By now it should be clear to every reader of this blog that Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is not just a lying buffoon who has no idea what he is talking about but he is also a poor researcher. His skills as a researcher are so abysmal they indicate there is surely no team behind him. A team wouldn't make these mistakes. If they did they would be the worst and most unqualified research team ever assembled.
Take this innocuous citation from The Search For King Solomon's Treasure.
 |
| The Search For King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 156 |
“So accustomed are all these islanders to writing and reading that there is scarcely a man, and much less a woman, who cannot read and write in letters proper to the island of Manila, very different from those of China, Japan, or India.” –Pedro Chirino, 1590 [411]
 |
| https://opinion.inquirer.net/57767/baths-in-16th-century-philippines |
Pedro Chirino (1557-1635) served in the Philippines for 12 years. He arrived in May 1590 and left in July 1602, and thus saw and described the Philippines and the Filipinos during the early years of the Spanish conquest. Perhaps the most cited chapter in his work concerns the pre-Spanish writing or baybayin. Here Chirino stated that: “So accustomed are all these islanders to writing and reading that there is scarcely a man, and much less a woman, who cannot read and write in letters proper to the island of Manila, very different from those of China, Japan, or India.” He even drew the various letters of the baybayin, explaining how this was written and read.
When some people insist that the friars destroyed all pre-Spanish culture, they should look up Chirino (who, as a Jesuit, was technically not a friar—that is, not a member of the mendicant religious orders like the Augustinians, Franciscans and Dominicans who did not figure too well in narratives of the Philippine Revolution) and appreciate that some pre-Spanish culture was actually preserved by religious orders.
Yet there is no link to it in the sourcebook. Why? More importantly, why is his citation of Chirino secondhand from an opinion piece when he has a citation from The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898: Volume XII where Chirino's original writing is to be found? Why not cite that? Why go through a newspaper column when the primary source is literally right there in his own sourcebook? That doesn't make any sense. Here is the original source:
 | |
|
Based on his past comments I would surmise that Tim cites Ambeth Ocampo's opinion piece because he wanted to give a shout-out to a local author. That is his explanation for citing J.G. Check instead of citing Fernando Pinto directly.
As we wanted to shout out with a plug to a local Filipino author, we maintained the secondary source, because it remained accurate.
The local author was preferred by our authors because she uncovered that truth, and deserved credit, which we continue to acknowledge.
https://thegodculturephilippines.blogspot.com/2025/04/the-god-culture-understanding-pintos.html
At least in this case the citation is correct. That's because Ambeth Ocampo is an actual historian. But it's still bad research. It is important to cite primary sources because they are originals unfiltered by middlemen who might misrepresent the context or botch the citation. They also allow the reader to gain a broader and more accurate view of the material.
In this instance, Chirino’s original book not only mentions literacy but also serves as a primer on Baybayin. That should be a goldmine for Tim, who constantly talks about pre-colonial Filipino identity. But instead of engaging the full text, he ignores it and settles for a quote pulled from a newspaper column. Why? Because it’s written by a Filipino author. That’s not scholarship, that’s pandering.
Just imagine being part of a research team and you are tasked with finding 16th-century sources testifying to the literacy of Filipinos. You come across Chirino in the original and bring it to Tim. Instead of applauding you and saying "good job" Tim rejects your research, yet likes the quote, and says find another source for that citation but written by a Filipino. Does that sound like how a research team would operate? No.
On his website Tim touts his sourcebook as proof of his transparent, accurate, and thorough research.
Across our extensive library of over 700 YouTube videos, we prioritize accuracy. Our commitment to thorough research is further evidenced by the detailed bibliographies accompanying our publications (such as the 16-page bibliography in The Search for King Solomon's Treasure) and our groundbreaking 300-page Sourcebook, which offers unparalleled transparency into our research materials – a practice rarely matched in the publishing world.
The exceptional nature of this transparency is underscored by Dr. Michael Heiser's public statement that providing copies of all original sources is not customary, often due to copyright limitations. Our decision to offer our Sourcebook electronically and for free showcases our deep commitment to open research, exceeding the standards of many in the field.
The extensive sourcing of The God Culture is far above average. See Source List.
It doesn't matter that Tim has a 300 page sourcebook or that he is showing all his sources when so many are junk like this. An editorial!? That only shows Tim is not serious and reveals his incompetence as a researcher. If he were a real researcher he would have cited the actual source and not a newspaper column by Ambeth Ocampo.
No comments:
Post a Comment