I think my problem with IP, as a whole, is the extent of his literalist confirmation bias. He will bend over backwards using whatever texts he can get to argue that the Bible, as it currently sits, is the oldest version thereof and then throws his sources around to make you sit down and shut up. He starts with his conclusion and works backwards, grabbing the closest thing to confirmation he can find and presenting it as concrete fact despite all arguments to the contrary.
When has IP claimed the Bible we have “is” the oldest? Also why do we assume editing as a bad thing….or think all conspiratorial as in it’s the elites vs the common people…. All books are edited…and editing doesn’t directly mean deception
Oh yes! Finally Michael Jones is picking on somebody his own size (metaphorically)! I'd love to see a more in depth actual live debate between Michael Jones and Dan McClellan on this subject (dating and theology of the Deuteronomic history and Torah). That would be awesome.
This guy IP/Mike is the same guy on another video having cognitive dissonance concerning resurrection discrepancies… Anyone who makes a living on being an Bible apologist is someone I can’t take seriously/trust. Apologist be lying.
@@TrisjensChronicles1203 so no actual argument? What’s wrong with being an apologist? We’re doing apologetics everyone does apologetics, all apologetics is giving a defense to a particular position.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Biblical apologist’s lie and aren’t honest about what the text is saying, that’s what’s wrong. Not all, but a lot that I’ve seen in Christianity. Very similar to what this IP/Mike guy is doing here. If you don’t have all the information concerning a topic, don’t talk about it as to make it seem like you’re so so right because you’re proud and wanna prove a point, happens all the time. The our view is correct and yours is wrong, in Christian apologetics. To me, an Christian apologist is someone who tries to keep a person from leaving the fold when serious questions arise of questioning their faith. But that’s just me.
I love these videos. IP/Mike is way out of his depth in this field, because he has a theological need for monotheism to be the prevailing practice and canon law, when historically that is demonstrably NOT the case. Thank you for sharing this information with us, Dr Dan!
Actually no. Mike is not a historian but he does rely on the scholars. He has no "need" for monotheism to be prevailing. Literally no one disputes that "some" Israelites were worshipping other gods. Heck even Abraham was a polytheist. The point IP is making is that they were condemned early on.
@gekksvide0 Mike is relying on MINORITY scholarly resources. Meaning that the majority of scholars who study these texts and the history do *not* find the arguments of Kitchen to be convincing or data-supported. If Kitchens had built a stronger argument, his point of view would be shared by the majority of scholars. To date, that's not the case. If someone wants to build on his work and provide stronger corroborating evidence, they can and should do so, utilizing peer-reviewed processes.
@@Tzimiskes3506 Mike relies on the scholars that agree with his theology, because he's assumed a conclusion before he starts. He *does* need the Hebrews to have a largely monotheist practice, and he *does* need the law(s) commanding monotheism to be the standard by which he can judge the Asherah worshippers as antinomian. If his default is monotheism, then of course he thinks Asherah worship is violating that. But historically, there's no strong case to be made that the Hebrews started as or even promoted monotheistic worship until much, much later. Mike is going to have problems with this because, as a Christian, he needs a theology that started out 'pure' but was corrupted or ignored by wayward Israelites. There ISN'T DATA TO SUPPORT THIS. The Hebrews emerged from Canaanite peoples, developed a separate identity over the centuries, and gradually purged polytheism and henotheism from their worship and texts. We have textual evidence of poly- and henotheistic practice in Israel that was intentionally redacted and changed to specifically promote monotheism. Dr. Kipp Davis has several videos on this very topic. I highly recommend them!
The real question is what's the point of these videos. The demonstration of polytheism in the Hebrew Bible? What is Dan MacClellan trying to prove? Polytheism? Fine no problem. What's his personal religious views and if he has some specific Christian view of polytheism it would be really cool to put forward in a video. Is he a monotheist? Polytheist? Henotheist? Polytheist but with a monolatric tendency? I would really like to know. And don't come forth saying oh that's his personal beliefs there is no need to say to anyone. If he is putting on videos on such matters it's super honest i think to unveil his own positions to have a discussion.
Dan, you're absolutely correct about the texts not being widely known by the 'rank and file' early Israelite people until around the 2nd century BCE. Just because it was known to the priestly class, who could read and write, doesn't mean that information was disseminated to everyone, to the entire population who were more concerned with living their everyday lives and just getting by, than they were about the finer points of the law/Torah.
Even now, there is an huge disparity between the official doctrine of almost any religion and what its faithful think or believe - and how they behave.
Just to push back a little, these are collectivist societies, so unlike today, it would be strange to have everyone in a society have individual opinions on doctrine. You can see this with Catholics and orthodox Christians who give interpretations and theology that everyone is supposed to fall in line with, as opposed to Protestants and more western thinking societies who all believe they can hold individual opinions on doctrines….the comparison isn’t perfect but we just need to remember how different our modern society is than ancient societies
@@oscarmagana8322 But everyone doesn't, in fact, fall in line, and it is very doubtful that everyone has even heard all the rules. Even for those who have, German Catholics, for example, regularly make the news with attempts to reform Catholicism (with broad local support) that get rejected by the Vatican. Hell, they even had trouble accepting the resignation of a German Bishop for open-and-shut misappropriation of funds. And I've heard that US Catholics also have some non-Vatican ideas.
@@oscarmagana8322 Yes, and one of those differences is that now people have a standard text and almost all of them can read it. It may be that theology is much more standardized now, despite some value given to individualism now. Dispersed worship with only occasional contact with people outside your family or village would mean dispersed theology. One reason McClellan’s statement (edit) @2:47 is so significant is that modern people tend to view the Torah like a modern national law, but most people in “Hebrew Bible times” could not read and did not have access to canon, if the idea of canon even existed before, say, 350 BCE.
I am a fan of IP and a Christian but I agree with pushing back a little on this issue. We should be clear on all data and what’s a majority or minority position and not be ashamed of it. Being majority or minority doesn’t make something true or false and trying to peer into history is an imperfect tool. without time travel the history we know is always 1 discovery away from being overturned, and some things are just lost forever and speculation will be all we will ever have
But the problem is Dan only mentions scholarly consensus when it's on his side. His talked about christology dozen time, but have u ever heard him mention any scholar consensus regarding early christology? No! Because it goes against what his trying to argue.
tl;dr - InspiringPhilosophy picked (minority) scholars that agree with his theology, and Dan is showing why that's not only a minority view, but also ahistoric based on the data we have available.
@@Vishanti Yeah.. it's just I think DanDroidx and I have the same issue. We don't know the terms or any of the basics. So everything is very high level to us. I mean, pre-deuteronistic (I'm misspelling it) .. I know the book of Deuteronomy. I'm sure I've read it though I can't really remember the details. This basic academic knowledge that is a given or understood.. I don't understand it. You must have some specialized knowledge. Think of how it sounds when people interact with you and it's very obvious that they don't even understand basic given concepts. That's where I am and where I suspect DanDroidX is. I would kill for a "Dummies" book that slowly explained from the beginning. I mean, I don't even know what P source is or not p or D or any of that stuff. What is "masoretic text"? People who have studied will know these things and well, people such as myself.. we don't know.
@@jenniferhunter4074 I was about to agree that a lot went over my head when your post made me realize that at least I have a tolerably good knowledge of the basics (which I have accumulated by watching tons of scholarly videos on the Bible). J, E, P, D sources refer to the “documentary hypothesis”. In the 1800s German scholars realized that the Hebrew Bible looks like it has been compiled by merging together different sources. For instance there’s two creation accounts in genesis, one where god creates man and woman simultaneously, and the other where eve is created from Adam’s rib. There’s dozens of similar duplets (sometimes triplets) in the text, as if the scribes had different versions of the same story and stitched them together trying to preserve both. Scholars have tried to disentangle and reconstruct the original sources and use letters to label them. The masoretic text is an important old manuscript of the Hebrew Bible written in Hebrew. You’d say “duh!” but we don’t have the original text of the Bible. Consider that even in Jesus time most Jews spoke Greek and the most popular Bible was a Greek version known as the septuagin. Christians used latin Bibles, which were translation from Greek. With the reformation and the translation of the first Bibles in English and other modern languages scholars snd theologians realized the importance of having manuscripts as old and as close to the original as possible. Yeah, the field is huge once one starts looking into it. I don’t know of any book for dummy but you can try Wikipedia. The articles there are a good summary of a topic. I find it very useful for getting and idea of things I know little or nothing about.
