My Gripe with MythVision's Derek Lambert
This is a post I've been sitting on for a while now. I've been debating with myself whether to publish it or not. But after much deliberation, I think it's now time I finally say my piece about a man who has made it his life goal to popularise scholarship on topics such as biblical studies, archaeology, and comparative religion from a secular perspective. He's no stranger to intellectual skirmishes on YouTube and has caused quite a ruckus in the apologetics/counter-apologetics scene over the last couple years. Well, you read the title, right? Yes, it's Derek Lambert from the MythVision Podcast.
In all honesty, it's quite hard for me to really pin down the reason for my restraint on publishing these thoughts. Is it fear of a malignant reprisal from Lambert's more zealous followers, or even Lambert himself? Or is it the fear of not having watched enough of his videos to get the full gist of his perspectives? Well, it's unlikely to be the former: rebuttals void of any genuine, constructive critique are not worth anyone's time. I'm also not concerned of the latter given that I have watched my fair share of Lambert's videos and it would not be reasonable to watch all (or even most) of them.
No, it's not fear that stayed my hand from clicking that "publish" button. It is, I hope, patience.
I have discussed elsewhere that Lambert's opinions have always been a mixed bag to me: one moment he could articulate a truly thought-provoking analysis of a given situation and I would literally pump my fist in the air and say "Yes! This is exactly what I've been saying for years." Yet five seconds later he would say something so bafflingly outlandish I would question how the same person could possibly say it. For the last year I have seen his channel grow and his popularity explode, all with worrisome caveats that I have spent the same amount of time trying to wrap my head around.
I doubt my opinion would mean much to Lambert on the off chance he were to read this critique. In just the last year he has gained more than 100,000 new subscribers on YouTube. When I began writing this post a few months ago, Mythvision had around 180,000 subscribers. I was shocked when I casually checked today to update this number to find that count had surged to well over 200,000! Lambert is not going anywhere and I doubt that the judgements of one lowly blogger would deprive him of any sleep. Yet something has always bugged me about his blasé approach to the delicate subject matter that he speaks about with such authority. Yes, it's finally time I said my piece.
Derek's Mission, Should He Choose to Accept It...
Lambert began his channel back in 2018 following his deconversion from Christianity. He quickly entertained ideas like Jesus mythicism which dominated his early videos before he began to ease off the theory a couple years into his channel's existence. Distancing himself from scholars such as Robert M. Price (long before the well-documented controversy of 2022), Lambert began to attract the big names of New Testament scholarship to his channel: Mark Goodacre, Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman, Dennis MacDonald, and new giants of the discipline like Robyn Faith Walsh and Francesca Stavrakopoulou. And these are only the names of academics that frequent his channel. Others include Elaine Pagels, John J. Collins, Joel Baden—the list goes on and on!
Evangelical scholars like Michael Heiser and Mike Licona have also had guest appearances in the past, showing that he has garnered a wide diversity of academics. Whilst Lambert remains very much entrenched in biblical studies and comparative mythology, he has since expanded his horizons to discuss other religions like Mormonism and Islam as well as offering scathing critiques of various cults like scientology. It is clear that Lambert has scholars from a wide variety in his contacts and he must be praised for such a remarkable achievement.
This is at least one thing that Lambert should be proud of and is also something I have come to appreciate about his work. Many people that tune into his well-edited and craftily executed livestreams often work 40-50 hour weeks and simply do not have the money or the time to buy and read the various tomes that biblical scholarship pumps out every year. Even with the multitude of popular books that have been published in recent decades, the discipline needs to upgrade to the online medium for it to maintain any relevancy. Lambert is spearheading a new format for popular biblical studies more than any other channel I know of.
Following Dr. Price's ejection from the MythVision club in March of 2022, Lambert began to post more videos of just himself speaking to the camera. A nice change of pace, to be sure, and a way for him to get some things off his chest. But there were specific people that he began to target in these videos: those he deemed "apologists." He already had a less-than-positive outlook on religious spokespersons prior to this (whether they called themselves apologists or not), but these videos began to take that attitude to another, less civil, level.
Exactly one year after the Price controversy, Lambert published a video entitled "Shadows on the Wall" where he cast his religious experiences in the light of Plato's Cave, where the God that he thought was real was revealed to be nothing but an illusion. His attempts to find the God of his faith were like the analogy of the blind men grasping onto parts of an elephant, each coming up with different animals and objects due to their limited perceptions.
