Should Wives Submit?  ## Metadata - Author: [[YouTube]] - Full Title: Should Wives Submit? - Category: #articles - Document Tags: [[video-notes]] [[youtube]] - Summary: Should Wives Submit? - URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efYng6wT4YY as conspiracy theories go. Okay, you know, no, definitely not, but like okay. >> Hey everybody, I'm Dan Mlelen >> and I'm Dan Beecher >> and you're listening to the Data Overdogma podcast where we increase public access to the academic study of the Bible and religion and we combat the spread of misinformation about the same. How go things today, Dan? >> They go uh things things things are trucking along. I'm pretty excited about today's uh episode because a we're going to uphold the patriarchy, which we always love to do. And B, we're going to uh we're we're going to get into some some uh >> some some space stuff. We're going to get into some some conspiracy theories. I hope everybody's got their tin hats >> ready to go, their tin foil hats. >> Yeah, I don't even know if I can say those notes or if that >> Yeah, I like that I've terrified you enough about copyright infringement or or trademark or whatever the heck it is. >> We've built a fence around the law, as it were, regarding my ability to sing anything terribly. >> Yeah. Yeah. And and I think our listeners also thank me for beating that into your head. >> When you said patriarchy, all I could hear was was Fergie in that. Um, tonight's going to be a good Is that what it's called? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Where she goes, "Smash it." >> So, that's all I thought about I don't know why it was Fergie's voice doing it that way. >> I like it. I like it. >> Well, uh, why don't we get into our our chapter and verse and smash that patriarchy? Let's do it. >> Okay. So, the chapter and verse that we are that we're getting to is Ephesians 5. >> Uh verse Oh, what verse is it? You know, >> well, 22 is the main one. >> Yeah. >> But like if you wanted to try to get the whole sense unit, it's really got to be like verse 18 through to the end of the chapter. >> Okay. >> But we're not going to focus on all of that. We're really going to uh zoom in on verse 22, which is >> Yeah. You don't want to start with 18 because 18 says, "Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery." >> And we don't want anybody to know that that's in the Bible. Yeah. No, no, no. It's that's actually where the sentence begins. And this is this is part of the controversy of uh of Ephesians 5:22. Uh, and if you have heard people talk about this, I'll just read 522, just verse 22 from the NRSVU, and then we'll talk about why it's a bit of a mistransation. >> Okay? >> It says, "Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord." And then verse 23 says, "For the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its savior." So, and and there's a pillcrow in the uh in the NRSVE. And for those of you who um grew up on the right side of the tracks, a pillcrow uh is the little backwards pair paragraph indicator basically, right? >> And a lot of translations of the Bible present verse 22 as the beginning of a new section. >> It's not even its own sentence. In fact, it doesn't have a verb in it. The verb is actually a participle that is in the previous verse. Now, this is actually relevant to what what's going on here. A participle is uh is like an ing verb, >> right? >> In Greek. So, I am running has a subject, a verb, and then this gerand, >> right? >> Running. But the verb in the sentence is am. You are saying I and then you are connecting it to running with the verb am. >> Am doing run. >> Yeah. So that is the am is the actual verb of that clause. Right. >> And running is uh is helping out. And so in verse 22, we don't even have a participle. It's verse 21 that has the participle. And verse 22 is just is just we're going to borrow the the force of the participle from verse 21. But even verse 21 is not its own sentence. We have to go all the way back to verse 18. And >> okay, but I'm gonna I'm just going to interject here because the thing that my head was bumping up against >> I don't know how Greek ancient Greek was structured. >> And so like I know that I've se I've seen ancient Hebrew texts and it's just letters without any spaces and definitely no punctuation or anything. >> Right. What what what should I be imagining when I when I when I'm thinking of an ancient Greek text? >> Oh, same thing. It was uh yeah, the just continuous text. They didn't put spaces between the words. They certainly didn't have verses uh in the earliest manuscripts. They didn't have chapters or anything like that. >> And no punctuation. >> No punctuation. They didn't even have uh the diiocritics. If you look in a in a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, you've got rough and smooth breaings. You've got uh acute. You've got grav, you've got circumlex accents all over the place. None of that is in the earliest manuscripts. It's just the letters. >> So when you say it's not even the same sentence, you're getting that or or that it is the same sentence. You're getting that uh just grammatically. You're not getting that from any kind of markings. >> Just syntactically. Yes. Okay. So the and this is one of the things you learn to do uh when when reading Greek is you got to go, okay, where's the verb? Okay, there's a verb. All right, what and I'm looking for objects. I'm looking for subjects and all this kind of stuff. And and Greek is very cool in English word order is it tells you what role certain words are playing. So I am running the subject frequently comes first. If I say, "Am I running?" That sounds like a question, >> right? >> Because we've switched the subject and the verb. Uh, in Greek, the word order doesn't really matter too much. Uh, it is a case-based language. And anybody who's learned like German or something like that will know that you use CA in a case-based language, the word form itself changes to tell you what role it is playing in the sentence. whether it's a subject, an object, whether the thing is being done to it or something like that, you change the way the word looks in order to indicate that. And which means you can you can fiddle with the word order all you want. And a lot of ancient Greek poets would fiddle with the word order like crazy. >> Interesting. >> Yeah. Which makes it very hard to to translate. But anyway, we got to go all the way back to verse 18. And it starts with this. Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery. And then we get the beginning of our sentence. But be filled with the spirit. So we have this imperative. Be filled with the spirit. >> Right? >> As you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs to one another, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts. So we've got uh another one of these participles. Singing, giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. being subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. So the being filled with the spirit either is caused by these other things by the singing and by the um giving thanks and by the being subject or it results in the singing the giving thanks uh the being subject. And then we get to verse 22 which is again kind of borrowing the participle from the verse before. So wives being subject to your husbands as to the Lord and and apologists who who want well there are actually two people who make this argument. There are are folks who want this to not be misogynistic. >> They want this to be um something that is not misogyny. will point this out and suggest that the fact that the the participle the verbal force of verse 21 is feeding verse 22 and verse 21 says being subject to one another out of reverence for Christ you maybe borrow that sense and so really what this is saying is wives and husbands you're both going to be subject to each other so okay sometimes folk will ar folks will argue that >> but then verse 23 exists so >> right yes that's that's the main problem with this because it it then goes on to explain yes the the husband is like Jesus and the wife is like the church right and and so the wife has to submit to the husband as the church submits to Jesus but then the other thing that folks who don't want this to be misogynistic will will point out is that well wait a minute wait a minute the husband has to love the wife as Jesus loved the church Jesus died for the church, the husband has to have this self-sacrificing, unending love for his wife, which means it's fair, >> it's okay. Cuz while the wife's got to make the sandwiches and got to do the dishes and got to do the laundry and got to do the the vacuuming and everything like that every single day because the de because the husband said so, one day, probably not, but maybe one day he'll have to sacrifice his life for her, but probably not. >> And so it's easy. I see that so much in the sort of the Christian manosphere. Uh you know when when these guys are talking about how their job is as protector and provider and blah blah blah and in their minds when they start talking about this protector role they bring up scenarios that are vanishingly small percentage chance that this could happen. Like absolutely >> you're not going to get attacked in the way that you're imagining. But they're, you know, they're making themselves these grand heroes >> in their own imagination. >> Yeah. It's a power fantasy. >> And then and then their wife is doing very real work. >> Labor. Yeah. >> Like continually. >> Yeah. >> While he is like, "Yes, but if this were to happen, you have no idea how awesome I would be." >> Yeah. I'm going to be over here emotionally masturbating about how cool I'm going to I'm going to look when I when I save everybody's life. I I see that uh a lot of times with uh every time there's some kind of mass shooting that that makes national headlines. Uh there there are people who are like I I conceal carry even where I'm you know not allowed to not to protect me it's to protect everybody else cuz you know >> these things are are you know everybody needs uh some dude with a power fantasy about being John Wayne. >> Yeah. Not not John um Dirty Harry. I guess John Wayne too. Um if we didn't have them >> hero with gun. >> Yes. I'll come to your college campus and uh probably end up being the one shooting somebody. >> Yeah. 99% of the time being Yeah. I will injure innocent people or or kill innocent people. >> But anyway, the that's the idea that they that they they run with. It's like, well, it's okay that I'm in charge of my wife because I'm supposed to love her and so, you know, I'm not going to exercise unrighteous dominion. ideally uh the realities that that they frequently are. >> Well, the reality is that dominion in and of itself is uh >> is a pretty gross idea. >> Yeah. But what Paul is not Paul pseudo Paul, excuse me. >> Pseudo Paul, fake Paul. We should have started with that. >> 10 Paul. Yes. This is one of the the this is one of the bad epistles. >> Well, it's technically it's one of the disputed ones, right? uh like the pastorals the the a good strong majority of scholars are like yeah that's not Paul >> okay >> Ephesians Colossians 2 Thessalonians I think it's a little closer to half and half I think I think uh I would still give it to the people who um reject Pauline authorship but um >> I've and you know once I am able to get my survey off the ground uh which I'm still working on I'm still working on we're going to have >> we'll believe it when we see We're going to have rockhard numbers. Um but uh >> and abs rock hard numbers and abs. >> Yeah. And we're going to end the list there. And the uh >> the uh uh the majority of SC or a good number of scholars don't think that Paul was responsible for Ephesians. >> Okay. >> Uh Colossians, second Thessalonians. And there are a number of good reasons for that, but we digress. So this is probably not Paul anyway. However, what the author is doing here with this pivot, verse 21 is kind of a pivot point. We've been talking about the congregation as a whole and then we say uh mutually submit to each other and that submitting participle then becomes the hinge on which we pivot to what's called household codes. And this is kind of a standard genre in the Grecoman period within broader Grecoman literature. So not just Jewish and Christian but broader Grecoman literature. In fact um what the author is appealing to is a pretty standardized kind of checklist of the people involved. And to demonstrate this I want to read a little something from Aristotle. >> Oh okay. This is Aristotle on government. Since it is now evident of what parts a city is composed, it will be necessary to treat first of family government. For every city is made up of families, and every family has again its separate parts of which it is composed. When a family is complete, it consists of free men and slaves. But as in every subject, we should begin with examining into the smallest parts of which it consists. And as the first and smallest parts of a family are the master and slave, the husband and wife, the father and child, let us first inquire into these three