@@jenniferhunter4074 the Masoretic Text is the manuscript(s) of the Hebrew Bible that include vowel markings indicating how words should be pronounced. Hebrew does not have separate vowel letters, so one must either be familiar with the language or have some help to know pronunciation. It's not the *earliest* version of the Hebrew scriptures, but it is very important, because it shows how some of the text variations were standardized from earlier manuscripts in order to streamline a more monotheistic practice (see Dr. Kipp Davis' channel for more!). The MT is what the overwhelming majority of Hebrew Bible translations are based on, because it became the "standard" Hebrew manuscript. It's named 'Masoretic' because the group of scribes that wrote it were Masoretes. You don't necessarily need to know all the details of the Documentary Hypothesis (where the terms P-source, Yahwist, etc. come from) to get through most of these kinds of videos. But! If you'd like to know more, check out "Did Moses Write the Torah? Interview with Dr. Joel Baden" on the channel @DigitalHammurabi. it will give you a good starting point from 2 scholars well-versed in the area.
Thank you for not only responding to misinformation, but also to bad rhetoric. I think it's useful to educate people not only on what data is available, but also on data literacy and good how to appropriately argue based on data. I always learn something useful from your videos.
Where does the bibliolatry of various different Bible canons come from? That is a good question. And how and why were the various different Bible canons chosen? Do you trust wife-muderous King James of England? Or the newly reinterpreted KJVs? No bibliolatry is good bibliolatry, even “interpretationalism” forms of non-literal bibliolatry.
How is this informative? InspiringPhilosophy's short/tiktok length content already scrapes the bottom of the barrel of citations and facts he can manage to fit in, and this video is literally just this scholar saying about 20 times that IPs views are a minority among scholars. That's it. For an almost 8 minute video response on a video that was originally like 1-2 min long, there's almost no elucidation about what this said scholarly consensus is. Pretty much the only info I could gleam from this was that parts of Exodus were written at different times from different sources. I don't want to dunk on Dan, I've just found his videos and don't know him, but all the comments here are doing the rounds, saying he's so knowledgeable and providing all this information I really did not find in this video. All he does is speak a truth (IP's opinions are a minority view in the broader scholarly consensus on the topic(s)), but then provide absolutely zero information about it. What's the point of the video? At least I can haphazardly attempt to verify IPs views as a layman, what am I supposed to do with this? Just take Dan's opinion that other people's opinions who I have zero reference to are true or worth listening to? Are you serious? Is there something I'm missing?
It’s very disingenuous when he brings up biblical theology when it wasn’t even created yet. It’s a slick talking point that works for those who don’t know that Asherah and Yahweh predate the biblical narrative
Good point. Biblical Theology didn’t even get demarcated as a theological discipline until Gabler did in the late 1700s. Biblical Theology is great, I live reading Eichrodt, Von Rad, Barr, and Childs et. al. But, saying that there was a “biblical theology” present at the time these texts were composed is wildly anachronistic (by well over 2000 years). It would be about as sensible as making a contextually driven argument for biblical rocket science. All biblical theology today are based on ex post facto assumptions such as canon and modern theological categories
First of all your reasoning is completely circular you’re assuming that your position is correct and then accusing him of being disingenuous because he disagrees with your conclusion which you have merely assumed it’s the case. and that is only one hypothesis there’s many others.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 it’s rather simple. Biblical Theology as a category doesn’t arise until the late 18th Century when German biblical scholars were seeking to gain a sense of the key theological themes in the Old Testament. A decent history of the discipline (Barr and Hasel for example) make this pretty clear. The authors/editors/redactors of the Hebrew Bible simply weren’t operating from a biblical theology, that’s an anachronism.
From the Nag Hammadi library, teachings of Sylvanus, later quoted by no less than St. Anthony who lived until the mid 4th century CE, so it was at least moderately orthodox until then. "Return, my son to your first Father, God, and to Wisdom, your Mother. Wisdom summons you in Her goodness saying, 'Come to me all of you, oh foolish ones, that you may receive a gift, the understanding which is good and excellent. I am giving you a high priestly garment which is woven from every wisdom. Clothe yourself with wisdom like a robe. Put knowledge upon you like a crown. Be seated upon a throne of perception. From now on, my son, return to your devine nature.' " Even Josiah and the priests couldn't kill her off. 😊
Phoenicia (the Greek name for that area and where princess Europa comes from) was and maybe still is a very strategic land are situated in the land bridge between three very fertile continents. It’s been conquered and reconsidered by various big empires wishing to become even larger. It would be important to come up with a religion to say “this land is my children’s forever even if we don’t own it at some point.”
Good job, Sir. Wish more Christians were like you. Data over dogma. Good science (and philosophy and theology) over sloppy philosophy and theology (and science). Sadly, IP has been doing too much of the latter.
This all or nothing approach to fact finding often fails. Without solid data to the contrary there is an excellent possibility that some factions worshipped ashera and others did not, and both to a varying degree. Even today, with a well developed canon and Christology, there is a huge number of denominations which do not agree with each other on the most basic of facts. Until we have solid evidence to the contrary, this possibility must be introduced to the conversation
Absolutely, but I think Dan's point is that there is no evidence of any widespread or even noticeable opposition to worship of asherah. There could of course have been those that did oppose it, but the evidence (imperfect as it is) leans toward any such factions being relatively inconsequential
It is never a good look when you need the new information coming in to agree with your POV. It is, in fact, a garbage method of epistemology. One side here can admit they were wrong, or even just make small adjustments in the face of new information. The other side has to make any new information fit their existing model no matter what.
I'm honestly astounded at how completely you can explore arguments and critical, theoretical frameworks in such a short, concise manner. As an aspiring professor (someday, hopefully) I am greatly inspired by your ability to educate :D
Dan couldnt find his way out of a wet paper bag. Nothing but scholarly bs flows out his mouth. He's a stooge. I haven't seen him explain anything worth knowing and he will paye dearly for it 😮
In my view, i find it funny that people who argue for strict monotheism seem to have no problem with expressions or labels attached to God like "most high God" or "God of Gods" which explicitly implies the existence of other Gods. Mount Everest is the most high mountain on earth but that does not mean other mountains including K2 does not exist on earth. God is a God of many Gods that actually exist. Calling God a God of false gods is rather insulting to God. Anything that exists is greater than something that does not exist. My dog exists so he is greater than any false god. A God that presides over the other Gods holds the honorary and noble title of "God of Gods". When one calls Jesus to be King of kings, Lord of lords, he is King and Lord over other Kings and Lords in heaven. These are not earthy kings and lords as Jesus retains that title even after the world has ended.
The conclusion he seems to be trying to get to here is a strange one: not that there was no belief in Asherah or the belief that she was the wife of what we now call "God", but that that belief, though it existed, was non-Biblical. People who talk about Ashera (and Baal and the distinction between YHWH and El(ohim) and others) already know that things the Bible either doesn't include or is explicitly against aren't "Biblical". The point is that these ideas existed and were believed in. He seems to want to counter that but is half-admitting and sidestepping it instead.
That other guy has shown in other videos (such as on the authenticity of some books alleged to have been written by Paul) that he is willing to say that the consensus is against him but the consensus is wrong and consensus-ism isn't a valid way to analyze history.
On the whole I do agree with Dan. But FWIW, I do lean toward Friedman’s source criticism as being the best reading of the data, and this seems to be corroborated with some of the archaeological work of Dever. The only pushback I can offer as a layperson who loves the history of the ANE and especially the biblical texts is placing too much emphasis on scholarly consensus. Critical scholars like Friedman et. al. have marshaled some eminently reasonable arguments for early dating of J and E sources, and equally reputable scholars are more prone to push some of the source material in the Hebrew Bible out to later and sometimes even post exilic dates. Obviously I lean in one direction on this with the heavy qualifier that a) I am not a scholar and b) it’s hard to draw firm conclusions on the dating of textual data beyond the consensus that the text is composite and did develop over time. It’s probably a tough issue to overcome in this format where it’s hard to be nuanced in such a compressed medium. But, my only criticism here is that “scholarly consensus” may be less than helpful in sussing out some of the more elusive aspects of textual studies. There seems to me to be more or less a few dominant critical schools of thought, and this means an appeal to consensus is hard to defend practically. Again, I do agree broadly with the question of Asherah that Dan’s making. To me it seems to be rather obvious when the data both material and textual are accounted for
If we didn't have someone like Dan helping us through these issues, I will say that Inspiring Philosophy guy is pretty convincing. Certainly several levels above the other whackos in the apologetic world, who are IMO pretty easy to dismiss.
