’t made your case that there is a god anyway. What’s the evidence?
Who needs evidence? Got faith!👍🏻
Oh yeah! This makes a VERY refreshing change from Bart Ehrman and his "historical certainty" that Jesus existed. Dan McClellan, your honesty is a breath of fresh air.
Dan has not opined on historicity AFAIK
@@scambammer6102 it would be unlikely for any scholar in the early or middle part of their career to openly come out as a Jesus mythicist (imho), when everybody can see how Carrier has been ostracised.
Despite what people like Bart Ehrman say, Jesus mythicists aren't ostracised because of a lack of credibility in their theses, but because academic consensus in any field will always circle the wagons when faced with challenges that they perceive as being too challenging.
Carrier, Lataster and the like are just the Galileo Galilei of our time.
Saying that, I would find it difficult to believe that Dan McClellan would actually say that Jesus might not exist, because isn't he a member of a Christian faith of some sort? They usually confess that Jesus lived, was crucified and was raised from the dead, right?
@@integrationalpolytheism I don't know what Dan's religion is. Rumor is he was or is Mormon, but he doesn't show it.
The fundamental problems with mythicism are: (1) their positions are vague and inconsistent, (2) they assert that the existence of myths are evidence against historicity, which is a non sequitur, and (3) they cherry-pick their data.
@@scambammer6102 well, I personally am not convinced that Jesus was a historical person, and none of those three things applies to me.
It sounds like you are lumping a lot of people into the same basket and judging them all on the basis of the most deranged of the bunch. For my part, all I did was look at all of the evidence and weigh the probabilities.
I'm not sure if I qualify as a mythicist, though, since I say I'm not convinced, and a lot of people assert that mythicists say that it's definite that Jesus didn't exist. On the other hand, this sounds very similar to when the faithful assert that atheists claim there is no god, when actually atheists just say they're not convinced by the evidence.
@@integrationalpolytheism "you are lumping a lot of people into the same basket"
the "basket" is people who call themselves "mythicists" and you lot lump yourselves together. The fact you don't even know if you are one proves my point #1.
I'm not convinced there was a historical jesus either, but I'm sure no mythicist. I'm just an old school skeptic, and mythicism is a cult.
Its all non sense. Who cares how real it is. It makes it clear that we all came from somewhere. This world didnt create itself, so there must be a Creator somewhere. So on that notion, just have faith in the Creator and He will express Himself in many different ways!
or you could have a brain
Just don't try to equate that Creator with the character in the Bible.
In other words: understanding science is HARD! It's so much easier to kick the can down to a creator...no work required.
there's no fear for anyone,
life on this earth is an illusion,
it doesn't matter what,
JUST BE YOU,
.. first you break the Unity of a species, by language barriers that leads to cultures which leads to religions, and then division that leads to destructive wars like the middle east, north and south Korea, white and black and so on and so on ..in turn stalling the evolution of a race of human beings, in Sumer there were ethnic markers civilized man and Demigod alike, no such thing as hate,or race just a diverse species of human beings, the part about us (not reaching the heavens) or using advanced gifts left behind, there is no telling what we would have become,but we would not be where we are today , shortly after the great pyramid was disabled and before Egypt was founded, that's where Sumer fell and the seeds of culture spread out across the earth, the garden of The city of Edin was Gobekli Tepe that's where Titi and Adappa, got kicked out by Enlil.. while Tiamat and Adamu were in South Africa,it was supposed to be Civilized man and Demigods living here on earth together.. The demigods did survive the great flood, Enlil committed genocide against them then tower of babel ="went off to make war with the remnant" by further dividing humanity , creating this chaotic world today you see ,"feet like a bear" vandalism and refurbished great sphinx like the Harthor face and vandalism..it originally had a face like a man or like the Sumarian sphinx,see the step like pattern under the neck, that's traces of the altering of it,and then the removal of the original Stella between the paws, clearly stating who built it and why ,the names of blasphemy on the heads are the divisive religions created by Enlil ,he was the great red dragon who became the oppressor of humanity
There are no original greek texts from none of the Ancient Greek writings , yet some scholars somehow believe the New Testament supposedly plagiarized from Homer. Most of the surviving Greek writings from Homer , post date the New Testament manuscripts by many years.
lol wut?
This man is a tik tok loudmouth. He speaks more like an evangelical minister than a biblical scholar. He has an agenda and therefore, his scholarly opinion is null and void. Thank God for Dan.
Thankfully we have plenty of non-biblical accounts of Jesus to provide further evidence of his existence.
No we don’t. Plenty is a real stretch. At best 3-4 that are reliable.
@@jsworpin Even 3-4 is a stretch. I've only heard of one extra-biblical account from a known historian that we are confident is not a forgery, but that is not a first-hand account.
There's not a single one contemporary extra biblical text about jesus. Which is odd considering how well the Romans kept their records. All the extra biblical mentions of jesus were 100+ years after he was supposed to have lived.
@@jsworpin um yes. Yes we do. The Koran provides great evidence. The Apocrypha provides plenty of accounts of Jesus and his teachings. As does the Book of Mormon. That should be more than enough for skeptics. But it's not. Eventually you'll have to turn to faith, it won't be spoon fed to you.
where "plenty" = zero. There is zero zippo nadda contemporaneous accounts of jesus by anybody. So cut the crap.