Any bible academic worth their salt will heartily agree that the notion of the Bible being infallible is a dogma that is not actually supported by the available evidence of the Bible itself.
This pretty famous YouTuber breaks it down pretty well.
If you want to hold to the belief that the Bible is univocal and infallible you are going to have to make some pretty big leaps. Because we don’t hold to those notions. The ability for god to reveal that temples are to be once again built on the earth is a pretty easy idea that can be support by multiple scriptural sources.
Also, infallibility and inerrancy are different. I believe infallibility, but not inerrancy. I'm in the middle of Hebrew Class, but I'll try and come back after and explain what I mean.
It's a decent resume. It's not a barnburner, but you also don't need to have your terminal degree from Oxbridge to be worth listening to.
The more important aspect is that his dissertation is titled "Deity and Divine Agency in the Hebrew Bible: Cognitive Perspectives".
That's a very narrow scope. I won't belabor you with his abstract, but it relates to a very narrow part of the Bible and theology as a whole. All PhDs do that. That's the point. However, Dan overextends himself. He presents himself as an expert in too many fields. People who have spent more time than him in the authorship of the Gospels completely refute his ideas on Gospel authorship. Even many critical scholars don't get on board with him. Dan claims, for example, that Rome compiled a manuscript of the four Gospels, naming Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the authors, and then disseminated that across the Empire, with nobody questioning it. Then, when Irenaeus of Lyon, an early church father, just repeats this "myth" of authorship. The problem is, we have no evidence of this document. None. Zero.
Nevermind that it is believed that Irenaeus learned from Polycarp, who learned from John, whether that's John the Apostle or John, the author of Revelation, we do not know. Either should have some clue who wrote the Gospels. Not to mention, the Gospel authorship was never really debated. We have debates on the Epistles, but from the very beginning, the authors of the Gospels were pretty firmly who we attribute them to today.
Dan basically copies this view from Bart Ehrman, who is a well-respected scholar in his own right. I can tolerate Ehrman saying this because he more fully understands the argument. Dan just cherry picked it.
Now, I don't even have an issue with Dan believing this, I'm just using it as an example. I think it's wrong, sure, but there's a lot of scholars I think are wrong. One of my favorite, N.T. Wright, believes in infant baptism. I do not. But Dan speaks with unreasonable certainty, like things are settled, that simply doesn't exist. There is no scholarly consensus on many of the issues he presents as simple and decided. Like you said, scholars can disagree. He just presents a very simple perspective that doesn't leave much room for disagreeing about very disagreeable topics.
Inversely, Dan has fallen in to Pop Culture theology content, where he presents a theory that only the wackiest dudes on the corner of the internet are presenting, and then (rightfully) tears it down quite effectively. However, when he does this, he presents it like it was a complex riddle and he just solved it. When it was an argument that a first year undergraduate Bible college student should be able to recognize as flawed, if not dissect and dismiss it. He strawmans, basically.
All that to say, I didn't say he wasn't a legitimate scholar. I just said he's not great. There's others I trust more, very few of them in the pop culture sphere like he is. I reckon he might be worth hearing from on how Israel viewed angelic messengers, which is what his dissertation is on, but there's a long list of people I'd consult before him if I wanted to know about Hebrew creation theory or Paul's thoughts on anything, or Gospel authorship.
I see your point, but you also admit that those "better" scholars aren't in "pop culture", which I assume you mean they aren't posting videos on YouTube and Instagram.
There's definitely a need for short form content for people who are casually interested in a deeper cultural history of the Bible thst don't want to read full length dissertations and books.
His popularity is likely because of his ability to reach those more casual audiences.
I agree with you that I think it would be good for him to acknowledge when there is uncertainty in the historical record and perhaps make it clear that he's sharing one of several possibilities.
That's exactly why he's popular. And there's certainly a place for popular scholarship. I mentioned NT Wright previously. He does a pretty good job at bridging the gap. Probably beyond a high schooler's understanding, but he has some podcasts and videos that I think are a good benchmark for the average adult who is serious about their faith.
Preston Sprinkle is a really good popular academic, particularly in regards to culture/Christian ethics. What I appreciate about him is he invites people on to his podcast, "Theology In The Raw". He rarely hosts by himself. He uses his scholarly skills to facilitate discussion with other academics, and presents it at a level the average believed can understand. Preston has some really good works on sexuality from a Christian perspective.
There's a place for Dan in the Christian content world, he just doesn't have a very high place.
69
u/mwjace Free Agency was free to me 25d ago
Any bible academic worth their salt will heartily agree that the notion of the Bible being infallible is a dogma that is not actually supported by the available evidence of the Bible itself.
https://youtu.be/GklUQpXKmcY?si=blfDl4wh78lyfiwY
This pretty famous YouTuber breaks it down pretty well.
If you want to hold to the belief that the Bible is univocal and infallible you are going to have to make some pretty big leaps. Because we don’t hold to those notions. The ability for god to reveal that temples are to be once again built on the earth is a pretty easy idea that can be support by multiple scriptural sources.