Sometime you should do a video on the popular appropriation of conservative scholarship. When watching the video, I was struck by how apologists love using the same half dozen conservative scholars I was relying on over a decade ago when I was trying to dispel my doubts about the Hebrew Bible. It strikes me now as a totally irresponsible way for laypeople to engage with this material, but the scholars in question seem more than content to have their writings wielded for such apologetic ends
@@wilkimist I suspect you’re right. But in my experience people react very strongly to any suggestion that their academic heroes are arguing in less than good faith. I think it’s worth pointing out that even if we assume that conservative scholars are writing in good faith, the way their work is appropriated is still objectionable.
What's irresponsible about it? IP read the scholarship and he agreed with the conservative scholars and the case they presented. Dan is representing a particular viewpoint and so are Kitchens and Hess. Sure it's a minority viewpoint, but that doesn't make it less legitimate.
@@mf_hume I agree, and don't really think those scholars are arguing in bad faith, it's just extremely hard to look at text from the outside of their paradigm. It was hard for me.
@@dftknight to me the irresponsibility is in how IP can present those scholars. As Dan was addressing, "this is what actually happened" when it's just the minority opinion of scholars.
Theres been theology since the 5 books of Moses.. the old testament. Issac was born a feminine soul until Rebecca. His feminine soul became Rebecca. The woman being created from man and the laughter.
Nice try, but… Asherah, along with Astarte and Anath, was one of the three great goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon. In Canaanite religion her primary role was that of mother goddess. Canaanites associated Asherah with sacred trees, an association also found in the Israelite tradition. Israel’s association of Asherah with sacred trees is repeated over thirty times in the Bible; many of these citations are stereotypically used by the biblical writers to describe sites of idolatrous worship, implying that the worship of Asherah was an apostate behavior in Israel and improper for followers of YHWH. Despite these and other references associating Asherah with apostasy, contemporary discoveries have further indicated that, at least in the opinion of some ancient Israelites, YHWH and Asherah were appropriately worshipped as a pair. The Canaanite association of Asherah with sacred trees is also found in Israelite tradition. For example, one of the Canaanite epithets of Asherah, elat, “goddess,” is etymologically identical to the Hebrew word for the terebinth tree (ela). Another word for “terebinth” (alla) and two words for “oak” (elon and allon) are also closely related. Gen 2:4b-3:24 may further suggest the association of Asherah with sacred trees, since the way that Eve, “the mother of all living” (3:20), is described in the Eden story mimics in certain respects the role of the Canaanite mother goddess Asherah. If a correspondence holds, then the trees of life and of knowledge in the Eden narrative may also reflect Asherah imagery. Most significant, though, in demonstrating Israel’s association of Asherah with sacred trees are biblical materials that describe the asherah (singular) or asherim (plural), the cult object(s) that are associated with the goddess Asherah more than thirty times in the Hebrew Bible. These cult objects are generally described as being in the shape of a pole or stylized tree. Like a pole or tree, they can be said to be planted, stood up, or erected. Conversely, when destroyed, these cult symbols can be described as being cut down, hewn down, or uprooted; they can also be said to be burned, overturned, or broken. Both the Greek and Latin translations of the Bible, moreover, render the words asherah and asherim as “grove” or “wood.” According to the biblical record, these sacred poles or stylized trees associated with Asherah were erected by the Israelites throughout most of their history, especially during the premonarchic (tribal) period (Judg 6:25-26, 28, 30)) and during the period of the divided monarchy, both in the northern kingdom of Israel (1Kgs 14:15; 16:33; 2 Kgs 13:6; 17:10, 16; 23:15; and parallel references in 2 Chronicles) and in Judah, in the south (1 Kgs 14:23, 15:13; 2 Kgs 18:4; 21:3, 7; 23:6, 14; and parallel references in 2 Chronicles). These sacred poles were situated in various locations. In Judges 6, a sacred pole of Asherah is said to have stood beside the altar of the Canaanite storm god, Baal. The Bible also connects sacred poles with the “high places” (open-air cult sites?) and frequently mentions that they stood “on every high hill and under every green tree” (1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 17:10; 18:4; 21:3; 23:13-14; 2 Chr 14:3; 17:6; 31:1; 33:3, 19; 34:3; Jer 17:2). Both of these phrases are stereotypically used by the biblical writers to describe sites of idolatrous worship, implying, as does Judges 6, that the worship of Asherah was an apostate behavior in Israel and improper for followers of YHWH.
It will never cease to amaze me how threatened people will feel by the suggestion thay something may have happened in the past that doesn't align with what is considered acceptable today. Some YHWH believers, thousands of years ago, may have also worshipped a female goddess Ashera. This goddess may have been represented by idols. This practice was later condemned and eliminated from most Judeo-Christian traditions. That does absolutely nothing to invalidate or threaten your own Christian faith in 2023, unless your faith is based on the wrong things.
IP agrees with all that though. The point he was disputing was the dating of particular texts that condemned Asherah worship. IP thinks they were earlier and Dan thinks they were post-exilic.
@@dftknight yes, but the reason why he makes the argument that it was condemned earlier is because it threatens his theology if it was later. His argument was defensive and apologetic because his understanding of who God is and what the Bible is would be threatened if polytheism and idol worship were allowed and accepted for that long. God has to be an enforcer of a one and only acceptable way to worship, and the Bible has to be authoritative and consistent in it's condemnation of any other practice. His point wasn't "I think an earlier date is more likely because of this evidence" but rather a defense of his foundational belief that the Bible is and has been a consistent authority throughout Judeo-Christian history. If these passages were later or not widespread until later, the entire structure of his faith is threatened.
@@MsFitz134 But he did cite evidence in support of his view. Michael Heiser pointed out many scholars have the presupposition that Israelite views on monotheism and Asherah evolved and reconstruct the chronology and date the texts that way. Its not clear why these assumptions are preferable to the other viewpoint IP brought up. Its about presuppositions to some extent.
@@dftknight Thom Stark and others have rebuttals to Heiser as well as per the below articles which explain the consensus and some of Heiser's fallacious reasoning. *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser)
@@epicofatrahasis3775 Heiser has replied to Stark too and he pointed out Stark makes the same flawed assumptions of the evolutionary view of religion other scholars do.
Because it was known to the priestly class, who could read and write, doesn't mean that information was disseminated to everyone and that is important because their knowledge falls under the term “biblical theology”. The majority of the population that was part of acculturation through time lost the sense of monotheism. Look at the story of Jacobs wife stealing her father’s idols. I don’t get the argument
I'm on your side here, but when you consistently say, "majority view" or "academic consensus", how do you measure that? Do you mean the consensus of the scholars you've read? Are there polls regularly taken among scholars?
Dan just had a video on this. It's fairly difficult to measure this, but given Dan's familiarity with the field, I think it's safe to say that he knows what he's talking about. That being said, I'd love a statistical analysis on this topic. Maybe some PhD student is working on this now!
Wow, I love to see this. It amazes me to see these apologists act this way, why do they feel the need to be so so right even by doing these type of minority view text gymnastics? I can’t stand it. Thanks Dr. Dan for keeping them honest.
What a refreshing video! When Asherah was taken out, so was the Heart of the True Father. Violence and bloodshed gave the Israelites "victory" over their "enemies" (ie those who inhabited fruitful lands that they wanted). With every good gift from God comes choice- to accept the gift with humility and Love, or take it by force. They, and America, took their lands by force because they followed the God of this world- the God of Death, blood sacrifice, judgement, condemnation, and violence, instead of the True Creator of Life, Love, Mercy, Grace, and Forgiveness. I dread for the Israelites, and those who support them, when they start doing the blood sacrifices again. 😢
Dan, I respect your opinion on this video dude man you do tons of great work but Mike was just off-the-wall because he defends apologetic so well but there’s a lot of stuff he does get wrong but this is just great work
Hopefully they WILL chose to step up. Bibliolatry is ugly as hell, even if it’s “interpretationalism-only anti-literalism” forms of bibliolatry ignorant or uncaring about how the idol canons were chosen by wealthy-kept religious-institutioned men.
