Maklelan Livestream - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Maklelan Livestream ![rw-book-cover](https://readwise-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/images/article0.00998d930354.png) 🔗 **Source:** [Maklelan Livestream](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxRxJpL8tZE) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical-criticism, livestream-discussion, religious-scholarship, hebrew-bible, new-testament, mormon-studies] > author: Dan McClellan > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxRxJpL8tZE > date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} > > # 🏷️ Title: Maklelan Livestream >  ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ## 📝 Summary - Biblical scholar Dan McClellan conducts a live Q&A session covering diverse topics from textual criticism to personal faith questions - Discusses methodological approaches to both biblical scholarship and Mormon history using critical academic methods - Addresses contemporary issues like rapture anxiety, biblical cosmology, and the relationship between scholarship and faith - Provides scholarly perspectives on disputed authorship, early Christian development, and ancient Near Eastern context - Maintains consistent application of critical methodology across different religious texts and traditions ## 📖 Main Content Dan McClellan hosted an interactive livestream primarily answering audience questions via Super Chat donations and Discord. The discussion ranged across multiple areas of biblical scholarship, early Christianity, Mormon studies, and personal methodology. ### Scholarly Methodology McClellan emphasized his consistent critical approach to all religious texts, whether biblical or Mormon sources. He advocates letting "the data lead where they lead" without predetermined theological outcomes. This methodology applies equally to studying the Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Book of Mormon, or church history. ### Biblical Authorship and Development Several questions addressed disputed authorship of biblical books. McClellan noted that among disputed Pauline letters, Second Thessalonians might be most likely authentic, though still probably not by Paul. For correctly attributed works, he suggested the Book of Revelation, noting no reason to doubt the author was named John. ### Early Christian Origins Discussion touched on baptism's consistent meaning across New Testament authors as an innovation on Jewish mikvah for sin forgiveness. McClellan referenced James McGrath's work on John the Baptist as providing good background on this development. ### Hebrew Bible and Ancient Context Questions about biblical cosmology elicited explanation of the ancient flat-earth model with crystalline dome separating waters above and below, standard until the Hellenistic period. On polygamy, he noted Hebrew Bible endorsement versus New Testament ambivalence, with definitive Jewish prohibition coming around 1000 CE. ### Contemporary Religious Issues McClellan addressed "rapture anxiety" as psychologically harmful, noting rapture beliefs are recent theological innovations not based on sound hermeneutics. He emphasized the rhetoric in texts like Luke 12:35 was meant for emotive response to situations that never materialized. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:03:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxRxJpL8tZE&t=192) Travel and Schedule Updates - Recently returned from Rome, kids out of school - No travel planned for about a month #### ⏱️ [00:08:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxRxJpL8tZE&t=525) Paul's Views on Celibacy vs Later Pastoral Epistles - Historical Paul expected imminent end times, advised against marriage/children - Later pseudonymous authors advocated for marriage and childbearing - Reflects changing eschatological expectations in early Christianity #### ⏱️ [00:15:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxRxJpL8tZE&t=930) Rapture Beliefs and Anxiety - Rapture belief fairly prevalent among US evangelicals - Not as significant outside US Christianity - Contributes to psychological anxiety, especially harmful for children - Based on poor hermeneutics rather than sound biblical interpretation #### ⏱️ [00:22:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxRxJpL8tZE&t=1335) Biblical Cosmology - Pre-Hellenistic model: flat disc earth surrounded by water - Crystalline dome separating waters above and below - Standard model until Greek influence introduced alternatives #### ⏱️ [00:28:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxRxJpL8tZE&t=1725) Polygamy in Biblical Texts - Hebrew Bible endorses polygamy - New Testament ambivalent, some opposition in Dead Sea Scrolls - Greco-Roman influence created discomfort with practice - Judaism prohibited it definitively around 1000 CE #### ⏱️ [00:35:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxRxJpL8tZE&t=2120) Jesus as Created Being - Most New Testament authors thought of Jesus as created - "Firstborn of creation" indicates created status - Precedes later Trinitarian sensitivities about calling Jesus created #### ⏱️ [00:42:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxRxJpL8tZE&t=2530) Consistent Methodology Across Traditions - Same critical approach to Mormon history and biblical texts - Data-driven conclusions regardless of theological implications - Upcoming "Mormonism in 5 Minutes" book demonstrates critical approach #### ⏱️ [00:48:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxRxJpL8tZE&t=2910) Secret