what each of them may be and what they ought to be. That is to say, the hile, the nuptual, and the paternal. Let these then be considered as the three distinct parts of a family. What are the three things that the author addresses in between verse 22 and the beginning of chapter 6? husband and wife, children and slave people. Interesting. >> So this is a pretty standardized uh way of approaching the question of the household and how it is governed and we see this in in other uh Jewish literature as well. So for instance, Pho uh in some fragments uh referred to uh this fragment is uh the hypothetica. And this is something that you run into a lot when you're dealing with ancient literature. You'll have authors and you'll have their their complete works and then there will be fragments. >> Uhhuh. >> And and what this is is this is all the places where we have somebody saying, "Yeah, so and so wrote in their text, you know, X all this stuff." And it's like, okay, we don't have a copy of X. All we have is whatever this person quoted from X. And so that goes into the file as a fragment. >> Uh but we have a fragment of a text called hypothetica. and and Pho says, "Wives must be in servitude to their husbands, a servitude not imposed by violent ill treatment, but promoting obedience in all things." And if if we go back to Aristotle and particularly ideas of of insolment and personhood and things like that, Aristotle thought a woman was just an undercooked man, >> right? >> That the gestation just moved more slowly for women and they were born before they were fully cooked. Aristotle had an astoundingly uh weird sense of how a lot of things worked that then was picked up on and like held as gospel for thousands of years >> and and you want to know the one there's a there's a a friend of mine named Jonathan Jung. He's a wonderful uh psychologist, cognitive scientist of religion. >> Uh and he uh in a paper he once commented the ghost of Aristotle haunts us still. Yeah, >> because of how much we rely on definition. >> It was so Yeah, he's he was a nut that Aristotle. >> Yeah. And one of the most influential thinkers in all of human history obviously uh and and actually was profoundly preient in a lot of ways about a lot of stuff and then way off the mark >> with a lot of other stuff. But the the practice of definition and and our assumptions that everything can can and should be defined. That's most of Aristotle. Yeah. In the whole world. >> Don't get me started. Don't get me started. Um >> so uh and then we've got Josephus who is writing uh the '9s CE and against Appon. He says, "The woman says the law is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive not for her humiliation but that she may be directed for the authority has been given by God to the man which I don't know if the author of Ephesians would really have a problem with uh with what >> that sounds that sounds perfectly in line with >> it sounds it sounds quite Ephesians but um but yeah this is very clearly a systemic p power asymmetry the idea that women are inferior, therefore they must submit, therefore they must be obedient, therefore the husband is in charge is uh is misogyny. I mean, this goes back to the, you know, we talked just a couple weeks ago about uh about the the the ideas of adultery and how and how it's the absolute double standard of like sexual double standard between men and women. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh I I it I it should come as zero surprise to anybody that that that you know this patriarchal view is is what is is what is being promoted at that time in this region. Like it just it just seems right. And and of course now as you point out the Greek influence is is is permeating uh the Jewish culture as well. So you get you get added uh and more and perhaps um more nuanced patriarchy and and and misogyny. >> Well, and and there are so many different ways a lot of people don't realize that there are so many different ways Greek philosophy and and Greco Roman society contributed to Christianity becoming what it is and contributed to the parting of the ways between Christianity and Judaism. Because one of the things that Judaism did, one of with rabbitic Judaism, one of its priorities was trying to divest itself of this influence of uh the the gentile world. And you know, >> there are debates to be had about the effectiveness and and how committed to it everybody was. But there's a reason that rabbitic Judaism and uh down to the Judaism of today is very very distinct from Grecoman period Judaism. And it was pre precisely a reputation of that influence. They went back to the Hebrew Bible and said, you know what, we're not going to do as much philosophizing like Pho and Josephus did. We're going to get back into the text of the Hebrew Bible and we're going to engage in hakic interpretations, hermeneutics, which is really just saying what is the text telling us? And that is one of the things I think that contributes to Judaism having a lot of positions that are far more closely aligned with what the Hebrew Bible says than does Christianity, which is far more influenced by Greek philosophy. Not, you know, and not just the Trinity, >> but the idea of creation out of nothing. uh the idea uh about ensolment and uh abortion uh up to and including the uh enthusiastic Christian adoption of Greco Roman patriarchy and and social conventions. And that's not to say that rabbitic Judaism was uh an ally >> the the bastion of feminism that is rabbitic Judaism. >> No, no, no, no, no. But it is to say that that Christianity leaned heavily into the influence of uh Grecomor Roman social conventions and and Ephesians, you have it elsewhere, the pastoral epistles as well, appeal to these uh household code ideas. And really what it is is it is the authors saying, "We like this social convention. We're taking it. This is ours now." and he we're going to come up with a gospel rationalization for it. We're going to explain it in a christoologgical way. So you have the author doing that here in Ephesians 5 and Ephesians 6. But this is the same thing that happens in in uh 1 Corinthians 11 with Paul saying uh women have to cover their heads when they're praying and prophesying, >> right? >> That was just a a convention. And Paul's like, "Well, what if we said that it's, you know, it's about the uh Christ is the head of the man. The man is the head of the woman. So therefore, uh, you know, if a woman's head is uncovered, she's glorifying the man, but she needs to be glorifying God, so she got to cover." Like, it's it's just