Ashera was the consort of El. Then she became the consort of YHWH. Depending on who you ask and the time period, YHWH defeated El an/or became synonymous with El to become the most high god. Thats why, in the Bible, YHWH says to the Israelites, "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew me as El Shaddai (God Almighty), but my name, YHWH, was not known to them". That verse in Exodus has YHWH trying to make it seem like he was always the most high god. His statement is factually wrong there though since Abraham absolutely knew the name of YHWH.
Well he’s still a Mormon (likely an “interpret with the heart” LDS) so I’m not sure why he keeps pushing the scholarly consensus if he has his own ideas. Although, I guess as a Mormon himself, he thinks the scholarly consensus of Christianity before Joseph Smith aligns with some/most of Mormon dictrine if not the literal letter of Mormon stories/bibliolatry.
Why are you moving goalposts? You presented all of your arguments the same way IP did yet that didn’t become an issue until IP argued the way you did. I’m not saying either side is right or wrong, only that you and he both are making the same assumptions on different viewpoints and pressing them as fact. To try to discredit his argument on that basis is a fallacy.
I often wonder when Jones’ cognitive dissonance will catch up with him. I think (hope) he’s too intellectual to continue this journey for much longer without jumping ship.
This is pagan idealogy and has nothing to do with abrahamic religion. It is an ancient hebrew belief before moses, so not applicable to people of the book.
Dan, you make a lot of great points, but I still take issue with your epistemology that views consensus as evidence. Consensus is not evidence; it is important, but not evidence.
As much as I appreciate Dan's level-headed presentation and willingness to take on the more toxic aspects of modern christianity, I am starting the to worry, with the recent Asherah related content, that we may have all been trojan-horsed into getting a series of scholarly lectures on prime Mormon dogma (gods and their wives, as the prime example).
I can assure you this is the conversation that has been going on within the discipline for a while now, irrespective of the personal faith commitments of those scholars engaging in the debates.
I guarantee you that the minute Dan does that, this community will call him out on it. I doubt that it'll ever happen given Dan's repeated explanations about his intellectual separation between his personal religious beliefs and his critical scholarship. If you want "Trojan Horsed" dogma, subscribe to IP.
I responded to this on your last video, but I'll reiterate here: to move Micah and first Isaiah (Isaiah 17:8) to a post Deuteronomic period is question begging. Scholars who push this only do so to make it fit with that prior theory; there is no textual evidence for these verses being later additions. But secondly, I've met tons of OT scholars that disagree with your thesis. Now, granted, at SBL what you're saying here is the majority view; fair enough, and Christians disagree with it. But neither is the position we hold some fringe minority view. In any case, that second point is less important than the first. Scholars who push this start from the assumption that Israelite religion grew out of a Canaanite context and *then* go from there; if that's your starting point, then of course you're going to filter out any text inconvenient for the thesis as a "later editorial addition" even without any indication of later addition.
The term Elohim refers to the original Hebrew Gods before Yahweh, why is this so hard for people to accept? The old bearded grey haired man in the sky is not Yaweh. BTW, I am not atheist,
Dan wants you to believe he is the only honest Biblical scholar yet he is a non believer. Keeps promoting and defending minority Biblical theology yet he believes the Bible is fake... bahahaha...
@@mereditholeander3945 His entire channel is all about discrediting religion, so i don’t think he belongs to a particular religion. Even if he claims he is a christian or a Hindu, the kind of videos he makes make his beliefs clear.
Augustin Julius, apparently you don’t watch much of McClellan’s videos. He frequently cites other scholars and refers to consensus. That is the opposite of portraying himself as the only honest scholar
1. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Having a degree doesn't guarantee that one is exempt from error. 2. To which scholars are you referring? You keep making claims of "...the scholars..." yet don't mention them. 3. If Asherah was worshipped and had idols, it would stand to reason that said idols would have been part of the idol destruction. 4. "Disputed" also would contain those who disagree. Please stop misrepresenting scholarly standards for you own benefit.
@gekksvide0 what you said makes absolutely no sense. However, the speaker in the video does, in fact, commit the appeal to authority fallacy. When referencing the video he was supposedly refuting, he made the argument that the speaker in the other video was not a scholar, implying the scholars are always right and should be trusted. This is false. It does not follow that a scholar is always right. My original point still stands.
@gekksvide0 well, as I told you, he made the argument that scholars are necessarily correct without substantiating that they were, and, in fact, casted doubt that the other author was right. That is the appeal to authority fallacy because it does not follow that a scholar is correct. Let me dumb it down for you. Let's say you said what you said, and I reply saying you aren't a scholar so you can't know and must be wrong. Does that follow that you are wrong because you aren't a scholar? No. That is what he did. That is wrong and a logical fallacy.
@gekksvide0 I send you back that remark minus the Tracy. You obviously are still not getting what I'm saying. So, I'll leave it at appeal to authority without any evidence is a fallacy. It simply is. Otherwise you will have to conclude that the Nazi scientists and doctors were correct about POC and Jews. For the record, I don't think they were, but, based on your replies, you would be forced to agree by your own logic.
You didn't learn from the last video? I'll post it again. According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"* (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), which appears to be a later addition, Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
@@christsdisciple3105 Yahweh didn't start out as god of the universe. He became that over time. He was one of many patron deities before becoming "God of the universe" as monotheism evolved. That's why the god Chemosh was never under his authority. Judges 11:24 "Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the LORD our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess."
@@epicofatrahasis3775 That... isn't a strong case, either. It shows God as much stronger than Chemosh, as the verse before, Jephthah says those that worshipped Chemosh were pushed out of their lands by God. Meaning God was able to put Chemosh in his place and could only give them land to possess should YHWH choose to allow it.
If anyone still thinks that the "consensus" of "scholars" means fuck all at this point in our human narrative... they shouldn't be taken seriously. The idea that this debate is predicated on a video posted by a 20 something feminist... who just read a book on "God's Wife" last week... hysterically funny... lets talk about "manifestation" next
I think my problem with IP, as a whole, is the extent of his literalist confirmation bias. He will bend over backwards using whatever texts he can get to argue that the Bible, as it currently sits, is the oldest version thereof and then throws his sources around to make you sit down and shut up. He starts with his conclusion and works backwards, grabbing the closest thing to confirmation he can find and presenting it as concrete fact despite all arguments to the contrary.
When has IP claimed the Bible we have “is” the oldest? Also why do we assume editing as a bad thing….or think all conspiratorial as in it’s the elites vs the common people….
All books are edited…and editing doesn’t directly mean deception
IP is also a hypocrite and liar, as Dan points out, which is part and parcel for apologists.
Oh yes! Finally Michael Jones is picking on somebody his own size (metaphorically)!
I'd love to see a more in depth actual live debate between Michael Jones and Dan McClellan on this subject (dating and theology of the Deuteronomic history and Torah). That would be awesome.
With Mythvision as a moderator, this would be awesome!
@@J_Z913 Mythvision also seems to have good personal ties to both of these guys. He would indeed be a suitable mediator.
This guy IP/Mike is the same guy on another video having cognitive dissonance concerning resurrection discrepancies…
Anyone who makes a living on being an Bible apologist is someone I can’t take seriously/trust. Apologist be lying.
@@TrisjensChronicles1203 so no actual argument? What’s wrong with being an apologist? We’re doing apologetics everyone does apologetics, all apologetics is giving a defense to a particular position.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Biblical apologist’s lie and aren’t honest about what the text is saying, that’s what’s wrong. Not all, but a lot that I’ve seen in Christianity. Very similar to what this IP/Mike guy is doing here. If you don’t have all the information concerning a topic, don’t talk about it as to make it seem like you’re so so right because you’re proud and wanna prove a point, happens all the time. The our view is correct and yours is wrong, in Christian apologetics.
To me, an Christian apologist is someone who tries to keep a person from leaving the fold when serious questions arise of questioning their faith. But that’s just me.
I love these videos. IP/Mike is way out of his depth in this field, because he has a theological need for monotheism to be the prevailing practice and canon law, when historically that is demonstrably NOT the case. Thank you for sharing this information with us, Dr Dan!
Actually no. Mike is not a historian but he does rely on the scholars. He has no "need" for monotheism to be prevailing. Literally no one disputes that "some" Israelites were worshipping other gods. Heck even Abraham was a polytheist. The point IP is making is that they were condemned early on.
@gekksvide0 Mike is relying on MINORITY scholarly resources. Meaning that the majority of scholars who study these texts and the history do *not* find the arguments of Kitchen to be convincing or data-supported. If Kitchens had built a stronger argument, his point of view would be shared by the majority of scholars. To date, that's not the case. If someone wants to build on his work and provide stronger corroborating evidence, they can and should do so, utilizing peer-reviewed processes.