Upon seeing this video when it first came out, I thought it had some interesting observations about the inherent limitations of human knowledge. Whilst such calls for evidence-based epistemologies are undoubtedly helpful, Lambert implicitly categorised every single person who holds to some kind of theistic belief system as being, without qualification (or evidence!), trapped in the "cave of ignorance" (20:20-54). Conveniently, it is Lambert who has emerged from the darkness as a bastion of true knowledge and is able to see things others can't. Personally, I find that it sounds uncannily similar to the presuppositionalist Christians who love to remark about how they are the voice of reason in a room of unbelievers. Completely divergent worldviews, but similar sentiments towards their ideological detractors and a surplus of self-aggrandization to top it off. Okay, fine, I thought to myself. It's just a one-off video. Who cares?
But then Lambert started a war.
In April 2023, Lambert released a video unambiguously titled "This is War" in which he declared an ideological war against Christian apologists who are "special pleading" (11:37) with the evidence for the truth of Christianity. Lambert held nothing back in recognising that apologist arguments were not going to win him over; likewise that the apologists were not going to be won over by any of his arguments (6:39-46). For Lambert, it's now a psychological battle. No longer can we frankly discuss the evidence in good post-Enlightenment spirit. Instead, in another curious parallel to presuppositionalism, we must assume that those on the "other side" who remain unconvinced by our indefatigable argumentation are pearl-clutching deceivers who are being dishonest with the evidence.
This video was a real doozy. Lambert complains about being "pigeonholed into a category that somehow automatically makes me worthy of not listening to" (7:29) yet does the very same thing to the "apologists" he derides by generalising them as a whole. These same "apologists" are lambasted for their attempts to rebut Lambert's claims (7:55-8:13); the very fact that they are responding to his videos in the first place is exploited as further proof that they want to believe in God—a disingenuous no-win situation for his religious opponents. The list of perplexing and backhanded comments piled up as I watched Lambert psychoanalyse his newly declared foes, scouring their minds for the real reasons why they believe. Four more likeminded videos followed "This is War" consisting of Lambert monologuing to his camera about the thin-skinned apologists who were triggered in the upheaval that erupted after his video.
For anyone not clued into the apologetics/counter-apologetics scene (we really need a better name for it), there will be inevitable confusion as to who the unnamed "apologists" actually are. It does no good that Lambert often makes no distinction between Christian scholars and these "apologists" (which we will see more of further below). Is he talking about online amateurs with zero specialist knowledge like Ruslan and Allen Parr? Or certified academics who hold to Christian convictions such as Raymond Brown or Bruce Metzger who pioneered the field with critical rigour? What about the sophisticated amateurs who straddle both categories like Mike Jones or Rob Rowe? Who is Lambert talking about?
The deliberate vagueness around whom Lambert is denoting as dishonest religious activists deliberately obscures the discussion. It becomes free game! Every Christian who has spent even the slightest moment discussing their faith in a reasonable fashion becomes a target. Because Lambert fails to recognise that this can happen through a variety of avenues and not purely defending a religion's historical veracity (many Christians simply do not operate with "true history" in mind with their faith), his critique becomes a prejudiced attack upon a much wider selection of people than he realises. This mass generalisation is beyond the realm of being impolite. It's borderline dangerous.
"I Came from That"
Lambert has since taken the position that pervasive Christian biases are at play in the world of academic biblical studies. Whether this is true or not, a certain level of duplicity resides in his claim which I seek to uncover here. During this interview with former seminary student and ex-Christian Mark Peralta in June of 2022, Lambert discussed the dynamics of how conservative seminaries ignore the perspectives of "liberal" scholars. In Peralta's words, alternative perspectives on the origins of the Pentateuch are avoided "like a plague" by their professors (I'll pretend that Duane Garrett doesn't exist to give them the benefit of the doubt). At 18:02 in the video, Lambert proceeded to say something that, although only an off-the-cuff statement, really encapsulates what grinds my gears with his approach:
Leaving aside the unhelpful labelling of "liberal" and "conservative" to demarcate arbitrary boundaries between academics, this statement is an abysmal demonstration of hypocrisy and, ironically, bias. Lambert and Peralta, regretfully, both experienced a one-sided presentation of biblical scholarship when they were Christians: their scholars allegedly avoided other, more critical academics "like a plague." I have seen this happen myself on occasion so I have no reason to doubt that their experiences are genuine. So what's the problem?
Lambert wants to give those conniving conservatives a taste of their own medicine by avoiding them altogether in favour of more "liberal" academics that he had previously shunned. But this inevitably creates the very imbalance that he was guilty of as a Christian, simply the other way round. In any other discipline, such an attitude would be regarded as the epitome of bias; indeed, it is exactly what he is accusing apologists of doing. If Lambert and Peralta wanted to establish a balance between the two perspectives in order to become more holistic in their research, this would make sense. But instead they have resorted to some kind of ideological recompense or reparation for having only listened to the traditional points of view for so long.