saying, "Let's let's slap a gospel rationalization onto the Greco Roman social convention we're adopting, >> right? >> Because we're again leaning heavy into that." So when when people talk about, you know, uh Christians uh not caring what society does, that's the exact opposite of what happened. Christians were like, "What society does is all that matters, and we're going to come up with rationalizations for why that's what God wanted all along." >> Christians were the were the Jews that that wanted to be Greekified and and Romanified. And I think that with the destruction of the temple and with the debates that were going on with the development of rabbitic Judaism, with the the Christian following and worshiping of Jesus, those kind of all just contributed to the parting of the ways. And when exactly that happened and precisely how is is uh a huge debate that I'm definitely not going to pretend to be in authority on. You know, since you mentioned uh these household codes a couple of times, I'm just going to impress you with my knowledge of Greek. Uh because uh I >> you texted me about this. You texted >> as I was doing some research on this uh I I did check in with chat GPT. I find it a helpful research partner, but also I I always find good reasons to doublech checkck anything it tells me. One of them being that it said that it quote it said to me quote this passage sits in what scholars call the household household codes and then in parenthesis it said Greek house taffun which I'm pretty sure ain't Greek. I know enough German to know that house taffun that that that's not a Greek word. >> I'll I'll have to go dust off an old Greek grammar. But but yeah, it doesn't sound as uh as Greek to me as uh as it probably should. >> Yeah. Uh Greek Greek isn't a Germanic language and I just didn't hear about it. Is it? >> No, no, no, no, no, no. And and the the Greek word for house is not >> house. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> We don't uh go find a gast to uh >> Yeah, exactly. Uh so there you go. I I the thing I think that I I like that you were talking earlier about people who want to try to make uh Ephesians 5 not be >> misogynisticate it domestic certainly understand that impulse >> absolutely >> uh because if you want to be a believing uh a bibleelving person who is also so respectful of all of the genders, etc. Yeah, you're going to not want to you you don't want that to be as misogynistic as it sounds. But I think I think we have to we have to just allow that it is a product of its time and absolutely as patriarchal and misogynistic as as we read it. Yeah, it is it is definitely upholding the patriarchy of that that time and place which >> uh yeah is is a problem and and there's a point to be made about the fact that it does makes take some baby steps because in this time period you know and we've talked about this before how uh some Roman authors refer to Christianity as a religion for women and slaves >> because they had equality there was a there was a dimension in which they were considered equal within a Christian congregation. And so you actually for this author to say uh wives submit to your husbands, but husbands you got to love your wives, you have to treat them as as not equals, but at least you have to love them the way Christ loved the church. That's taking a step forward. And you see this as well with uh Paul in a lot of different ways. tries to assert a kind of reciprocity, not full reciprocity, but at least gestures in the direction of it. And and we've talked about how in some ways that is harmful. So, for instance, the idea that uh in 1 Corinthians 7 that uh the the woman's body is not her own, her husband, it's the property of her husband, but her husband's body is her property, >> right? like it's kind of saying, "Well, it goes the other way, too." >> Which is an attempt at trying to jin up some parody, some reciprocity. It it doesn't work, of course, because you know, great. What does that mean? It's like like saying, you know, the husband is going to beat the wife, but the wife is free to beat the husband, right? Back, >> right? >> So, it's equal. There's no problem. It's the same. Um, you know, the that passage has been leveraged as an excuse for marital rape for literally millennia. I was alive when marital rape was not a crime, >> right, >> in more than one state in the United States of America. It's only been since I think like 1993 that it has actually been outlawed in all 50 states. And I think it's I think it started in 1971 or 1972. That's when the first state said, "Hey, we're actually going to make marital rape a crime." >> Yeah. >> Because people, the patriarchy has always treated marriage as a man basically having possession of a woman's body and having rights over her sexual availability, >> right? >> Which uh yeah, it's sickening. >> It's not okay. It's not okay. and and and I think you know one of the themes of our show has been that like you have to reject certain tenets that are explicit in the Bible that are explicitly like >> laid down as though they are laws as though they are rules. You know what I mean? And and >> I but I think one of the things that can be comforting in all this is that the laws change from Old Testament to new. That like the fact is that laws change. >> Even with even within the Bible, the law continually changes and modifies itself. So >> well, even you can just and and I'm I'll let you finish your point here, but even before you transition from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament, things were changing. >> Yeah. Yeah, like you can just look at the the Septuagent, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Already they're reinterpreting stuff all over the place. And that and that's one of the things that Jesus was doing, too. So, um I I don't want to I'm I'm just saying this because I don't want to create this binary between Hebrew Bible versus versus New Testament. >> Totally understand that. That makes Yeah. And that makes sense. the Hebrew Bible actually spans more time and therefore makes it would make sense for the Hebrew Bible to actually have more changes even inside of itself. >> But I and I think but I think that that's that's the key to understanding how a modern >> believer should be looking at the Bible. not as a system of laws that apply today necessarily, but rather as a snapshot of that time period and the amount that they had learned up until then. And the fact that it's so that it's so heavily influenced by Greek culture and Roman culture, >> yeah, >> is uh is, you know, is