Gospel of Mark - Probably a modern forgery by Morton Smith - Topic discussed with colleagues in Rome - Considering podcast episode with specialists #### ⏱️ [00:55:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxRxJpL8tZE&t=3345) Babylonian Exile and Divine Universalization - Cosmic sovereignty of Adonai earlier than geopolitical sovereignty - Post-exilic period saw universalization of geopolitical rule - References his published work on Psalm 82 ## 📚 References - James McGrath: "Christ Maker: A Life of John the Baptist" and "John of History, Baptist of Faith" - Pete Enns: "The Sin of Certainty" and "The Bible Tells Me So" - Andrew Tobolowski: "The Myth of the 12 Tribes of Israel" - Jason Staples: "The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism" - Claire White: "Introduction to the Cognitive Science of Religion" - Dan McClellan: "Adonai's Divine Images" (forthcoming audiobook) - Dan McClellan (ed.): "Mormonism in 5 Minutes" (September release) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase A biblical scholar conducted a wide-ranging live discussion touching on methodology, early Christian development, biblical cosmology, and contemporary faith issues. The conversation emphasized critical scholarly approaches that let evidence guide conclusions rather than predetermined theological positions. Topics ranged from technical questions about disputed biblical authorship to pastoral concerns about rapture anxiety, demonstrating how academic biblical scholarship can inform both scholarly discourse and practical religious concerns. ## 📰 Newsletter Biblical scholar Dan McClellan recently hosted an engaging livestream that showcased the breadth of contemporary biblical scholarship. From discussing ancient cosmology (yes, the Bible assumes a flat earth with a dome!) to addressing modern rapture anxiety, McClellan demonstrated how critical scholarship can illuminate both ancient texts and contemporary religious issues. His upcoming "Mormonism in 5 Minutes" collection promises 78 short essays applying the same rigorous methodology to Mormon history that he brings to biblical studies. Whether you're grappling with disputed Pauline authorship or wondering about polygamy in biblical times, this livestream offers a masterclass in letting the data lead where they will - a refreshing approach in our age of predetermined conclusions. ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Consider creating educational content series on biblical scholarship methodology for developer education parallels - Develop resources explaining critical thinking approaches applicable across technical and religious domains #### Community - Create beginner-friendly resources explaining scholarly consensus on biblical authorship - Develop materials addressing religious anxiety from academic perspectives #### WordPress - Document best practices for presenting complex academic content in accessible formats - Create templates for live Q&A sessions and community engagement ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Critical academic methodology can be consistently applied across different religious traditions without theological bias - Public engagement with biblical scholarship helps address harmful religious misconceptions - Livestream format enables effective scholarly communication with general audiences - Addressing rapture anxiety through historical context provides psychological relief - Consistent methodology across biblical and Mormon studies validates scholarly objectivity ## 🎯 Conclusion This livestream exemplifies how rigorous biblical scholarship can engage constructively with both academic questions and pastoral concerns. McClellan's consistent methodology across different religious traditions demonstrates scholarly integrity while his willingness to address contemporary anxieties shows scholarship's practical value. The wide-ranging discussion illustrates the interconnected nature of biblical studies, early Christian history, and contemporary religious practice. --- ## Full Transcript [00:03] All right. Hey everybody. I got a little [00:05] time on my hands and so I thought I [00:09] would uh come see what's going on. It's [00:11] been a bit since I've uh done a live [00:14] stream. Hope everybody is doing all [00:17] right. Let me just make sure I've got [00:19] this shared everywhere. I would like to [00:21] share it. [00:24] I think yeah, looks good. [00:31] Yep. So, what's going on everybody? Let [00:34] me Oh, man. My settings are all [00:38] off because I haven't been live in so [00:40] long. [00:51] Hi, Justin Brown 5195. I I have been [00:54] having a good week so far. I was in Rome [00:56] last week. got back on Friday nights. Uh [01:00] the my kids are out of school. Uh so [01:03] that's been nice. [01:06] And I don't have to [01:10] watch Gnostic informant video on you. [01:13] No, I'm good. Um I don't have to travel. [01:18] Probably don't have to travel for almost [01:21] exactly another month. So I get to be [01:24] home for a little bit. [01:33] Uh, hey Dan. I'm right. Isn't it funny [01:35] that Paul's letter tell to not have kids [01:38] or children, but there [01:41] are Christians that are against not [01:43] having children or abortion? Yeah, there [01:45] there are an awful lot of people who are [01:47] uh against that. But, you know, the [01:51] pastoral epistles kind of supersede [01:55] Paul's advocacy for celibacy in a lot of [01:58] ways. The historical Paul