@@Tzimiskes3506 Mike relies on the scholars that agree with his theology, because he's assumed a conclusion before he starts. He *does* need the Hebrews to have a largely monotheist practice, and he *does* need the law(s) commanding monotheism to be the standard by which he can judge the Asherah worshippers as antinomian. If his default is monotheism, then of course he thinks Asherah worship is violating that. But historically, there's no strong case to be made that the Hebrews started as or even promoted monotheistic worship until much, much later. Mike is going to have problems with this because, as a Christian, he needs a theology that started out 'pure' but was corrupted or ignored by wayward Israelites. There ISN'T DATA TO SUPPORT THIS. The Hebrews emerged from Canaanite peoples, developed a separate identity over the centuries, and gradually purged polytheism and henotheism from their worship and texts. We have textual evidence of poly- and henotheistic practice in Israel that was intentionally redacted and changed to specifically promote monotheism. Dr. Kipp Davis has several videos on this very topic. I highly recommend them!
@gekksvide0 Probably youtube's commenting system got me messed up! I apologize for the confusion
The real question is what's the point of these videos. The demonstration of polytheism in the Hebrew Bible? What is Dan MacClellan trying to prove? Polytheism? Fine no problem. What's his personal religious views and if he has some specific Christian view of polytheism it would be really cool to put forward in a video. Is he a monotheist? Polytheist? Henotheist? Polytheist but with a monolatric tendency? I would really like to know. And don't come forth saying oh that's his personal beliefs there is no need to say to anyone. If he is putting on videos on such matters it's super honest i think to unveil his own positions to have a discussion.
Dan, you're absolutely correct about the texts not being widely known by the 'rank and file' early Israelite people until around the 2nd century BCE. Just because it was known to the priestly class, who could read and write, doesn't mean that information was disseminated to everyone, to the entire population who were more concerned with living their everyday lives and just getting by, than they were about the finer points of the law/Torah.
Even now, there is an huge disparity between the official doctrine of almost any religion and what its faithful think or believe - and how they behave.
@@ritawing1064 exactly.
Just to push back a little, these are collectivist societies, so unlike today, it would be strange to have everyone in a society have individual opinions on doctrine. You can see this with Catholics and orthodox Christians who give interpretations and theology that everyone is supposed to fall in line with, as opposed to Protestants and more western thinking societies who all believe they can hold individual opinions on doctrines….the comparison isn’t perfect but we just need to remember how different our modern society is than ancient societies
@@oscarmagana8322 But everyone doesn't, in fact, fall in line, and it is very doubtful that everyone has even heard all the rules. Even for those who have, German Catholics, for example, regularly make the news with attempts to reform Catholicism (with broad local support) that get rejected by the Vatican. Hell, they even had trouble accepting the resignation of a German Bishop for open-and-shut misappropriation of funds. And I've heard that US Catholics also have some non-Vatican ideas.
@@oscarmagana8322 Yes, and one of those differences is that now people have a standard text and almost all of them can read it. It may be that theology is much more standardized now, despite some value given to individualism now. Dispersed worship with only occasional contact with people outside your family or village would mean dispersed theology.
One reason McClellan’s statement (edit) @2:47 is so significant is that modern people tend to view the Torah like a modern national law, but most people in “Hebrew Bible times” could not read and did not have access to canon, if the idea of canon even existed before, say, 350 BCE.
I am a fan of IP and a Christian but I agree with pushing back a little on this issue. We should be clear on all data and what’s a majority or minority position and not be ashamed of it. Being majority or minority doesn’t make something true or false and trying to peer into history is an imperfect tool. without time travel the history we know is always 1 discovery away from being overturned, and some things are just lost forever and speculation will be all we will ever have
But the problem is Dan only mentions scholarly consensus when it's on his side. His talked about christology dozen time, but have u ever heard him mention any scholar consensus regarding early christology? No! Because it goes against what his trying to argue.
"have u ever heard him mention any scholar consensus regarding early christology?" yes, many times. If you want to make a point be specific.
I agree...
Not going to lie, most of this went right over my head, but I find it interesting, none the less...
tl;dr - InspiringPhilosophy picked (minority) scholars that agree with his theology, and Dan is showing why that's not only a minority view, but also ahistoric based on the data we have available.
@@Vishanti Yeah.. it's just I think DanDroidx and I have the same issue. We don't know the terms or any of the basics. So everything is very high level to us. I mean, pre-deuteronistic (I'm misspelling it) .. I know the book of Deuteronomy. I'm sure I've read it though I can't really remember the details.
This basic academic knowledge that is a given or understood.. I don't understand it. You must have some specialized knowledge. Think of how it sounds when people interact with you and it's very obvious that they don't even understand basic given concepts. That's where I am and where I suspect DanDroidX is.
I would kill for a "Dummies" book that slowly explained from the beginning. I mean, I don't even know what P source is or not p or D or any of that stuff. What is "masoretic text"? People who have studied will know these things and well, people such as myself.. we don't know.
@@Vishanti 👏
@@jenniferhunter4074 I was about to agree that a lot went over my head when your post made me realize that at least I have a tolerably good knowledge of the basics (which I have accumulated by watching tons of scholarly videos on the Bible).
J, E, P, D sources refer to the “documentary hypothesis”. In the 1800s German scholars realized that the Hebrew Bible looks like it has been compiled by merging together different sources. For instance there’s two creation accounts in genesis, one where god creates man and woman simultaneously, and the other where eve is created from Adam’s rib. There’s dozens of similar duplets (sometimes triplets) in the text, as if the scribes had different versions of the same story and stitched them together trying to preserve both. Scholars have tried to disentangle and reconstruct the original sources and use letters to label them.
The masoretic text is an important old manuscript of the Hebrew Bible written in Hebrew. You’d say “duh!” but we don’t have the original text of the Bible. Consider that even in Jesus time most Jews spoke Greek and the most popular Bible was a Greek version known as the septuagin. Christians used latin Bibles, which were translation from Greek. With the reformation and the translation of the first Bibles in English and other modern languages scholars snd theologians realized the importance of having manuscripts as old and as close to the original as possible.
Yeah, the field is huge once one starts looking into it. I don’t know of any book for dummy but you can try Wikipedia. The articles there are a good summary of a topic. I find it very useful for getting and idea of things I know little or nothing about.
@@jenniferhunter4074 the Masoretic Text is the manuscript(s) of the Hebrew Bible that include vowel markings indicating how words should be pronounced. Hebrew does not have separate vowel letters, so one must either be familiar with the language or have some help to know pronunciation. It's not the *earliest* version of the Hebrew scriptures, but it is very important, because it shows how some of the text variations were standardized from earlier manuscripts in order to streamline a more monotheistic practice (see Dr. Kipp Davis' channel for more!). The MT is what the overwhelming majority of Hebrew Bible translations are based on, because it became the "standard" Hebrew manuscript. It's named 'Masoretic' because the group of scribes that wrote it were Masoretes.
You don't necessarily need to know all the details of the Documentary Hypothesis (where the terms P-source, Yahwist, etc. come from) to get through most of these kinds of videos. But! If you'd like to know more, check out "Did Moses Write the Torah? Interview with Dr. Joel Baden" on the channel @DigitalHammurabi. it will give you a good starting point from 2 scholars well-versed in the area.
Thank you for not only responding to misinformation, but also to bad rhetoric. I think it's useful to educate people not only on what data is available, but also on data literacy and good how to appropriately argue based on data.
I always learn something useful from your videos.
I hate to say it but i kinda love this back and forth.
Does Dan believe in God ???and where do the words of the Bible come from
@@Sportliveonline he is a Latter Day Saint and has no intention of discussing his faith, just the scholarship. Do you mean other than written by men?
Where does the bibliolatry of various different Bible canons come from? That is a good question. And how and why were the various different Bible canons chosen? Do you trust wife-muderous King James of England? Or the newly reinterpreted KJVs? No bibliolatry is good bibliolatry, even “interpretationalism” forms of non-literal bibliolatry.
Keep up the good work my friend. Love the post. Very informative,
How is this informative? InspiringPhilosophy's short/tiktok length content already scrapes the bottom of the barrel of citations and facts he can manage to fit in, and this video is literally just this scholar saying about 20 times that IPs views are a minority among scholars. That's it. For an almost 8 minute video response on a video that was originally like 1-2 min long, there's almost no elucidation about what this said scholarly consensus is. Pretty much the only info I could gleam from this was that parts of Exodus were written at different times from different sources.