at very least points out that >> it's cultural influence is important and as cultures advance and learn more, the laws and the rules of societies should necessarily change. >> Yeah. I I think there's there's good reason to be glad that Greo the Greor Roman world influenced Christianity because I think I think the collaboration between the two >> took a long time to but ultimately resulted in in very good things. I think the Renaissance, I think the enlightenment were ways that there were new insights, there were new consensuses. Uh obviously technology changed uh so much about the world as a result of collaboration between uh the followers and the the adherence to these traditions and these texts and the world around them. Um, and and a lot of people want to claim that, you know, uh, when it comes to like slavery, oh, the abolitionists were were all originally Christians. Well, that's not totally true. But it was in spite of the Bible, >> not because of the Bible. So, let's let's give credit where credit is due. And when it comes to things like abolitionism, the credit is not to the Bible. Uh, the credit is to is to other things, including the influence of classical philosophy. which was influential in the Middle Ages and was restored thanks to its preservation among Muslim and Jewish groups and its translation back into Latin and and all of this stuff. So, um there's always going it's always going to be socially contingent. We have a lot of people trying to insist that it's it's not that it transcends society and that's just demonstrabably false. Uh, and so don't poo poo on the influence of uh of society because it made Christianity the many different things that it is today. >> Yeah. All right. >> Thus, thus endeth my my silly little rant. >> Our our rants. Uh yeah, absolutely. All right. We're going to move on to our next uh our next segment. And we came up with a title for this and it's nerdy and it requires explanation and I apologize for it but >> it's going to make more sense on the screen. >> Welcome to the he files. >> Okay. So the he files tell me what the talk talk to me about what what we're doing here. >> So that's just a nerdy Greek joke, right? >> Yeah. We're just using the the Greek character he which is written just like the X. The the capital he is is um like the X, but but this is what you would uh see spelled out C hi. So if you're if you're in a college town and you see somebody going Cairo or something like that, then they're probably just mispronouncing chi. But >> anyway, it looks like an X looks like X Files. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> because we're going to be talking about aliens and that's exciting. Uh so, uh >> we we had somebody asked us a a few a few weeks ago about like aliens and the Bible and I dove into some stuff. You know, there's that stupid show on uh History Channel called Ancient Aliens, which was a spin-off because they like they kept doing like >> shows about the the pyramids or whatever, and this dude with this with this crazy hair would come on and be like, >> "It was it had to be aliens because we didn't have the technology to make these things and blah blah blah." and everybody apparently he was people glombmed on to that and him and uh and anyway now it's its own show and it has like 200 episodes or something crazy like that. Um >> okay, >> but but a bunch of it is to like is about the Bible and uh and aliens. So uh let's dive into that, shall we? >> Yeah. And I want I want to start uh by talking about somebody who th this is also depressing uh that somebody sold millions and millions of copies of books promoting bizarre ancient alien conspiracy theories. >> Uh dude by the name of Zechariah Sitchin. Does that does that name ring any bells for you? >> I mean I've got his Wikipedia pulled up right here. >> Oh, you do? I I'm I'm I'm all over Zechariah. Also a little bit uh ironic that Ze that his name is Zechariah considering that's a that is >> well one one of the texts that we're going to look at is Zechariah. Yeah. But he uh he published a book in 1976. He he claims to have uh learned Sumerian. Um autodidact like I'm that's great if you if you taught yourself a language like that. But based on his arguments, he either didn't learn any discipline and didn't learn any method and didn't learn any theory or didn't really learn Sumerian that well. >> But he wrote a book uh published a book in 1976 called the 12th planet. >> And the idea is basically that we had more planets in our solar system long long ago. And one of them was called Nibiru. >> Mhm. And this planet is like outside Neptune or something like that. And it passes close by Earth every 3,600 years. And um there was a time when it collided with another planet called Tiiamat. And the idea is that the ancient Sumerian texts that talk about these gods are actually astronomical um metaphors and and narratives and things like that. So, Tiiamat was an actual planet. The collision resulted in, if if I remember my 12th planet lore correctly, resulted in the creation of Earth. And about 450,000 years ago, the extraterrestrials from Nibiru were they had worn out their atmosphere >> and they came to Earth in order to uh get gold because they could aerosolize the gold and that could become kind of an artificial atmosphere that would help them. >> Why? Is it always that that like they go after whatever >> it's because everybody's borrowing from space balls. Um it's all about >> you're going to be in trouble cuz we're going to steal your air. >> I just feel like I feel like that you choose gold just because we sort of inexplicably still value gold. >> Yeah. >> Uh even though it's not really, you know, it's just shiny metal. >> Yeah. >> But um but apparently it's also good for turning into air. Okay. Yeah, it's good for what alils you or for what alils the anunnaki anyway. So, so Anunnaki, that is a word that uh that we have in some of these ancient texts. Uh that is is really just a class of deity. >> But for Sitchin, these are to be identified with >> uh the uh Nephilim, I believe. >> Okay. So, so we're we're we're making a connection between >> ancient >> Sumerian text and the Bible. Yes. And so this is >> wait Sumerian text and the Bible and extraterrestrial uh life forms. >> So this is an even more expanded scope of univocality, right? >> Where it's it's all talking about the same reality, right? >> Uh and the the key is to uh is to get it all together. And the Anunnaki needed people to work the minds. And so they created uh through genetic engineering of some kind, humanity. >> Uh