thought every [02:01] the world was going to come to an end [02:02] too soon for anybody to worry about [02:04] getting pregnant or having kids. Uh, and [02:06] then after it didn't come to an end and [02:08] Paul was long dead, then you had other [02:11] authors pretending to be Paul coming in [02:13] and saying, "No, no, women are saved in [02:15] childbirth. You should be having kids." [02:17] And all of that kind of stuff. [02:28] Uh, hey Dan. Quick question. Might be [02:30] worth a video. Did Jesus threaten people [02:31] with the whip in John 2:15? NRSVU [02:35] translates it implying it, whereas the [02:37] NRSV leaves it ambiguous. Thank you. Um, [02:40] I don't think the the language [02:44] suggests that. I I think it says uh that [02:48] he drove them out. Um [03:04] exeil [03:07] cast out, [03:10] to drive out, to expel. [03:14] Yeah, it it could it's probably [03:16] something like [03:18] Yeah, I suppose there that implies a [03:20] degree of a threat. Chase them out or [03:23] something like that. Uh that that [03:25] probably is going on under the surface. [03:27] How did you learn Spanish? I spent two [03:30] years living in Uruguay as uh a [03:33] proitizing missionary for the Church of [03:35] Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, I [03:37] learned Castiano. [03:41] Do you play Marvel Rivals by chance? I [03:44] don't. I don't really play video games. [03:45] Don't have much time for that anymore, [03:47] but I have a neighbor who is very very [03:50] into Marvel Rivals. [03:56] Thoughts on the gap theory from Genesis? [03:58] Uh, I think it's a silly attempt to to [04:00] try to read a bunch of stuff into the [04:03] text that isn't supported by by much of [04:06] anything at all. [04:11] The episode with Monty was fantastic. [04:13] Thank you for that. Well, thank you so [04:15] much. I appreciate that. And and yeah, [04:17] Monty's wonderful. We we knew we would [04:19] have a a fun discussion uh if we got her [04:22] on the show. [04:24] Uh Dennis, thanks for the the super [04:26] chat. How prevalent is rapture belief in [04:28] the US? I think it's it's fairly pre [04:30] prevalent. It's mainly evangelicals. [04:33] uh some Catholics who have an idea of uh [04:37] a rapture, most of non-American [04:40] Christianity kind of grew out of that a [04:42] bit ago. So, uh it is [04:46] uniquely an issue in the US. It's not [04:48] that it doesn't exist outside the US, [04:50] but it's not nearly as salient um uh [04:53] outside the uh the US. But yeah, there [04:56] there are an awful lot of Christians and [04:59] um in the US and over the last 50 years [05:02] or so, there have been a lot of books [05:03] that have been published that have sold [05:06] hundreds of thousands of copies that [05:08] have contributed to that. So, there are [05:10] lots of people running around with [05:11] rapture anxiety. [05:20] Uh Dan, you said you're not atheist, but [05:22] what about agnostic? Um [05:26] I would say that's closer, but I still [05:28] wouldn't identify as [05:30] um agnostic. [05:33] Tips for a beginner learning ancient [05:35] Hebrew. Uh read out loud as much as you [05:38] can. Um a little bit every day is [05:42] incredibly helpful. Uh, and then modern [05:45] Hebrew can be helpful for picking up uh, [05:48] reading fluency, pronunciation, and [05:51] maybe a little bit of vocab, but it can [05:53] also slow things down just because [05:55] there's also a lot of divergent vocab, [05:58] and the grammar and syntax is very [06:00] different in modern Hebrew. Uh, but [06:04] there are all kinds of of online classes [06:06] uh, you can take if you uh, if you want [06:09] to get better at Hebrew. In fact, I [06:12] offer one on my website, mlelen.org as [06:14] well. [06:16] Um, Josiah Shuet, hey Dan, greetings [06:18] from Gley. Hope it's smelling okay in [06:20] Gley. When I live there, it was a [06:22] problem. Is there a consistent [06:24] understanding of baptism in the NT or [06:26] does it change from author to author? I [06:28] think it stays fairly consistent. I [06:31] think um the idea is that this is an [06:36] innovation on the mikvah uh that it [06:39] initially was kind of a mutation that [06:42] was intended to uh be a ritual that [06:45] facilitated forgiveness of sins. Uh [06:48] James McGrath, a friend of mine, has has [06:50] written a couple of great books on [06:54] on John the Baptist. one called Christ [06:57] Maker, a life of John the Baptist, which [07:00] is a a shorter, more popularly oriented [07:03] one, and then a longer, more academic [07:05] one called John of History, Baptist of [07:08] Faith, the Quest for the Historical [07:10] Baptizer. And he talks quite a bit about [07:12] um [07:14] the purpose of baptism as we reconstruct [07:18] it with John the Baptist and how it [07:20] probably initially came into [07:21] Christianity and then was uh was adapted [07:25] enjoyed [07:44] the Rome shorts. Thank you. I'm I'm glad [07:47] to hear that. I I thought I would try uh [07:50] test that out a little bit and a lot of [07:52] folks seem to like it. So I I'm I'm glad [07:55] to hear that. [07:58] Uh thank you Darth Momo for the super [08:01] chat. Hey Dan, big fan. Well, thank you [08:02] so much. I appreciate it. What do you [08:04] think of the LDS Bible model? Rejecting [08:06] inherency and using living prophets to [08:07] set doctrine instead of the Bible says. [08:11] Somebody's going to be setting doctrine, [08:14] interpreting the text authoritatively [08:17] anyway. The Bible itself has no inherent [08:20] meaning. So somebody's going to be doing [08:22] that. [08:23] Uh, and and I think the traditions that [08:25] are more open about the Bible being [08:28] secondary or needing some kind of [08:31] intermediary to interpret it, I think [08:33] that's a more honest approach to what [08:36] has to go on in order to make meaning [08:38] with the text. Um, but in terms of like [08:42] theological accuracy or anything like [08:44] that, I that's not really a question for [08:47] um critical scholarship to answer. [08:59] Hi, Chrissy. Thanks for all the Greek [09:00] manuscript images. Absolutely. I'm I'm [09:02] glad we were able to track some of those [09:04] things down. And I just emailed you [09:07] about uh your contributions to the [09:10] Mormonism in five minutes volume. So So [09:13] check your email. We've got copy edits [09:15] uh for that. [09:19] Uh, thank you Eric Ryther 3666. I [09:23] appreciate it. [09:25] And um, Santo Aos is calling an [09:28] apologist I am arguing with about the [09:30] Bible fool and nave funny due to Codex [09:32] Vaticanis or mean? [09:35] I think it's a little of both. [09:39] Uh, Sha Shank Singh 1857, thank you so [09:42] much for the super chat. Hello from [09:44] India. I I hope you're staying cool down [09:46] there. Uh, how is X isn't a Christian [09:48] not an example of the no true Scotsman [09:50] fallacy? Also, thank you so much sending [09:52] a free [09:54] a copy of your book. Well, I'm glad it [09:57] arrived. Okay. And um not I think [10:01] frequently it is a no true Scotsman [10:02] fallacy. I I don't think in and of [10:04] itself it it is, but to the degree that [10:08] someone [10:10] suggests, oh, there uh you know, X is [10:12] not a Christian, well, so and so is a [10:16] Christian and does so and so or [10:18] whatever. And then they go, not a true [10:20] Christian or not a biblical Christian or [10:22] not a historical Christian or or [10:24] whatever. Uh I think that can be um a no [10:28] true Scotsman fallacy. But the primary [10:30] thing about the no true Scotsman fallacy [10:32] is an arbitrary shift in [10:36] um the scope of the claim. Uh which [10:40] doesn't always take place with those [10:42] claims. [10:44] um on my Oh, so for those of you who who [10:46] are not aware, on my live streams, I I [10:49] have a Discord that's associated with my [10:51] Patreon and uh folks at a certain level [10:55] get priority [10:57] um live stream attention. So, from my [11:00] Discord, Silent Manal says, "Hi, Dan. [11:02] Listen to your recent DoD episode with [11:04] Monty, and it touched on a question I've [11:06] had for you. Is that story of Jesus [11:08] telling his follower to pluck out their [11:09] eyes rather than look at women exactly [11:11] what it sounds like, or is there more to [11:12] it?" I have a friend who said it's about [11:14] sexual assault when I was arguing it's [11:17] about self-discipline in the face of [11:18] impropriy as defined by Christians of a [11:21] certain time period and outlook. I don't [11:24] know where someone would get the idea [11:26] that it's about sexual assault. Uh I [11:29] don't think the data make that a very [11:31] likely conclusion. Yeah, I think it is [11:33] is kind of a hyperbolic way uh of saying [11:37] you need to exercise more [11:39] self-discipline and and also saying it's [11:42] on you if you are lusting after women. [11:47] But thanks for a great question. [11:50] Um Becca, thank you so much for the [11:52] super chat. So Moses's Kushite wife, do [11:54] we think second wife or folding of two [11:56] stories? I don't have a dog in the [11:57] fight. Just wondering your thoughts. Um, [12:01] oh gosh, it's been a while since I've [12:03] I've looked at this passage, but I I I [12:07] think it's probably [12:09] a second wife. Um, [12:29] but let me uh let me try to track down. [12:34] Oh gosh. [12:42] I'm blanking on the the passage that [12:44] talks about this. [12:55] All right, give me just one second. [12:58] Got a rather disorganized set of [13:00] desktops here. [13:09] Oh, it's in numbers. That's why. [13:18] Okay. While they were at a Hazerro, [13:20] Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses [13:21] because of the Kushite woman whom he had [13:23] married, for he indeed had married a [13:25] Kushite woman. [13:27] Exodus 2:21. [13:30] But isn't the [13:33] daughter of Zapora in marriage [13:37] h [13:41] they said his lord spoken has not spoken [13:43] the woman suddenly [13:50] I'd have to look into that to see what [13:52] the argument is for uh what the source [13:55] critical argument is [13:59] because certainly there's a lot within [14:01] Exodus itself that is uh coming from [14:04] different sources and when we're all all [14:06] the way over in Numbers [14:09] that is uh it's even more likely but I [14:13] wonder if Zapora is she even mentioned [14:15] in numbers I don't think she is. [14:24] I wonder if [14:27] I think that might be it might just be a [14:30] reference to Zapora [14:38] because you do have um [14:42] cuz Kush is can be a reference to Midian [14:47] in some places. So, it's a little [14:48] inconsistent. I'd have to look more into [14:51] that to to get a um a more clear answer, [14:54] though. [15:05] Uh hey Dan, Steven Spielberg says his [15:07] Disclosure Day movie will make [15:08] Christians question everything about the [15:10] faith. Since Mormons apparently are not [15:12] Christian, are they safe