I don't want to dunk on Dan, I've just found his videos and don't know him, but all the comments here are doing the rounds, saying he's so knowledgeable and providing all this information I really did not find in this video. All he does is speak a truth (IP's opinions are a minority view in the broader scholarly consensus on the topic(s)), but then provide absolutely zero information about it. What's the point of the video? At least I can haphazardly attempt to verify IPs views as a layman, what am I supposed to do with this? Just take Dan's opinion that other people's opinions who I have zero reference to are true or worth listening to? Are you serious? Is there something I'm missing?
It’s very disingenuous when he brings up biblical theology when it wasn’t even created yet. It’s a slick talking point that works for those who don’t know that Asherah and Yahweh predate the biblical narrative
Yes they do predate Judaism and Christianity, that is the whole point….they decided El’s son Yaweh was THEIR God.
Good point. Biblical Theology didn’t even get demarcated as a theological discipline until Gabler did in the late 1700s. Biblical Theology is great, I live reading Eichrodt, Von Rad, Barr, and Childs et. al. But, saying that there was a “biblical theology” present at the time these texts were composed is wildly anachronistic (by well over 2000 years). It would be about as sensible as making a contextually driven argument for biblical rocket science. All biblical theology today are based on ex post facto assumptions such as canon and modern theological categories
First of all your reasoning is completely circular you’re assuming that your position is correct and then accusing him of being disingenuous because he disagrees with your conclusion which you have merely assumed it’s the case. and that is only one hypothesis there’s many others.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 it’s rather simple. Biblical Theology as a category doesn’t arise until the late 18th Century when German biblical scholars were seeking to gain a sense of the key theological themes in the Old Testament. A decent history of the discipline (Barr and Hasel for example) make this pretty clear. The authors/editors/redactors of the Hebrew Bible simply weren’t operating from a biblical theology, that’s an anachronism.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 the historical evidence of them existing before a bible theology stands as proof along. There is no assuming here
awesome just absolutely awesome!!!
From the Nag Hammadi library, teachings of Sylvanus, later quoted by no less than St. Anthony who lived until the mid 4th century CE, so it was at least moderately orthodox until then.
"Return, my son to your first Father, God, and to Wisdom, your Mother. Wisdom summons you in Her goodness saying, 'Come to me all of you, oh foolish ones, that you may receive a gift, the understanding which is good and excellent. I am giving you a high priestly garment which is woven from every wisdom. Clothe yourself with wisdom like a robe. Put knowledge upon you like a crown. Be seated upon a throne of perception. From now on, my son, return to your devine nature.' "
Even Josiah and the priests couldn't kill her off. 😊
It has always been a big mix of ideas, beliefs, and cultures.
Phoenicia (the Greek name for that area and where princess Europa comes from) was and maybe still is a very strategic land are situated in the land bridge between three very fertile continents. It’s been conquered and reconsidered by various big empires wishing to become even larger. It would be important to come up with a religion to say “this land is my children’s forever even if we don’t own it at some point.”
I appreciate taking on IP. Somehow he has a huge hold on evangelical audiences, and their TH-cam comments are always gushing praise. It's concerning.
Good job, Sir. Wish more Christians were like you. Data over dogma. Good science (and philosophy and theology) over sloppy philosophy and theology (and science). Sadly, IP has been doing too much of the latter.
No doubt the comments section will be filled with whiny Christians! 😐😑
Also, First 🙋🏻♂️
@@johnburn8031 sorry, not first. You beat you too it 😉
This all or nothing approach to fact finding often fails. Without solid data to the contrary there is an excellent possibility that some factions worshipped ashera and others did not, and both to a varying degree. Even today, with a well developed canon and Christology, there is a huge number of denominations which do not agree with each other on the most basic of facts. Until we have solid evidence to the contrary, this possibility must be introduced to the conversation
There are also various different canons, like the Catholic canon, Eastern Orthodix canon, Ethiopian canon, King James of England (KJV) canon, etc.
Absolutely, but I think Dan's point is that there is no evidence of any widespread or even noticeable opposition to worship of asherah. There could of course have been those that did oppose it, but the evidence (imperfect as it is) leans toward any such factions being relatively inconsequential
It is never a good look when you need the new information coming in to agree with your POV. It is, in fact, a garbage method of epistemology. One side here can admit they were wrong, or even just make small adjustments in the face of new information. The other side has to make any new information fit their existing model no matter what.
Data>Dogma, right? 😂
I'm honestly astounded at how completely you can explore arguments and critical, theoretical frameworks in such a short, concise manner. As an aspiring professor (someday, hopefully) I am greatly inspired by your ability to educate :D
Educated FOOLS
Dan couldnt find his way out of a wet paper bag.
Nothing but scholarly bs flows out his mouth.
He's a stooge. I haven't seen him explain anything worth knowing and he will paye dearly for it 😮
Dan, could you go into more detail on why Timothy 1&2 are not likely to have been written by Paul?
In my view, i find it funny that people who argue for strict monotheism seem to have no problem with expressions or labels attached to God like "most high God" or "God of Gods" which explicitly implies the existence of other Gods. Mount Everest is the most high mountain on earth but that does not mean other mountains including K2 does not exist on earth. God is a God of many Gods that actually exist. Calling God a God of false gods is rather insulting to God. Anything that exists is greater than something that does not exist. My dog exists so he is greater than any false god. A God that presides over the other Gods holds the honorary and noble title of "God of Gods". When one calls Jesus to be King of kings, Lord of lords, he is King and Lord over other Kings and Lords in heaven. These are not earthy kings and lords as Jesus retains that title even after the world has ended.
The conclusion he seems to be trying to get to here is a strange one: not that there was no belief in Asherah or the belief that she was the wife of what we now call "God", but that that belief, though it existed, was non-Biblical. People who talk about Ashera (and Baal and the distinction between YHWH and El(ohim) and others) already know that things the Bible either doesn't include or is explicitly against aren't "Biblical". The point is that these ideas existed and were believed in. He seems to want to counter that but is half-admitting and sidestepping it instead.
I think the only thing missing from this response is how it can be shown what's the consensus on that issue.
That other guy has shown in other videos (such as on the authenticity of some books alleged to have been written by Paul) that he is willing to say that the consensus is against him but the consensus is wrong and consensus-ism isn't a valid way to analyze history.
I will always prefer Asherah over IP.
Experts vs Hacks
I rather have the expert tell me the Data not the Dogma
dude got smoked twice. ouch.
On the whole I do agree with Dan. But FWIW, I do lean toward Friedman’s source criticism as being the best reading of the data, and this seems to be corroborated with some of the archaeological work of Dever.
The only pushback I can offer as a layperson who loves the history of the ANE and especially the biblical texts is placing too much emphasis on scholarly consensus. Critical scholars like Friedman et. al. have marshaled some eminently reasonable arguments for early dating of J and E sources, and equally reputable scholars are more prone to push some of the source material in the Hebrew Bible out to later and sometimes even post exilic dates. Obviously I lean in one direction on this with the heavy qualifier that a) I am not a scholar and b) it’s hard to draw firm conclusions on the dating of textual data beyond the consensus that the text is composite and did develop over time.
It’s probably a tough issue to overcome in this format where it’s hard to be nuanced in such a compressed medium. But, my only criticism here is that “scholarly consensus” may be less than helpful in sussing out some of the more elusive aspects of textual studies. There seems to me to be more or less a few dominant critical schools of thought, and this means an appeal to consensus is hard to defend practically.
Again, I do agree broadly with the question of Asherah that Dan’s making. To me it seems to be rather obvious when the data both material and textual are accounted for
Class is in session with Professor Dan!
I was wondering when this was going to happen
If we didn't have someone like Dan helping us through these issues, I will say that Inspiring Philosophy guy is pretty convincing. Certainly several levels above the other whackos in the apologetic world, who are IMO pretty easy to dismiss.
old 'double standard' Jones at it again...
Sometime you should do a video on the popular appropriation of conservative scholarship. When watching the video, I was struck by how apologists love using the same half dozen conservative scholars I was relying on over a decade ago when I was trying to dispel my doubts about the Hebrew Bible. It strikes me now as a totally irresponsible way for laypeople to engage with this material, but the scholars in question seem more than content to have their writings wielded for such apologetic ends
Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I think those scholars in question do their work as an apologetic.