and so this is and there was some kind of homminid race that was on Earth. Uh something went on uh under the cover of darkness that resulted in uh the humanity. And so uh the Anunnaki DNA ends up uh in humanity. So h and and somehow somehow this resulted in like eight more books that where he further fleshes out this theory of the Anunnaki/nephilim and genetic engineering of humanity and all of this stuff and sold millions of copies of this book. So >> can I just say one of the things that I like about this theory that makes me that at least you know as someone who has read some I have not studied astrophysics I have read about astrophysics I've learned a lot about astrophysics but certainly I am I am no scholar of astrophysics >> but you're a scholar of dionetics right is that >> yes 100% that but we we'll get into that in another episode but uh I like that his thing wasn't interstellar or intergalactic. His aliens were at least >> intergalactic. Yes, >> at least from our solar system, and that puts me at ease a little bit cuz the the travel possibilities it it makes it that much more plausible, at least physics-wise. >> So, I appreciate that about it. And and unfortunately there are a lot of people on social media who are sharing videos, most of them recorded in the 80s and 90s where people are actually taking these ideas and running with them >> and going on TV and talking about how oh you know Elohim is plural and and that means it was the gods who created the heavens and the earth. And they and they said replenish. What does replenish mean? It means to fill again. It means it was >> doesn't which >> it was already plenished and then they replenished it. >> Yes. Um which is so so misguided. But anyway, that's an example of uh of one person's uh very fcooned imagination >> uh just coming up with all kinds of ways to read aliens into the Bible. But right, >> let's look at some other ways that people have found >> Yeah. >> negotiated uh aliens into the Bible. And I think one of the most >> common ones, one of uh the most famous is to be found in >> Ezekiel's vision. This is Ezekiel 1. Uh verse 4, I think, is where uh we ought to start. I'm going to read a little bit of this and then uh we'll like there are 25 verses that that make up the kind of alien part of this, but but we'll just um kind of get a little bit into it and and the thing you have to understand is some of you are like just read the damn passage. Um, but the thing you have to understand is this is kind of like the book of Revelation where it's like and their their, you know, breastplates were multicolored and like fire and they had the heads of lions and their tails were like scorpion like and people are like well that's how an ancient person would describe a tank. >> Yeah. >> Cuz they didn't know what a tank was. >> That's exactly like a a Apache helicopter if you think about it. >> Yeah. >> It's exactly like it. >> They wouldn't know what it is. they wouldn't be like, "Well, that that's an Apache." Um, so here we go. Ezekiel 1:4. As I looked, a stormy wind came out of the north. A great cloud with brightness around it and fire flashing forth continually. And in the middle of the fire, something like gleaming amber. So, if you're thinking the movie Independence Day, where the thing is coming through the the clouds, like that's kind of what I think some people imagine. >> Okay. >> In the middle of it was something like four living creatures. This was their appearance. They were of human form. Each had four faces and each of them had four wings. >> Okay, I'm going to just say that's not of human form. >> I'm just going to like if you if you can't tell me that they are human form and then but they have wings and four faces. That's just that's not how human form is. >> If the faces look human, then >> sure. And the wings do you have another thing to compare it to? Uh, >> just skip that. You don't have to say. Okay, fine. Go. Keep going. >> Their their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a cal's foot, and they sparkled like burnished bronze. >> Under their wings, on their four sides, they had human hands. And the four had their faces, and their wings thus. Their wings touched one another. Each of them moved straight ahead without turning as they moved. As for the appearance of their faces, the four had the face of a human being, the face of a lion. On the right side, the face of an ox on the left side and the face of an eagle. Such were their faces. Their wings were spread out above. Each creature had two wings, each of which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies. Each move straight ahead. Wherever the spirit would go, they went without turning as they went. In the middle of the living creatures, there was something that looked like burning coals of fire, like torches moving to and fro among the living creatures. The fire was bright and lightning issued from the fire. The living creatures darted to and fro like a flash of lightning. And I think we can just pause here for a little bit. But >> can I just say you've convinced me I believe they are aliens. >> I that description to me is sufficient to say yeah. We're talking about aliens. >> I don't know. I don't know why anyone's arguing with this. >> I mean, what else is it going to be? Do you have another category for this? Yes, we do. It's apocalyptic imagery, >> right? >> This is just and and a lot of people um you know, this is this is one of the things that convinces a lot of people that they were all on drugs back then. >> Like not every apocalyptic author was on drugs. Okay, they just >> it wouldn't hurt to come up with this kind of imagery. I think I think drugs is a perfectly reasonable explanation for what's happening here. >> Um and Ezekiel looks at the living creatures. Uh, I saw a wheel on the earth beside the living creatures, one for each of the four of them. And here's something that gets brought up. Um, you've heard of Dyson spheres, right? >> Yes. >> So, and there was a paper. >> You need to explain what it's a sphere, but like it's like a planet, but you live on the inside. It's hollow, right? Well, the idea is the the idea is this is a hypothesized uh if there were these advanced civilizations. Um >> what would what we would expect to see a lot more energy coming off these planets unless they created these things around the planets to absorb the energy. And that would explain why planets of certain mass, certain whatever might be giving off less energy than we expect them to give off. And there was a paper and and I'm sure I'm getting