from this new [15:14] movie? Uh yes. Uh Steven Spielberg [15:17] cannot hurt Mormons. [15:19] Uh, hey Dan, could you clarify what you [15:21] meant by atheist in your recent video? [15:22] It's annoying that no one seems to agree [15:24] on its definition. I don't think you can [15:26] really define uh atheist, but it's it's [15:30] a an identity. It's something that [15:33] people uh it's an identity people claim [15:36] and it's not one that I claim. So, [15:39] whatever the the [15:41] definition is, if if it's long as it's a [15:44] representative one, I probably am not [15:46] going to uh identify with it. But I and [15:50] I've talked in the past, I've got videos [15:52] where I talk about why there have been a [15:54] lot of different attempts to try to [15:56] define atheism in ways that are either [15:59] antagonistic towards atheism or [16:01] apologetic for atheism. And they're one [16:05] of the reasons that I I think we should [16:08] stop trying to define conceptual [16:10] categories. [16:14] Which of the disputed Pauline letters do [16:16] you think is most likely to have [16:18] actually been Paul? [16:24] I think if I if I had to choose one, [16:28] maybe second Thessalonians, [16:31] but yeah, I I I think it's most likely [16:34] not Paul. [16:38] Um, thanks for the super chat. Emperor [16:40] Beast Kaido, hello Dan. Does numbers [16:41] 3117 through 18 support PDF? Uh, I think [16:46] it certainly is pointing in the [16:50] direction of that. these are going to be [16:52] underage. Most of the the women are [16:56] going to be underage. So I don't think [16:58] that was a category that had much [17:01] significance uh in the ancient world. [17:04] But from our perspective, yeah, that [17:06] would be uh that would be something [17:11] that would be commanded basically. Uh [17:14] although I I think the another concern [17:16] is and probably a concern that sits [17:18] closer to the surface for me at least is [17:20] that it is commanding something akin to [17:23] sex slavery as well. [17:28] Um Squirreliosis 1498. Thank you so much [17:30] for the super chat. Is the Babylonian [17:32] exile the point where Adonai ceased to [17:33] be a parochial god fixed to a single [17:35] place and ascend a capital G godhood in [17:37] a chariot? [17:39] Uh kind of and kind of not. I I think [17:42] that uh I've I've published an article [17:44] on Psalm 82 where I argue that Psalm 82 [17:46] is trying to affect the universalization [17:48] of Adonai's [17:50] sociopolitical rule, geopolitical rule [17:54] uh in the post- exilic period. But I [17:58] think that in the pre-exilic period, you [18:00] have Adonai as uh sovereign [18:04] within the divine council. The nation of [18:07] Israel represents God as as the most [18:09] high within the divine council. So [18:11] there's cosmic sovereignty and there's [18:13] geopolitical sovereignty. And I think [18:15] the cosmic sovereignty, I think God is [18:18] capital G God much earlier [18:21] regarding cosmic sovereignty and not [18:24] until the post- exilic period as a [18:26] result of the Babylonian exile for [18:28] geopolitical sovereignty. [18:31] And it gets I think it can get a little [18:32] more complex than that as well. But but [18:34] that's the the the broadest brush I [18:37] would paint with. [18:42] Be unadulterated. Thank you so much for [18:43] the super chat. What is the consensus on [18:46] biblical cosmology as it relates to flat [18:48] disc earth and solid dome separating [18:50] waters above and below? [18:52] The consensus is prior to um the [18:54] Henistic period, the cosmological model [18:58] had the the earth as kind of a round [19:01] flat disc with mountains and lakes and [19:03] rivers and all that kind of stuff. uh [19:04] surrounded by water and this is uh in [19:08] Isaiah when it talks about the I think [19:10] it uses uh hug that is is like a a flat [19:14] disc surrounded by water and then there [19:17] would be a a kind of crystallin dome and [19:20] closing all of this and then the waters [19:23] of creation floated above that. I I [19:25] think that's about as as consistent as [19:27] rep and representative a cosmological [19:29] model as we can find until we get to the [19:32] helenistic period and and then we get [19:34] different models that are coming into [19:35] play. [19:40] Uh thank you for another super chat, [19:42] Darth Mama. What's the Bible say on [19:43] polygamy? Okay, bad, both. Uh the Hebrew [19:46] Bible endorses it. The New Testament [19:49] doesn't say much about it, although I [19:52] think we could probably infer that it's [19:55] not the biggest fan of it based on [19:57] things like uh some one or two comments [20:01] in in Dead Sea Scroll text that suggest [20:03] an opposition to it. Uh some other [20:06] positions on that are a little more [20:09] aesthetic, that are a little more uh [20:12] leaning in the direction of celibacy. [20:14] And so obviously just marriage in [20:16] general is a little less favorable to [20:18] those folks. Uh within early Judaism we [20:22] see some debates where u folks are a [20:25] little uncomfortable with it. Uh and and [20:27] the discomfort with polygamy probably as [20:29] a result of uh Greco Roman social moes [20:34] and and philosophical [20:36] um reasoning [20:39] uh that leads to some discomfort that [20:41] then gets picked up within Judaism and [20:43] Christianity. Judaism kind of decides, [20:45] well, the Bible endorses it, so we can't [20:48] really say