This study is my fourth contribution/reply to Dan McClennan’s[1] YouTube video, The Bible’s First Contradiction.[2] What prompts my desire to add a another response to Dan’s video has to do with how he ended his dissertation:
“If you want to take the text seriously, if you’re concerned for the most likely reading, if you’re concerned with what we can be sure of in relation to the origins of these two different texts, they contradict each other, because they come from two different times and places and two different groups of authors. And one is intended precisely to improve upon, replace, and supersede the other. And that’s the first contradiction in the Bible.”[3]
How do we know that this is true? There certainly isn’t any objective evidence that shows Dan is correct. Yet, I can’t help but see his slight pressure to agree: “If you really want to take the text seriously…” In other words, if one really cares about what is true, one must agree with Dan’s analysis of the text.
Earlier in his dissertation, Dan concludes that the two creation accounts of Genesis, chapters one and two, are very different, composed in different time periods by different groups of authors, and he says:
“So, they’re just not reconcilable, if you’re actually taking the text seriously. Now, are the texts going to reach out and stop you, if you try to reinterpret them in a way that harmonizes the two different accounts? Of course not. They’re texts. They have no inherent meaning. They can neither clarify nor expound nor correct. So, the texts are not going to stop you from imposing your will upon them, and altering what they are saying, so that they fit your dogma. If you want to force them into harmony with each other, the texts are not going to stop you.”[4]
I believe Dan is being a bit disingenuous at this point, not purposefully, because I believe he is simply offering his personal worldview. However, I need to ask: what’s the difference, if I try to harmonize the texts (deceitful according to Dan’s worldview), or if Dan imposes the Documentary Hypothesis upon the text? If one nuance, which is read into the text, is wrong, wouldn’t the other also be wrong, according to Dan’s own logic: “If you want to take the text seriously…?” Now, I understand that a critical scholar sees the text very differently than an orthodox scholar does, but is one inherently better than the other? If so, where’s the objective proof, because all I see is subjective opinion coming from Dan? If not, then why the, “If you want to take the text seriously…”? I know one can certainly believe his own worldview is better than the other guy’s worldview, but “must” that be actually so? Is critical scholarship the only legitimate way to read the text? In another, similar, video[5] Dan calls harmonizing the text utter nonsense.
Personally, I see value in both scholarships. I prefer one over the other, but I believe both worldviews have legitimate value, in that the one keeps the other from going too far. And, personally, I believe Dan does go too far, when he claims harmonizing the texts, when that can be reasonably done, is utter nonsense. I believe both worldviews are necessary, and neither one is able to legitimately dismiss the other, without logical proof that one’s opposing worldview could not honestly be recognized as reasonable, if not acceptable.
__________________________________________________
[1] Ordinarily, I like and agree with Dan McClellan’s scholarship, but here I do not, and this study/reply should show where we will usually disagree.
[2] I thought I could do this in two studies/replies, but needed a third (the chart) and fourth, and that’s okay with me. I just wish to be clear about my purpose. I don’t like any of my studies to exceed 1000 words, some do, but by and large about 99% are less than 1000 words. I like to keep them between 650 and 800 words, which shouldn’t take more than 5 minutes to read.
[3] See marker 8:25 in the YouTube video transcript.
[4] See marker 7:31 in the YouTube video transcript.
[5] See Dan’s YouTube video: Why Does Genesis Have 2 Different Creation Accounts?
Smoodock's Blog 