that very wrong. And anybody out there who is an expert in this is going to be like, I'm so disappointed in you, Dan. Me too. Me too. But there was a paper um published a bit ago that said if there is such a thing as Dyson spheres, here are some candidates. Here are some planets we've identified that would be giving off less energy than we would expect. And and it was just a hypothetical like hey if we imagine that these things ex exist these are a handful of planets that or a handful of uh celestial objects that that could be and and people took that to mean we've discovered Dyson spheres because people don't read right >> uh and so but >> can can we just say like for the sake just for everyone out there the concept of a Dyson sphere is impossible basically like you can't >> yeah you wouldn't have the materials you wouldn't have the uh it's just impossible. >> Yeah. >> But when we get to this part of Ezekiel, a lot of people are like that's what the Dyson sphere is. So um because they looked at artist renderings of what a Dyson sphere might look like. But >> as for the appearance of the wheels and their construction, their appearance was like the gleaming of barrel. And the four had the same form. Their construction being something like a wheel within a wheel. >> When they moved, they moved in any of the four directions without veering. As they moved, their rim their rims were tall and handsome. For the rims of all four were full of eyes all around. When the living creatures moved, the wheels moved beside them. And when the living creatures rose from the earth, the wheels rose. >> What you're saying is spaceship. That's exactly what you're saying. >> Spaceship. Yeah. And and actually, I tend to think that what Ezekiel is actually doing here is trying to say that God's throne was pimped. We pimped God's ride by mobilizing it, giving it these wheels that have to be fantastical >> and have to be grotesque and have to be all these things cuz it there's a throne on top of a platform on top of wheels. >> Yeah. >> So like the the idea >> which which if you just describe it like that, not that cool. But if it's like wheels within wheels and it's going like left, right, up and down, you don't know which way. >> Blinking eyes all over. And and the reason that I think Ezekiel doing is doing this, Ezekiel's sitting on the river in Babylon. They're exiled. They cannot access their god that is way back in the temple in Jerusalem that has been destroyed. Woe is us. What are we going to do? We cannot sing the song of Adonai in a foreign land. And suddenly they hear the rumbling of God's new ride because suddenly the throne which used to be stuck in the temple has now been pimped out. And God can just floor it over to Babylon and ride his throne on his platform on his wheels to come visit. >> Dude's got a new Cadillac and he is ready to rumble >> and it's got eyes all over it. And um >> so so I'm going to say I'm going to say something that sounds a little weird. It's not that far off to think of this as kind of like a flying saucer or a UFO because I think Ezekiel was probably thinking, "What if God's throne had wheels and could fly?" So I and and we're going to go back to the the Hebrew Bible. Um well, Ezekiel's in the Hebrew Bible, but we're going to go back to some imagery that is borrowed from Ball. Um, you know how we feel about Ball, but uh, Ball in the Ugaritic literature is the charioteer or the rider of the clouds. >> And this is a title that is taken over by Adonai, the God of Israel, becomes the charioteer, the rider of the clouds. And we see in Daniel coming, the son of man, you know, coming in clouds, riding the clouds. So for God to suddenly be like and just cruising over to Babylon in the clouds on this platform uh with these bizarre living wheels is just kind of like it makes sense. It that's what a stoner from >> from Judah exiled in Babylon would might come up with to try to mobilize God. I am going to say though uh I think God if that if your theory holds God took some extra stops before he came to Ezekiel because >> well you got to get some snacks and supplies >> because he came out of the north is what I'm saying verse four a stormy wind came out of the north. Oh yeah. >> So I obviously he like did a circle around did some stuff. >> When you come to Babylon, you've got to go up over and around because you can't just go straight across cuz that's all desert. >> Okay. >> And so that that's the fertile crescent >> is is a crescent. And so when when they left uh when you left Babylon to go get to Phoenicia, you went north. You followed the river. You went north and then you came down from the south. So, so yeah, that's not that's not too far off. Um, but but I think God is like, I got to get some beef jerky. I got to get some caffeine. >> I'm going to stop in and get a a Turkish coffee real quick and then I'm going to head over. I just think I I think what's funny about this is >> uh it's totally understandable to me to read all of this to to hear the things that you've mentioned about uh the Assyrians and the whatevers. >> Mhm. and to and then to say like I can't you can't refute the idea that like it's I'm not going to say it's a plausible explanation but it is a val you know the diff the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument this is a valid argument >> to say these were aliens and the and they had spacecraft and this is the best description that these guys could summon for that. >> Yeah. >> I've seen Stargate. I I know what's going on. >> It's like I'm I'm not defending it. I'm not excusing it. But I understand. >> But but like But like Yeah. As conspiracy theories go. >> Okay. You know, no, definitely not. But like Okay. So, here's here's another one that I'm even more entertained by because um I have I have heard this been described uh be described both as UFOs and as um uh fighter jets dropping bombs. >> Okay, >> so this is Zechariah 5. >> Mhm. >> And this is uh I'm I'm just going to jump right into it because there's no prepping for this. Again, I looked up and saw a flying scroll. And he said to me, "What do you see?" I answered, "I see a flying scroll. Its length is 20 cubits and its width is 10 cubits." And I'm googling real quick how uh 20 cubits is about 30 feet. Um then he said to me, 'This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole land. For everyone who has stolen as is forbidden on one side has gone unpunished, and everyone who has sworn falsely as is forbidden on the other side has gone unpunished. I have sent it out, said the Lord of Hosts, and it