Two Answers to Dan McClellan

Two Answers to Dan McClellan · I Was Challenged to See More Dan McClellan ...

When does the Bible begin to be more historically accurate?
Dan McClellan | 27 févr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF5pkO2p4_k

0:11 The Hebrew Bible is historical evidence.

You are posing the question the wrong way.

Just because the Bible is a religious document, this does not mean it is somehow not a historic one.

The idea that "one evidence is too little, you need corroborating evidence" is a false methodology in history.

UNLESS for time periods that are so well documented and in a so well preserved documentation that a lack of corroborating evidence would be very conspicuous.

In the 19th C. AD, European countries and colonies, and obviously ex-colonies, the lack of corroborating evidence would be conspicuous.

In the 19th C BC, the time of Isaac and Jacob, not so much.

Jim Jimjim

@jimjim292

@hglundahl You're not a scholar and don't know anything.

Juan Ausensi

@juanausensi499

It is evidence. But it's weak.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@jimjim292 I'm at least a half scholar in Latin and Greek, just not the kind of scholar you like to rely on here.

Your tone is distinctly rude.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@juanausensi499 No, 1 source in the 19th C BC is not as weak as 1 source in the 19th C. AD would be.

0:30 So, Caesar did not erect stelae in Gaul over his victories. Does this omission disqualify a 10th C. manuscript from accurately telling his campaigns? No.

Juan Ausensi

You should ask yourself why not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@juanausensi499 Do you have any good reason for Caesar which does not also cover early parts of Biblical history?

1:13 There are other explanations.

Less Biblical inerrancy, Elhanon killed the "brother of Goliath" and a copy omitted "brother of". More Biblical inerrancy, Goliath's brother was also named Goliath, either because the father literally reused the exact same name, or because two foreign names were transscribed identically to Hebrew (like Lithuanian transscribes both Jonah and John as Jonas).

Ford Prefect

@fordprefect5304

Goliath has bigger problems.

If you read the detailed description of Goliath a 10th century philistine. He is dressed in 7th century Greek Hoplite Armour.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@fordprefect5304 What exact words are such that it's 7th C. Greek rather than 10th C. Greek?

Btw, since Philistines have partly Cretan ancestry, Greek as such is not a problem.

Ford Prefect

@hglundahl 10th C. Greek

Chain mail armour was not invented until the 8th century.

@hglundahl Philistines have partly Cretan ancestry

Except there are paintings of Philistines, and they are not wearing "Hoplite Armour", they were Mycenaeans. Dorians invented chain mail amour in the 8th century.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@fordprefect5304 The Hebrew words seem to mean "breastplate with fish scales" or even harness with scales ... you still have not shown that the description is depicting a hoplite.

We could even be dealing with a description of a Mycenaean helmet, boar tusks overlapping like scales, as the words come just after the mention of the helmet.

Ford Prefect

@hglundahl 1 SAMUEL 17
RRV
5 And he had an helmet of brass upon his head, and
he was clad with a coat of mail
KJV
5 And he had an helmet of brass upon his head, and
he was armed with a coat of mail;
Try again....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@fordprefect5304 RRV and KJV are translations.

Biblical inerrancy doesn't mean there are no minor mistranslations.

Especially not in versions that even have major ones, as KJV mistranslates for instance Matthew 6:7.

The original wording was perhaps misunderstood and mistranslated.

Ford Prefect

@hglundahl The David and Goliath Story as Reminiscent of the Iliad

Also prominent among the indications of Greek influence on the story of King David is the image of his battle with Goliath, a story that only became associated with David at a later stage (2Sam 21:19 ascribes this battle to another, lesser known warrior named Elhanan). Much of the story of this battle is reminiscent of scenes from Homer’s Iliad, including the battle of champions and the description of Goliath’s armor , which more closely resembles the armor worn by Achilles in the Iliad than battle dress worn by Philistines as depicted on Egyptian monuments.

Credit:
Dr. Richard Lederman taught courses in Bible, Religion, and Comparative Mythology at Georgetown University, Montgomery College, and Gratz College. He holds a Ph.D. in Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literature from Dropsie College. Before returning to academia, Lederman worked as a Jewish communal professional.

@hglundahl Dr. Richard Lederman
Uses the Hebrew bible which closely matches the dead sea scrolls. But I am making sure you figured that out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@fordprefect5304 Did he ever mention that the Hebrew terms are sometimes translated differently?

Either way, no, I already explained the Elhanan passage why it's not the original version for 1st Kings 17.

Some people with degrees have such an itch to reconstruct, they are incapable of simply reading a text, and if there is a problem reread it for other possible meanings.

Battles of champions would have been standard in the Bronze Age, and Homer didn't have it from his own time, but from back in the days of the Trojan War.

1:29 "the stories are legendary, or they are complete fiction"

Legendary here in your usage depends on a Protestant prejudice against legend, which I don't share. It doesn't mean fiction. It means history that's supposed to be read or recited on occasions calling for it, i e history that has historical relevance. If you give a completely historically accurate version of Paul Revere's ride, on a 4th of July, that still is "legend" because history related to War of Independence is meant to be read (the exact Latin meaning of legenda) on celebrations of 4th of July.

There is no complete fiction, not even partial fiction, except as to exact wordings used in past dialogues (a convention you find in the BC / AD time Ancients that explains diversity of logia in different Gospels), in the historical books of the Bible. The Bible scholars who hold there is, are basically Liberal Protestants, that is Apostates.

MrMortal_Ra

@MrMortal_Ra

“There is no complete fiction” Genesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MrMortal_Ra I don't think Phil Collins said that phrase.

Were you referring to the book of Genesis and quoting part of my phrase?

