Even granting that, Dan’s view amounts to saying that Jesus showed up, referenced documents he knew his audience didn’t have access to, didn’t explain this to them even when his out-of-context references sent them into a fury, and then didn’t tell anyone to restore the lost works. But he did tell his disciples about them maybe, and then THEY referenced them without explaining anything, and then they didn’t tell their immediate successors (say, Polycarp) about them either. I don’t think it works.
At the time of Christ these texts weren't lost. The Qumran community was actively copying 1 Enoch and Jubilees during Jesus's ministry. Jude quotes 1 Enoch as authoritative scripture. The Second Temple Jewish world Jesus taught in had access to this material. What got filtered out happened in the 4th century canonization process - reading that editorial decision backward onto a 1st century audience that didn't share it doesn't hold. The loss isn't transmission from Jesus to his audience. It's canonization from that audience to us.
The Documentary Hypothesis is the standard framework in critical OT scholarship - Wellhausen, Cross, Friedman. It doesn't require pre-debate defense any more than using textual criticism requires defending the existence of manuscript variants. If you have a specific objection to how I applied it, I'll engage that.
Critical scholarship as a whole largely rejects most premises of both of our religions. Rather than appealing to a consensus, I would like to see why you think the documentary hypothesis is the right framework based on the data. As far as I can tell, its by and large based on the conjecture and speculation of academics
You're arguing with the authors and the current scholarly consensus. That's a conversation worth having, but not with me. I'll note that a significant document emerging from roughly the same time frame doesn't refute the evidence - it adds to it.
You're welcome to engage with the scholarship as you desire, but that argument is with the experts, not with me.
Reading this brought back so many memories from when my husband and I began seriously exploring Catholicism. When we eventually told friends we were converting, the responses were almost always the same: “But what about Mary? Confession? Sacraments? It’s a false gospel!”
What struck me most was the assumption underneath those reactions that Catholic theology must be some kind of later divergence from the “real” Christianity represented by Protestantism. But historically speaking, the timeline runs the other direction. Once we started reading church history, it became impossible to maintain the idea that a movement that began in the 1500s represents the original form of Christianity while the Church that preceded it for fifteen centuries must explain itself.
This is great. I've heard a similar argument made for the papacy: "who was the first pope?" (Protestants either have to say Peter or someone else later, at which point you have the dog problem). But often they wriggle out by saying something something "accretion." And that's not crazy to me. How does your dog argument (setting aside other apostolic churches) deal with that counter? How you prove that the heresy introduction had to be "zero to one" and not a development over time?
https://danthedanite.substack.com/p/a-reply-to-eric-anderson-and-a-thousand
Its probably a better idea to defend the believe in the documentary hypothesis before using it to support an apostasy theory.
Even granting that, Dan’s view amounts to saying that Jesus showed up, referenced documents he knew his audience didn’t have access to, didn’t explain this to them even when his out-of-context references sent them into a fury, and then didn’t tell anyone to restore the lost works. But he did tell his disciples about them maybe, and then THEY referenced them without explaining anything, and then they didn’t tell their immediate successors (say, Polycarp) about them either. I don’t think it works.
At the time of Christ these texts weren't lost. The Qumran community was actively copying 1 Enoch and Jubilees during Jesus's ministry. Jude quotes 1 Enoch as authoritative scripture. The Second Temple Jewish world Jesus taught in had access to this material. What got filtered out happened in the 4th century canonization process - reading that editorial decision backward onto a 1st century audience that didn't share it doesn't hold. The loss isn't transmission from Jesus to his audience. It's canonization from that audience to us.
The Documentary Hypothesis is the standard framework in critical OT scholarship - Wellhausen, Cross, Friedman. It doesn't require pre-debate defense any more than using textual criticism requires defending the existence of manuscript variants. If you have a specific objection to how I applied it, I'll engage that.
Critical scholarship as a whole largely rejects most premises of both of our religions. Rather than appealing to a consensus, I would like to see why you think the documentary hypothesis is the right framework based on the data. As far as I can tell, its by and large based on the conjecture and speculation of academics
You're arguing with the authors and the current scholarly consensus. That's a conversation worth having, but not with me. I'll note that a significant document emerging from roughly the same time frame doesn't refute the evidence - it adds to it.
You're welcome to engage with the scholarship as you desire, but that argument is with the experts, not with me.
I would think that hinging your entire argument on it would make it a worthwhile conversation with you.
That's nice.
The footnotes on this were fascinating. What a great way to look at the data; I didn’t even know about the history of some of these ancient churches!
Reading this brought back so many memories from when my husband and I began seriously exploring Catholicism. When we eventually told friends we were converting, the responses were almost always the same: “But what about Mary? Confession? Sacraments? It’s a false gospel!”
What struck me most was the assumption underneath those reactions that Catholic theology must be some kind of later divergence from the “real” Christianity represented by Protestantism. But historically speaking, the timeline runs the other direction. Once we started reading church history, it became impossible to maintain the idea that a movement that began in the 1500s represents the original form of Christianity while the Church that preceded it for fifteen centuries must explain itself.
Also the dog picture is very cute
This is great. I've heard a similar argument made for the papacy: "who was the first pope?" (Protestants either have to say Peter or someone else later, at which point you have the dog problem). But often they wriggle out by saying something something "accretion." And that's not crazy to me. How does your dog argument (setting aside other apostolic churches) deal with that counter? How you prove that the heresy introduction had to be "zero to one" and not a development over time?