@@wilkimist I suspect you’re right. But in my experience people react very strongly to any suggestion that their academic heroes are arguing in less than good faith. I think it’s worth pointing out that even if we assume that conservative scholars are writing in good faith, the way their work is appropriated is still objectionable.
What's irresponsible about it? IP read the scholarship and he agreed with the conservative scholars and the case they presented. Dan is representing a particular viewpoint and so are Kitchens and Hess. Sure it's a minority viewpoint, but that doesn't make it less legitimate.
@@mf_hume I agree, and don't really think those scholars are arguing in bad faith, it's just extremely hard to look at text from the outside of their paradigm. It was hard for me.
@@dftknight to me the irresponsibility is in how IP can present those scholars. As Dan was addressing, "this is what actually happened" when it's just the minority opinion of scholars.
The Elephantine Colony letters show that the Torah could not have been general law before the 4th C BCE.
Touché. Expect a rebuttal video where butt and hurt feature very strongly
Theres been theology since the 5 books of Moses.. the old testament.
Issac was born a feminine soul until Rebecca. His feminine soul became Rebecca.
The woman being created from man and the laughter.
Nice try, but…
Asherah, along with Astarte and Anath, was one of the three great goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon. In Canaanite religion her primary role was that of mother goddess. Canaanites associated Asherah with sacred trees, an association also found in the Israelite tradition. Israel’s association of Asherah with sacred trees is repeated over thirty times in the Bible; many of these citations are stereotypically used by the biblical writers to describe sites of idolatrous worship, implying that the worship of Asherah was an apostate behavior in Israel and improper for followers of YHWH. Despite these and other references associating Asherah with apostasy, contemporary discoveries have further indicated that, at least in the opinion of some ancient Israelites, YHWH and Asherah were appropriately worshipped as a pair.
The Canaanite association of Asherah with sacred trees is also found in Israelite tradition. For example, one of the Canaanite epithets of Asherah, elat, “goddess,” is etymologically identical to the Hebrew word for the terebinth tree (ela). Another word for “terebinth” (alla) and two words for “oak” (elon and allon) are also closely related. Gen 2:4b-3:24 may further suggest the association of Asherah with sacred trees, since the way that Eve, “the mother of all living” (3:20), is described in the Eden story mimics in certain respects the role of the Canaanite mother goddess Asherah. If a correspondence holds, then the trees of life and of knowledge in the Eden narrative may also reflect Asherah imagery.
Most significant, though, in demonstrating Israel’s association of Asherah with sacred trees are biblical materials that describe the asherah (singular) or asherim (plural), the cult object(s) that are associated with the goddess Asherah more than thirty times in the Hebrew Bible. These cult objects are generally described as being in the shape of a pole or stylized tree. Like a pole or tree, they can be said to be planted, stood up, or erected. Conversely, when destroyed, these cult symbols can be described as being cut down, hewn down, or uprooted; they can also be said to be burned, overturned, or broken. Both the Greek and Latin translations of the Bible, moreover, render the words asherah and asherim as “grove” or “wood.”
According to the biblical record, these sacred poles or stylized trees associated with Asherah were erected by the Israelites throughout most of their history, especially during the premonarchic (tribal) period (Judg 6:25-26, 28, 30)) and during the period of the divided monarchy, both in the northern kingdom of Israel (1Kgs 14:15; 16:33; 2 Kgs 13:6; 17:10, 16; 23:15; and parallel references in 2 Chronicles) and in Judah, in the south (1 Kgs 14:23, 15:13; 2 Kgs 18:4; 21:3, 7; 23:6, 14; and parallel references in 2 Chronicles). These sacred poles were situated in various locations. In Judges 6, a sacred pole of Asherah is said to have stood beside the altar of the Canaanite storm god, Baal. The Bible also connects sacred poles with the “high places” (open-air cult sites?) and frequently mentions that they stood “on every high hill and under every green tree” (1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 17:10; 18:4; 21:3; 23:13-14; 2 Chr 14:3; 17:6; 31:1; 33:3, 19; 34:3; Jer 17:2). Both of these phrases are stereotypically used by the biblical writers to describe sites of idolatrous worship, implying, as does Judges 6, that the worship of Asherah was an apostate behavior in Israel and improper for followers of YHWH.
The truth is lot of vested human interest, in religion or understanding of ,
It will never cease to amaze me how threatened people will feel by the suggestion thay something may have happened in the past that doesn't align with what is considered acceptable today.
Some YHWH believers, thousands of years ago, may have also worshipped a female goddess Ashera. This goddess may have been represented by idols. This practice was later condemned and eliminated from most Judeo-Christian traditions. That does absolutely nothing to invalidate or threaten your own Christian faith in 2023, unless your faith is based on the wrong things.
IP agrees with all that though. The point he was disputing was the dating of particular texts that condemned Asherah worship. IP thinks they were earlier and Dan thinks they were post-exilic.
@@dftknight yes, but the reason why he makes the argument that it was condemned earlier is because it threatens his theology if it was later.
His argument was defensive and apologetic because his understanding of who God is and what the Bible is would be threatened if polytheism and idol worship were allowed and accepted for that long. God has to be an enforcer of a one and only acceptable way to worship, and the Bible has to be authoritative and consistent in it's condemnation of any other practice.
His point wasn't "I think an earlier date is more likely because of this evidence" but rather a defense of his foundational belief that the Bible is and has been a consistent authority throughout Judeo-Christian history. If these passages were later or not widespread until later, the entire structure of his faith is threatened.
@@MsFitz134 But he did cite evidence in support of his view. Michael Heiser pointed out many scholars have the presupposition that Israelite views on monotheism and Asherah evolved and reconstruct the chronology and date the texts that way. Its not clear why these assumptions are preferable to the other viewpoint IP brought up. Its about presuppositions to some extent.
@@dftknight Thom Stark and others have rebuttals to Heiser as well as per the below articles which explain the consensus and some of Heiser's fallacious reasoning.
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
@@epicofatrahasis3775 Heiser has replied to Stark too and he pointed out Stark makes the same flawed assumptions of the evolutionary view of religion other scholars do.
In the sixties it was explained 😢the boy standing lose to jesus wS, perer the lesser
I dig the.multuple wi es rho
He is one of the most arrogant, bitter, insufferable, and disingenuous apologists on the internet.
Because it was known to the priestly class, who could read and write, doesn't mean that information was disseminated to everyone and that is important because their knowledge falls under the term “biblical theology”. The majority of the population that was part of acculturation through time lost the sense of monotheism. Look at the story of Jacobs wife stealing her father’s idols. I don’t get the argument
I'm on your side here, but when you consistently say, "majority view" or "academic consensus", how do you measure that? Do you mean the consensus of the scholars you've read? Are there polls regularly taken among scholars?
Dan just had a video on this. It's fairly difficult to measure this, but given Dan's familiarity with the field, I think it's safe to say that he knows what he's talking about. That being said, I'd love a statistical analysis on this topic. Maybe some PhD student is working on this now!
Your knowledge of the old testament blows my mind. What's in your brain? How can you keep all these info in there? I don't think you are human Dani-el
Wow, I love to see this. It amazes me to see these apologists act this way, why do they feel the need to be so so right even by doing these type of minority view text gymnastics? I can’t stand it.
Thanks Dr. Dan for keeping them honest.
What a refreshing video! When Asherah was taken out, so was the Heart of the True Father. Violence and bloodshed gave the Israelites "victory" over their "enemies" (ie those who inhabited fruitful lands that they wanted). With every good gift from God comes choice- to accept the gift with humility and Love, or take it by force. They, and America, took their lands by force because they followed the God of this world- the God of Death, blood sacrifice, judgement, condemnation, and violence, instead of the True Creator of Life, Love, Mercy, Grace, and Forgiveness. I dread for the Israelites, and those who support them, when they start doing the blood sacrifices again. 😢
Dan, I respect your opinion on this video dude man you do tons of great work but Mike was just off-the-wall because he defends apologetic so well but there’s a lot of stuff he does get wrong but this is just great work
Inspiringphilosophy about to LEVEL UP
Hopefully they WILL chose to step up. Bibliolatry is ugly as hell, even if it’s “interpretationalism-only anti-literalism” forms of bibliolatry ignorant or uncaring about how the idol canons were chosen by wealthy-kept religious-institutioned men.
YHWH is being confused with his father, El.