Because, no, Genesis is NOT complete fiction. Not even partial fiction.

1:37 "we can't really reconstruct"

Even before other problems, you have a very basic problem of methodology, in thinking the modern scholar has a duty to "reconstruct" what some person or event was. Taking an ancient source at face value doesn't seem to be on your table even as an option.

Dan McClellan

@maklelan

Refusing to question the historicity of any source is absolutely not on the table. That's not how scholarship works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@maklelan I'm sorry, but your view of scholarship is worthless as to how we know the ancient history we know.

I know modern scholarship is in a kind of a turmoil, but argue your points, specific or about principles, instead of appealing to how "scholarship works" as if that were the eleventh commandment or 15th sentence of the creed or eighth petition of Our Father.

Juan Ausensi

@hglundahl "but argue your points, "
That's what he does with his videos.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@juanausensi499 except I called him out for precisely not doing that!

Juan Ausensi

@hglundahl I know. You should watch more of his videos.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@juanausensi499 He was on this thread and could have linked to another one.

When it comes to the epistemology of history, he has learned a set number of talking points, which he is not willing to question, nor able to defend when others attack them, which I did.

IF by any chance he had another video where he "explained" the things "I was confused about" (stating it from his perspective, not mine), he could very easily just have linked to it. In fact, he was stumped by my angle of attack.

OR, I would be very surprised.

Juan Ausensi

@hglundahl You aren't entitled to an answer. Next time, don't be hostile, and ask genuine questions, if you have any.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@juanausensi499 What should NOT be "hostile" about someone arguing badly and my dismantling that bad argument?

I was not "asking questions" but defying his lack of real argument. If he had had any, he could have provided, no big deal at all.

How Christian nationalists misread Romans 13:1
Dan McClellan | 5 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdAuxG038Cw

0:41 Protestants have certainly abused Romans 13, like against Pilgrimage of Grace, like against Dacke, and the infamous Coligny, presuming he had state authority as a noble, and peasants hadn't, in 1568 would probably if challenged by a pastor he respected have appealed to Romans 13 for executing peasants trying to defend the religion of Castres, a Catholic town. More recently, Lutherans and Anglicans have argued against Franco's right to "rebel" against de facto persecutors of the Church.

This does not mean we get to say Romans 13 is not for all times.

Among other things, it involves setting up limits for the use of power by those holding public office.

1:56 "singularly illsuited" only by Protestant misreading. Here is Witham, a bishop of English illegal Catholics residing in Douay:

Let every soul, or every one, be subject, &c.[1] The Jews were apt to think themselves not subject to temporal princes, as to taxes, &c. and lest Christians should misconstrue their Christian liberty, he here teacheth them that every one (even priests and bishops, says St. John Chrysostom) must be subject and obedient to princes, even to heathens, as they were at that time, as to laws that regard the policy of the civil government, honouring them, obeying them, and their laws, as it is the will of God, because the power they act by is from God. So that to resist them, is to resist God. And every Christian must obey them even for conscience-sake. St. John Chrysostom takes notice that St. Paul does not say that there is no prince but from God, but only that there is no power but from God, meaning no lawful power, and speaking of true and just laws. See hom. xxiii. (Witham)

Note the wording "no lawful power, and speaking of true and just laws" ... i e, there is such a thing as unjust and therefore false "law", of obedience to which the "taking of the mark" would be an example.

2:05 How about taking a cue from Witham and conferring the prophetic blessing of Judah by his father Jacob?

Genesis 49:
8 Juda, thee shall thy brethren praise: thy hands shall be on the necks of thy enemies: the sons of thy father shall bow down to thee. 9 Juda is a lion's whelp: to the prey, my son, thou art gone up: resting thou hast couched as a lion, and as a lioness, who shall rouse him? 10 The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations. 11 Tying his foal to the vineyard, and his ass, O my son, to the vine. He shall wash his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape. 12 His eyes are more beautiful than wine, and his teeth whiter than milk.

Specifically in verse 10, the Messiah had to come before Judaeans could lose sovereignty.

The stonings and stoning attempts in the Gospels were partly a way of pretending to have retained the sovereignty.

But the Messiah did come, the last sovereign abused his power to try to destroy him, and Judah lost sovereignty.

St. Paul is in the immediate context telling Christians not to establish a parallel civil justice system.

Judah and Ephraim have lost civil sovereignty, and to this day their Christian and Muslim descendants have no sovereignty compared to the foreigners who came in after the Balfour declaration. Thereby, they have also fulfilled the prophecies about them carrying arms no more. Armies in Palestine the last 2000 years have not been armies manned by Palestinians, until very recently.

Before 3:04

In Petrus of Tarantasia, I found an exposition of 1 Cor 7:20 etc stating that liberty and servitude are both amenable to make one's salvation, therefore both should be preserved. Note, as the presupposition is about servitude to men who want to exploit you as work force, domestic entertainment or field labour or lots in between, this holds. It would not hold about shrinks, since they interfere in things pertaining to salvation, notably, it is necessary for some men to marry, they are greatly hampered if they can't, as St. Paul mentioned, so, a kind of lordship that can interfere with your right to marry (other than the voluntary celibacy and the ones that involves) is still to be avoided.

3:04 The kind of attitude to the Bible that you endorse, "time dated documents, not directly applicable today" is actually part of the problem you describe, one starting with Luther.

At a certain point in the late 19th C. Protestants had their identity politics bent on progressivism, therefore on a liberal reading of the Bible. Otto von Bismarck is a prime example, and Marcan priority is a poisoned gift to Bible scholars from one fawning on him (if it had been a Catholic, back then, he would have been excommnicated).