Lambert alleges that he is entitled to completely ignore the arguments of conservative scholars from here on out because he "came from that" and he "heard all of this." But surely he does not mean to suggest that he is aware of every traditionalist stance on the origins of biblical literature? Not even a scholar from the quote-unquote conservative camp would say such a thing. Does he honestly think he can just palm off opposing perspectives so irresponsibly like that? You know, the same way he palmed off the liberal scholars when he was a Christian? Yeah, that's what I mean by doozy.
This is not to mention that Lambert is in a position of great responsibility with his YouTube channel. As outlined above, he provides valuable education for people who are often too busy to spend their time or money on the books that he has read. So how is it helpful to relegate whole portions of the scholarship to the sidelines purely on the basis of what the authors are alleged to believe? Lambert's viewers will only get one side of the story, the very same diagnosis that he and Peralta gave themselves whilst heading out the door of faith. In their attempt to make amends for the mistake of their previous bias, they have allowed the pendulum to swing to the opposite extreme. It's trying to fight fire with fire.
I reckon a toxic "us v.s them" mentality undergirds everything we have critiqued Lambert for thus far. Those who emerge from a hyper-traditionalist mindset rarely ever truly break the tribalistic shackles that they were indoctrinated into. No doubt this residual toxicity is made all the more virulent by Lambert's unhesitating equation of conservative scholars with Christian apologists (see below). Way to throw hundreds of well-meaning and well-trained academics who come from a traditionalist perspective (a diverse category in it's own right) under the bus. It makes me question whether he has actually read what they have published. Indeed, Lambert is quite open with his haughty dismissal of those he labels "conservative." Why should anyone take him seriously after such vain statements?
Those Pesky Christians and Their Scholarship on... the Bible?
Lambert has recently graced his audience with the presence of Richard C. Miller, an independent scholar with a PhD from Claremont. Miller, an openly humanistic/atheistic scholar, is the most recent purveyor of the view that scholarship produced by Christian scholars is tainted with "faith-based" presuppositions that prevent said academics from creating actual scholarship. In true firebrand style, he has dismissed the Society of Biblical Literature as a "circus" in this video (20:27). The insinuation being that Christian perspectives in scholarship are preventing true research being done and that "believing" academics have a death-grip on the progress of biblical studies.
A brief word on Miller's position is warranted here, though an in-depth critique may be shelved for another time. I find that Miller is very similar to Lambert: absolutely correct one moment and outrageously wrong the next. I have sympathy with his irritation over theological colleges that demand rigid statements of faith from their associates, yet he uses this to call into question the validity of the entire discipline by suggesting that even secular scholars are bound by the "gravitational pull" of faith; he is correct to criticise the SBL for it's unwavering openness to anyone who wishes to be a part of it, yet his attitude, if applied, could very well result in the outright discrimination and barring of fully qualified scholars who just happen to be churchgoers. In short, this is a very complex topic that cannot be resolved by presenting only one point of view.
There are undeniable problems in mainstream scholarship that encompass and include institutions like the SBL, both historic and contemporary. That being said, irrespective of what position one takes in this debate, it is a debate. Miller's perspective is only one among many and this controversy has raged within biblical studies for the last couple decades. It shows no sign of abating. What is also unlikely to be set aside is Lambert's position that he has entrenched himself into, one where he promotes a particular scholarly view and allows very little room for further debate.
No, it does not matter that he has hosted the occasional debate or featured an evangelical scholar two or three years ago. The diversity that Lambert has been able to acquire is superficial once one realises the agenda driving his channel. Those with agendas find it easy to agree with those that promote the same ideas and they struggle to engage in self-critical reflection. So it's rather convenient that Miller's incendiary view corresponds exactly to the attitude that Lambert has already articulated elsewhere: that "conservative" scholars (who, for the most part, continue to remain unnamed) are not teaching things that could be apologetically problematic. Is it in any way surprising that Lambert has uncritically accepted it?
By relying too much on the experiences of his own life, the anecdotes of his community, and the opinions of prejudiced academics like Miller, Lambert has constructed a narrative in which swathes of unnamed Christian scholars are pulling the strings from behind the scenes by wholesale suppressing the unspeakable and shying away from embarrassing facts. He then hides behind a shield of immunity he has constructed thanks to his previous interviews with evangelical scholars like Heiser and Licona. You can't accuse me of being one sided! Look at the Christians we've had on the podcast! We're not ignoring them, they're ignoring us!