shall enter the house of the thief and the house of anyone who swears falsely by my name, and it shall abide in that house and consume it, both timber and stones. >> So, >> fly I got to say a flying scroll does not sound to me like a fighter jet. I don't know what these people are talking about. >> I I I think of you. Do you remember the meme where the guy finds the scroll of truth and then reads it and you know whatever inconvenient truth is on there and then he goes and chucks it. That's what I think of with the flying scroll. But it gets better. >> Then the angel who spoke with me came forward and said to me, "Look up and see what this is that is coming out." I said, "What is it?" He said, "This is a basket coming out." And he said, "This is their iniquity in the whole land." Then a leaden cover was lifted and there was a woman sitting in the basket and he said, "This is wickedness." So he thrust her back into the basket and pressed the leaden weight down on its mouth. Then I looked up and saw two women coming forward. The wind was in their wings. They had wings like the wings of a stork. And they lifted up the basket between earth and sky. Then I said to the angel who spoke with me, "Why are they taking the basket? Where, excuse me, are they taking the basket? He said to me, to the land of Shinar to build a house for it, and when this is prepared, they will set it down there on its base. And um and then we've got a a vision of chariots coming out from between two mountains with red horses, with black horses, with white horses, and with dappled gray horses. Uh, and so yeah, this this is more apocalyptic imagery, but but you can this is where people are like, it's a basket and there's somebody in the basket riding in the basket and it has a leaden roof. This is obviously an airplane or or a UFO or or something like that. Obviously, because you can't imagine the apocalyptic imagination of of ancient Judaism having any actual validity or legitimacy to it. Well, it's so funny because I, you know, just think about the life of people in that time period. If you're trying to describe, you know, a UFO or a uh an airplane or something, I don't think you go with basket. They had carts. They had they had a whole bunch of other things. You I don't think you start with a basket, >> to be honest. Or a scroll. A scroll is the worst thing to do. I just like >> I love the idea of a scroll. A flying scroll. Well, it it that's how you would describe a uh a flying carpet, right? >> Right. I did I did come up with one possible potential justification for saying that a flying scroll could look like uh it could could be fighter jets. The only thing I can think of is you know how sometimes when a fighter jet goes uh it goes through clouds or goes through whatever and it it it's got the little uh off off of the wings, it's got these swirls, >> the little vortex things. >> Little vortex things. That's kind of scrolly. That's like a scroll. Not really. I'm I'm stretching here. I'm trying to give these guys, but I >> I think Yeah, I think uh probably the most plausible thing uh is that we can that we can just say they were using metaphors. They were coming up with visual metaphors. >> Yeah. And we don't have to say that it it was actually a reference to any real thing. >> Yeah. They didn't have manga back then. They didn't have anime, right? They certainly didn't have Disney. They they needed an outlet for all these uh all this creativity and and they needed something that and and I think one of the main points of apocalyptic imagery is to be like bizarre. >> Yeah. because it kind of forces you to to think about this stuff and to kind of wonder what on earth is going on and it makes you dwell on it a little bit if you're taking it seriously and and I think that is part of the way that these were really speech acts. These were ways to achieve a goal and and the goal was to get these people to be like don't want that to happen. Um, and you know, so I guess I better uh shape up and and ship out or or something right or something. I I don't don't know what to say. >> Straighten up and fly right. >> Straighten up and fly right. Um, so that we don't have weird scrolls flying around. Um, >> right. >> Inhabiting and consuming houses. >> Uh, that's that is grotesque. That's bizarre. And that is what is intended to be achieved. This is why revelation people have spent so they've just wasted so many years trying to figure out what all these symbols mean to, you know, the 21st century. Nothing. >> It was just imagery. >> Imagery. Yeah. >> Let it do what it's what it's there to do. You don't have to Yeah. >> It's there to be scary. Just uh just let it just let it be scary. >> Yeah. >> Be scared. Dang it. >> Just be scared. You don't have to like think about what it means, just be scared about it. Uh, all right. Well, I think uh I I think that the the chances that there actually were ancient aliens are very low. Uh but but I don't think we've disproven it. >> But never zero. >> Never zero. I don't think we have disproven the idea even that these texts were influenced by the visitations of ancient aliens. >> Uh you know it could well be that that uh >> Nibiru >> Nibiru uh what what that Anunnaki from Nibiru >> uh made Adam and Eve. So >> and they're they're coming back one day. >> I don't know when the last 3600 year cycle began, but I mean, we got to It's got to be sometime soon, right? It's got to be happening any minute now. >> You would think. Yeah. Maybe maybe next October 23rd. >> Boy, are they going to be disappointed when they see what we've been up to for 3,000 years. They are they are going to be so mad. Uh so, there you go. All right. Well, friends, uh you know, the best people who listen to this show are the ones who give us their money. Uh I'm just going to point that out. uh only if you can, but if you can uh it's super helpful for us if you can go to patreon.com/data overdogma and uh and you know give at whatever level you can. We give back in the form of an early and adfree version of the show every week as well as uh if you're at the $10 a month level or higher, you can go as high as you want. Um, but if you're at the $10 level or a month or higher, you can get the uh the afterparty, which is bonus content that we do for you every week. Uh, so please feel feel free uh feel encouraged to go and do that if it's possible for you. Uh, thanks so much to Roger Gaudy for editing the show and thanks to all of you for tuning in. We'll see you next week. Bye everybody. [Music], Should Wives Submit?, YouTube, 01k953cc4heqzq42fe8e1gq41w.