anything against it until [20:51] around a th00and CE. I I think you get a [20:54] a kind of definitive, nope, it's no [20:57] good. We're not doing that anymore. Uh [20:59] but uh the New Testament, [21:02] like the the interpretations of of [21:05] passages like, oh, it must be the [21:06] husband of one wife and and that kind of [21:08] stuff, that's not really addressing [21:09] polygamy directly. Um, but I I think we [21:13] can infer if we've got to uh find a [21:17] balance between pro and and anti, I [21:21] think the New Testament, we probably [21:23] slightly favors an anti-oposition. But [21:27] it's inconsistent though. And if we look [21:30] outside the Bible, we can find some [21:32] groups within early Judaism that are uh [21:34] opposed to it. Thank you so much for uh [21:37] the I guess it's a super chat without a [21:40] a comment. Uh DJ Ethan Tilman. I [21:43] appreciate it. [21:46] The uh [21:49] no cakewalk. Thank you for the super [21:51] chat. The sleeping servants in Luke [21:53] 12:35 always troubled me greatly when I [21:55] believed. Do you have any illuminating [21:57] context for anyone who gets anxious? [22:02] Um [22:06] just a moment. [22:12] Uh I I would suggest that well one uh [22:15] this this sounds kind of like rapture [22:17] anxiety. Uh there's there's [22:20] the idea that somebody's going to, you [22:23] know, one day everybody's just going to [22:24] just be taken away who's righteous. Uh [22:28] that's that's not really what's going on [22:29] in Luke. Uh, and I think that [22:35] that's not uh what the authors had in [22:38] mind. And they're using a lot of [22:40] rhetoric that is intended to kind of u [22:44] result in an emotive uh reaction [22:48] response. And yeah, obviously it didn't [22:52] happen. Whatever Luke 12 is is [22:54] suggesting is is not something that [22:56] happened at any at any point in [22:57] antiquity. and and I think the shelf [22:59] life has run out on uh any such threats. [23:02] And in terms of of people who get [23:04] anxious, [23:06] um I that that I would suggest a a [23:10] psychologist or a psychiatrist is going [23:12] to be a lot more effective than I am. [23:15] But the idea of the rapture is a much [23:18] more recent u theological innovation [23:21] that isn't really based on sound [23:23] hermeneutics. And [23:25] uh yeah is is something that people have [23:28] used to try to control behavior and [23:31] unfortunately when you drill that into [23:34] people who are growing up who are [23:35] children uh that becomes part of the [23:38] foundation of their worldview and can [23:39] cause an awful lot of damage. [23:43] Are you uh Bombadil [23:45] from my Discord asks, "Are you familiar [23:48] with Noah Van Skyver's graphic [23:50] biography, Joseph Smith and the [23:52] Mormons?" I don't think I am. [23:58] Just a moment. Let me Joseph Smith and [24:01] the Mormons. [24:08] I like the style. [24:14] I'm not familiar with it, but I should [24:15] check it out. It looks [24:18] Oh, was it just published a few years [24:20] ago? I'll have to check it out. It looks [24:22] interesting. [24:29] Um, Laz 1811, thank you so much for the [24:31] super chat. Love your channel. What are [24:32] your thoughts on The Secret Gospel of [24:33] Mark being a forgery by Morton Smith? [24:35] What does the majority of academics [24:36] think? I I think there there are [24:40] certainly academics out there who think [24:41] it's not a forgery. I think probably on [24:44] balance it's it's a forgery. Uh this is [24:48] something that I was talking about with [24:50] uh some of my colleagues when I was in [24:51] Rome. I I might look up a couple of the [24:53] folks who who have uh published research [24:56] on that. See if I can get them on the [24:58] podcast to talk about it. But I am of [25:00] the opinion that it is um a forgery. [25:08] Uh Daniel [25:10] from my um Discord says, "I was [25:13] rewatching an old date over dogma [25:14] episode where you talked about Judges 4 [25:16] to 5 and when you got to Yael, you said [25:17] the name meant Adonai as but then I [25:19] looked it up and apparently Yael is [25:21] actually just yodin lammed simply means [25:24] Ibeck. The episode is almost two years [25:26] old, but I just wanted to let you know." [25:27] I was I was reminded of that very soon [25:30] after that episode was aired. So So yes, [25:33] I I am aware of that. It was it was [25:36] something that somebody brought up like [25:38] the same day I I recorded it and I was [25:40] like don't and I don't we probably [25:43] didn't even add anything to the show [25:45] notes but and thank you Hayden Tank for [25:48] uh for following up saying get his ass. [25:50] I appreciate that. [26:05] Um, hi Dan. Considering you're into very [26:07] geeky hobbies and also have a big [26:09] interest in religion, do you likewise [26:10] nerd out to fictional religions like [26:12] those of Warhammer 40k? Not really. Um, [26:18] I don't mainly because I don't really [26:21] know anything about Warhammer 40k. Uh, [26:25] but yeah, there there have been some [26:27] things that I've been like, "Oh, that's [26:28] pretty cool." or or uh you know Game of [26:31] Thrones when they talk about religion [26:32] and and there I'm I'm kind of like oh I [26:35] can see what they're getting at here. So [26:36] So I think some of that's interesting [26:38] but I don't uh you know it's not like a [26:41] hyperfixation of mine or anything like [26:42] that. [26:51] Uh Dan, knowing