Ashera was the consort of El, not YHWH.
Ashera was the consort of El. Then she became the consort of YHWH.
Depending on who you ask and the time period, YHWH defeated El an/or became synonymous with El to become the most high god.
Thats why, in the Bible, YHWH says to the Israelites, "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew me as El Shaddai (God Almighty), but my name, YHWH, was not known to them".
That verse in Exodus has YHWH trying to make it seem like he was always the most high god.
His statement is factually wrong there though since Abraham absolutely knew the name of YHWH.
What, if anything, is known of Asherah?
You're good at your job
Dan you are killing it. By “it” I mean the fake foundation my special ✝️ hero built his church on
Well he’s still a Mormon (likely an “interpret with the heart” LDS) so I’m not sure why he keeps pushing the scholarly consensus if he has his own ideas. Although, I guess as a Mormon himself, he thinks the scholarly consensus of Christianity before Joseph Smith aligns with some/most of Mormon dictrine if not the literal letter of Mormon stories/bibliolatry.
@@letsomethingshinehe pushes the scholarly consensus first because that is his career
Awesome video!! If i can ask, are you really a believer??😅
So this video is a response to a response to a response of a response to a video about Asherah...
Ok joesephsmith ab read aninvosible taet
Why are you moving goalposts? You presented all of your arguments the same way IP did yet that didn’t become an issue until IP argued the way you did. I’m not saying either side is right or wrong, only that you and he both are making the same assumptions on different viewpoints and pressing them as fact. To try to discredit his argument on that basis is a fallacy.
This person must be sick & tired of taking so many L’s from Dan.
As an aside, I follow two different youtubers named Mike Jones and I think they'd get along splendidly despite the vast differences in their content.
FOLLOW Christ. Are you born again?
Study the bible on your own
I often wonder when Jones’ cognitive dissonance will catch up with him. I think (hope) he’s too intellectual to continue this journey for much longer without jumping ship.
im astounded why this is showing up on my feed
EPIC RAP BATTLES OF HISTORY. DAN VERSUS IP.
WHO WON?!
WHO'S NEXT?
YOU DECIDE!
🤘
DP an non P?
Does Dan believe in God and what is God ?
✌️
It's almost amusing that (well read) amateurs are willing to take you on. Are they not aware of your extensive scholarship?
Their income derives from making people feel better about their theism - people who are not likely going to want to see this video.
There's no need to be afraid or intimidated by this guy.
This is pagan idealogy and has nothing to do with abrahamic religion. It is an ancient hebrew belief before moses, so not applicable to people of the book.
Who came first? Abraham or Moses?
HOW THE Hell would anyone believe GOD HAS A WIFE?????
Dan, you make a lot of great points, but I still take issue with your epistemology that views consensus as evidence. Consensus is not evidence; it is important, but not evidence.
what do you think scholarly consensus is based on if not evidence?
He was pointing out IP's hypocrisy, not claiming that consensus is evidence.
Once again, you're punching down Dan. It's like watching someone pistol whipping a blind kid. Savage.
You two should have a debate.
As much as I appreciate Dan's level-headed presentation and willingness to take on the more toxic aspects of modern christianity, I am starting the to worry, with the recent Asherah related content, that we may have all been trojan-horsed into getting a series of scholarly lectures on prime Mormon dogma (gods and their wives, as the prime example).
I can assure you this is the conversation that has been going on within the discipline for a while now, irrespective of the personal faith commitments of those scholars engaging in the debates.
I guarantee you that the minute Dan does that, this community will call him out on it. I doubt that it'll ever happen given Dan's repeated explanations about his intellectual separation between his personal religious beliefs and his critical scholarship. If you want "Trojan Horsed" dogma, subscribe to IP.
@@alexbreiding cool, good context to have.
I mean by that logic any Muslim scholar who agrees with scholarly consensus that Jesus existed but was not a god is Trojan horsing Islamic theology
I responded to this on your last video, but I'll reiterate here: to move Micah and first Isaiah (Isaiah 17:8) to a post Deuteronomic period is question begging. Scholars who push this only do so to make it fit with that prior theory; there is no textual evidence for these verses being later additions. But secondly, I've met tons of OT scholars that disagree with your thesis. Now, granted, at SBL what you're saying here is the majority view; fair enough, and Christians disagree with it. But neither is the position we hold some fringe minority view.
In any case, that second point is less important than the first. Scholars who push this start from the assumption that Israelite religion grew out of a Canaanite context and *then* go from there; if that's your starting point, then of course you're going to filter out any text inconvenient for the thesis as a "later editorial addition" even without any indication of later addition.
The term Elohim refers to the original Hebrew Gods before Yahweh, why is this so hard for people to accept?
The old bearded grey haired man in the sky is not Yaweh.
BTW, I am not atheist,
Dan wants you to believe he is the only honest Biblical scholar yet he is a non believer. Keeps promoting and defending minority Biblical theology yet he believes the Bible is fake... bahahaha...
@@mereditholeander3945 His entire channel is all about discrediting religion, so i don’t think he belongs to a particular religion. Even if he claims he is a christian or a Hindu, the kind of videos he makes make his beliefs clear.
Augustin Julius, apparently you don’t watch much of McClellan’s videos. He frequently cites other scholars and refers to consensus. That is the opposite of portraying himself as the only honest scholar
@@scienceexplains302 He only cites those that agree with him. Do you think christian scholars agree with his assumptions? Or they’re just nonexistent.
@@augustinjulius2978 No, he mentions those who don’t agree. Confirmation that you’re not watching
@@augustinjulius2978Do you believe those biblical scholars that are believers could be a bit bias with their assumptions ?
1. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Having a degree doesn't guarantee that one is exempt from error.
2. To which scholars are you referring? You keep making claims of "...the scholars..." yet don't mention them.
3. If Asherah was worshipped and had idols, it would stand to reason that said idols would have been part of the idol destruction.
4. "Disputed" also would contain those who disagree. Please stop misrepresenting scholarly standards for you own benefit.
@gekksvide0 what you said makes absolutely no sense. However, the speaker in the video does, in fact, commit the appeal to authority fallacy. When referencing the video he was supposedly refuting, he made the argument that the speaker in the other video was not a scholar, implying the scholars are always right and should be trusted. This is false. It does not follow that a scholar is always right. My original point still stands.
@gekksvide0 well, as I told you, he made the argument that scholars are necessarily correct without substantiating that they were, and, in fact, casted doubt that the other author was right. That is the appeal to authority fallacy because it does not follow that a scholar is correct. Let me dumb it down for you. Let's say you said what you said, and I reply saying you aren't a scholar so you can't know and must be wrong. Does that follow that you are wrong because you aren't a scholar? No. That is what he did. That is wrong and a logical fallacy.
@gekksvide0 I send you back that remark minus the Tracy.
You obviously are still not getting what I'm saying. So, I'll leave it at appeal to authority without any evidence is a fallacy. It simply is. Otherwise you will have to conclude that the Nazi scientists and doctors were correct about POC and Jews. For the record, I don't think they were, but, based on your replies, you would be forced to agree by your own logic.
He wasn't appealing to authority. He was pointing out that the guy was holding the amateur to a higher standard than himself
Deceiver.
You didn't learn from the last video? I'll post it again.
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts.
"When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"."
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"*
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), which appears to be a later addition, Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
@@epicofatrahasis3775 Replied to comment in last video. Should read it to see why what you say isn't convincing. But, seems Dan is in good company.
@@christsdisciple3105 Yahweh didn't start out as god of the universe. He became that over time. He was one of many patron deities before becoming "God of the universe" as monotheism evolved. That's why the god Chemosh was never under his authority.
Judges 11:24
"Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the LORD our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess."
@@epicofatrahasis3775 That... isn't a strong case, either. It shows God as much stronger than Chemosh, as the verse before, Jephthah says those that worshipped Chemosh were pushed out of their lands by God. Meaning God was able to put Chemosh in his place and could only give them land to possess should YHWH choose to allow it.
@@christsdisciple3105 I think you may have just agreed with Epic in a round about way by acknowledging the existence of the Moabite God Chemosh?
Mic drop
If anyone still thinks that the "consensus" of "scholars" means fuck all at this point in our human narrative... they shouldn't be taken seriously.
The idea that this debate is predicated on a video posted by a 20 something feminist... who just read a book on "God's Wife" last week... hysterically funny... lets talk about "manifestation" next
As opposed to the thoughts of an old woman in a TH-cam comment?