But it's not difficult to see through the façade. Sure, he's had the odd evangelical scholar on his show, but you'll never see the likes of Stanley Porter or E. Randolph Richards—both of whom have impeccable credentials and have produced boundary-pushing scholarship—being invited onto his show. Lambert has made it perfectly clear that he will not actively seek out individuals like these to feature on his channel, and not nearly to the same extent as other voices likes Josh Bowen, Kipp Davis, and other atheist spokespersons. I really don't have a problem with Christian or atheist scholars and their partisan viewpoints—only that Lambert has made himself the arbiter of who is and is not deserving of being listened to.
Lambert loves to go on about Plato's Cave and how religious people are only seeing the shadows of the truth on the wall, yet he rarely ever applies that criticism to himself. He cannot see that he is likewise only viewing these topics from one point of view and, at the very least, is refusing to present the other side of the story due to a myopic insistence that he is somehow free from equivalent biases. Like I have outlined above, it has led to him doing the very same thing that he derides his apologist opponents for doing.
A Scale Model of War
I never thought a scene from Shrek 3 would serve so good an analogy but here goes.
After the death of the King Harold, Prince Charming goes to recruit the fairy-tale villains for his upcoming war against Far Far Away. Before they turn on him, he appeals to the fact that "Once upon a time someone decided that we were the losers. There are two sides to every story and our side has not been told!" I have found that many people, in a desperate plea to add victimhood currency to their cause, have appealed to Charming's reasoning here. Popular debates in biblical studies are no exception. Religious apologists often whine about how they are being ignored by secular academics. Lambert does the same when he insists that the critical perspectives are being suppressed by Christian academics. The inevitable result is the drawing of battle lines: both think that the "other side" are out to get them in some way.
Alternatively, I propose that Lambert and the apologists living rent-free in his head are two sides of the same coin: activists seeking to validate their "side" and defeat an enemy they have created in their own minds. Lambert even concedes in his "This is War" video that his previous "fundamentalism" may be influencing his way of thinking today (9:26-42), another notable link to the toxic mindset of presuppositionalism given that he was formerly a Reformed Christian. Admitting you still carry fundamentalist tendencies as an atheist who makes a living attacking Christianity as an irrelevant myth is something that should really raise more eyebrows than it has.
This is the essence of my critique: Lambert, far too often, is guilty of the very things he accosts his opponents of doing or saying. Instead of building bridges and promoting a fair and balanced view of what academics are saying about these touchy subjects, Lambert and his opponents resort to proverbial bomb-lobbing and treat those across the table as an enemy in need of defeating. Both "sides" will continue to behave in such a way until, as Peter Capaldi's Doctor says, everybody does what they were always going to have to do from the very beginning: sit down and talk!
I do not want to denigrate Lambert in this post, nor do I claim to have watched enough of his many, many videos and livestreams to get a comprehensive understanding of his person to make a more in-depth critique. As I have hopefully made clear, his livestreams are very useful for a wide range of people, myself included. I cannot, however, turn a blind eye to some of the more staggeringly obtuse statements he has made; they deserve to be scrutinised. He is insisting that Christians want Christianity to be true which skews their ability to think. Lambert will take such an accusation to the point of deriding his opponents as dishonest.
This has subsequently led him to throw his lot with people like Miller who would see biblical studies become a "faith-free" discipline, whatever that actually means and whether it would be implemented at the expense of churchgoing scholars. His unwavering commitment to such an attitude will not produce better relations with people of faith, though of course I am assuming that this is something that he wants. We should be worried if he has no intention to build those bridges and is instead intent on starting petty YouTube drama—don't think that we'll ever forget his now-deleted post insulting Rob Rowe during the Falk-Stavrakopoulou controversy.
Moreover, it does Lambert no good that he fails to follow his own calls for evidence-based epistemologies and is willing to throw hundreds of Christian academics under the bus as "apologists" purely because of a perceived partisanship in their work—work which he has both not read and refused to present to his own audience. A bias blind spot if I had ever seen one.
Lambert is a good man, one who wishes to help people overcome religious trauma but is burdened by a past of substance abuse and ideological confusion. Such a combination is something that will undoubtedly leave a person feeling disenfranchised. So I understand his keenness to object to the positions of his online "opponents." All I hope to have demonstrated from this post is that things are not as black and white in the world of biblical studies as Lambert claims it is.
Keep in mind that most of what has been said above is coming from a person who probably aligns more with what Lambert believes than what he doesn't. Does that say more about me or him? We may never know. But we should understand this: no one is free of criticism. We must all hold each other to account when we make such obtuse statements. Whether he likes it or not, Derek Lambert has certainly said his fair share of things that are beyond belief.
Comments
Post a Comment