you're not an atheist, [26:53] what do you think about exorcism [26:54] testimonies in some figures like Father [26:56] Gabriel Gabriela Amort, who claims of [27:00] seeing people levitating and [27:01] miraculously healing sickness? Uh I [27:05] think the power of suggestion uh is [27:08] powerful. Uh I don't think there's an [27:11] awful lot of evidence for uh claims like [27:13] that. [27:16] Did Dr. Suad's monarchical [27:18] trinitarianism model make the general [27:20] view more palatable to you? In my [27:22] opinion, most viable view for those like [27:24] me who accept inspiration? I mean, I I [27:26] think it's still [27:28] it's still built on uh a presupposition [27:31] of univocality. I'm not I don't know the [27:34] data well enough to know [27:37] that his reconstruction is the best [27:40] reconstruction of the data. It is, from [27:43] everything I've seen, it's still a [27:45] minority view. [27:46] uh that's not my field though but but [27:49] from what I can see regarding that field [27:52] uh it's a view that is not considered to [27:55] be uh the best. [27:59] So um but but as I said in the in the [28:02] discussion [28:06] uh as I said in the discussion I I I [28:09] think that is a a more attractive model. [28:13] I think that that model from from where [28:15] I stand uh works a little better, but [28:19] yeah, I I that's not my field. [28:23] Hey Dan, who do you think would give a [28:24] better Sunday mass sermon, Daredevil or [28:26] Nightcrawler? I think Nightcrawler. I [28:28] think I mean [28:30] I think Daredevil would mainly whine, [28:32] but [28:35] certainly you could write an effective [28:38] Sunday mass sermon for for either of [28:41] them. [28:43] Is Dan only reading super chat [28:45] questions? Yes. Um, [28:49] if you're familiar with it, thoughts on [28:52] Apologia's [28:54] whoop [28:56] minimal witness hypothesis. [28:58] I'm I know I've seen it before. [29:03] I I think Paul Gia does a really good [29:05] job and and I think particularly in [29:08] engaging the [29:11] uh the minimal facts theory and showing [29:14] why it's so problematic, [29:18] but I couldn't tell you off the top of [29:19] my head what the minimal witness uh [29:21] hypothesis says. [29:35] Um, the UX design guy 823, thank you so [29:38] much for the super chat. What is your [29:40] scholarly opinion as to why some [29:41] passages of the NT are describing [29:43] Jesus/word as created as much as [29:45] Trinitarians may not like it, lol. Uh, I [29:48] think it's because they thought of [29:50] Jesus/theord as created. uh prior to [29:56] the developing sensitivity to referring [29:59] to Jesus as created. I mean, referring [30:02] to him as the the firstborn of of uh [30:05] creation [30:07] kind of indicates precisely that. And [30:10] you know, there are a lot of people who [30:11] argue with that, but but yeah, I think [30:13] Jesus was for the majority of New [30:15] Testament authors definitely thought of [30:17] as as a created being. [30:21] Uh, Gyraety66, thank you so much for the [30:23] super chat. Hey Dan, I had an idea for a [30:25] Bible translation where all the names [30:26] are the shortened forms. For example, [30:29] King Dave thoughts. Uh, I like it and I [30:32] think you should also translate h in [30:35] Hebrew as uh look here buddy. I think [30:40] that would fit well with the the [30:43] shortened form. [30:46] And then uh you know you would have the [30:49] response to um first and second Timothy [30:52] where it would go by Tim. [30:57] Been an atheist all my life but love [30:59] learning about [31:02] uh Michelle Ko uh been an atheist all my [31:05] Thank you so much for the super chat. Uh [31:07] love learning about the Bible and its [31:08] history. Do you have pets? I love cats. [31:10] Also love your t-shirts. Keep it up. [31:12] Thank you so much. I I grew up with a [31:14] cat named Sylvester and I got hit by a [31:16] car one day which was which was very [31:18] tragic particularly for my sister who [31:19] had to watch it happen. But uh I also [31:22] had a dog named um Buddy uh that was a [31:28] what was Buddy? I think it was a he was [31:31] a yellow lab. Now I have two dogs. Uh I [31:34] have a labberdoodle named B and I have a [31:39] golden doodle named Golden. And Bo is a [31:43] sweetie. Golden is an idiot. Um, a [31:46] beautiful idiot. [31:48] But thank you for the question. I, in [31:50] fact, I have a video or two where they [31:52] are in the video. So, yeah, you can see [31:56] my pets uh, if you look closely. [31:59] Um, LDS Morib, thank you so much for the [32:02] super chat. With everything that is [32:04] going on with Israel, Gaza, and Iran, [32:06] can you suggest some reading material [32:07] that sheds light on how, why, or why not [32:09] Israel is the Lord's chosen people? Um, [32:13] I [32:16] I'm trying to think of something that [32:17] would be rather academic and and I'm not [32:20] coming up with a ton of stuff, but there [32:22] but there's a an awful lot about the [32:26] there's an awful lot of literature from [32:29] folks like [32:30] um Tobalowski and well, hang on. [32:37] uh if you look in a lot of critical [32:39] biblical scholarship about the [32:41] development of of Israelites and then [32:44] Judeian identity, you'll see that [32:48] uh there's not really a lot of support [32:49] for the notion that there there's any [32:51] kind of supernatural minations or design [32:54] behind um any of this. And a couple of [32:58] books that I think are very good um [33:00] talking about the development of the [33:02] notion of Israel as as a single family [33:04] as 12 tribes. Uh Andrew Tobolowski's the [33:07] myth of the 12 tribes of Israel is a [33:09] good one. And then Jason Staples the [33:12] idea of Israel in second temple Judaism [33:15] is a good discussion of as well. But uh [33:19] reading that scholarship will kind of um [33:23] give you a [33:26] a perspective on the development of [33:29] Israelite identity that that makes clear [33:32] there's there's nothing about this [33:34] nation that is supernaturally [33:36] orchestrated. [33:38] The data certainly don't support that. [33:40] When it comes to more contemporary [33:42] discussions of of Israeli identity, that [33:45] would be far enough a field of my [33:47] specialization that I wouldn't know [33:48] where to where to start with that. [33:54] Um, Joshua Corus 21108, thank you so [33:57] much for the super chat. Apologies if [33:58] you already addressed this in a vid. Do [34:00] you think the transfiguration is a [34:01] reworking of an ascension tradition? [34:06] I think it's uh I don't know about a [34:09] reworking of an ascension tradition. I [34:10] think it's related to an ascension [34:12] tradition. I I think it is probably uh [34:16] pulling a couple of different things [34:18] together related to [34:22] uh divonization [34:24] related to some Greor Roman ideas uh [34:27] about theophanes and things like that. [34:30] So, I don't know about a full reworking, [34:33] but I think there is an ascension [34:36] motif that is in the background, but I [34:38] don't think it's the the primary thing [34:41] that it's uh that they're working with. [34:43] There was an episode of the data [34:44] overdogma podcast where we talked about [34:47] the transfiguration in more detail from [34:50] not too long ago. [34:54] Are there any books of the Bible other [34:55] than Paul's letters that you or fellow [34:57] scholars believe that are correct in the [35:00] names attributed to them? Probably the [35:03] book of Revelation probably. We have no [35:05] reason to doubt that whoever wrote it [35:08] was named John. [35:11] Oh, I'm clipping my mic. Might want to [35:13] take the gain down a bit. Okay. [35:21] Okay. Hopefully that's a little better. [35:27] Um, that that's the only one I can think [35:29] of off the top of my head. I mean, there [35:32] are scholars who think that, you know, [35:34] like the letter of James was written by [35:36] somebody named James. I don't think [35:37] that's the the majority view, though. [35:40] Dan, did you happen to hear you all Noah [35:42] Harrari on the Ezra Klein show last [35:44] week? I did not. [35:56] Um, totally real catgirl. Thank you so [35:57] much for the super chat. Would you [35:58] rather fight 100 tiny genuine biblical [36:00] scholars or one massive apologist? [36:05] Um, because my rhetorical goal would be [36:08] to combat the spread of misinformation. [36:10] I would rather fight the one massive [36:11] apologist and contribute to the [36:14] lessening of misinformation. [36:19] Uh B. Jackson 12356. Thank you so much [36:21] for the super chat. What would you say [36:23] to the idea that you need to be filled [36:24] with the Holy Spirit to truly understand [36:25] the scriptures? John 16:14. I would say [36:27] that's a dogma that is not supported by [36:30] any data and it is primarily used as [36:33] rhetorical prophylaxis for somebody's [36:35] own interpretations and their own [36:37] concept of authority and all that kind [36:39] of stuff when they cannot actually [36:40] directly engage competing [36:41] interpretations. [36:52] Germany here. Hello, Germany. It's been [36:54] a while since I've been in you. Well, [36:58] 3 years. Yes. Uh, when will we in [37:01] Germany have a translation of your [37:02] recent book and your other work, The [37:04] Bible says so. By the way, your [37:06] viewership under Muslim community is [37:08] huge, though. Uh, well, thank you for [37:10] letting me know. I am not in charge of [37:12] the translations. Uh there is a [37:14] Portuguese translation of the Bible says [37:16] so and I have I have asked a number of [37:18] times where we stand on translations [37:21] into other languages. My uh editor [37:24] evidently fields requests from [37:26] publishers working in other languages [37:28] and and I don't know what's going on [37:30] there. So um unfortunately I have pretty [37:34] much no say in that and right now very [37:37] little information about that. Uh, I [37:39] would love for it to be translated into [37:41] German, however, as well as into Spanish [37:43] and Italian and French and and other [37:46] languages, uh, too. So, I I hope that [37:49] happens. But right now, the only one uh, [37:52] in which it is already available in [37:54] translation is uh, Portuguese. [38:04] Um, JIB0104, [38:06] if I'm reading that right, or maybe [38:08] that's JLB0104. [38:10] Thank you so much for the super chat. [38:11] Hey Dan, greetings from Chapel Hill, [38:12] North Carolina. For those of us who have [38:15] deconstructed, what's the most [38:16] ideologically consistent way to hold on [38:18] to historical critical scholarship [38:20] alongside a meaningful faith? [38:24] Uh, that's that's not really my area of [38:27] expertise. There are um I think the [38:31] person who probably does the best at [38:33] trying to thread that needle is Pete [38:35] Ends uh who has written a handful of [38:38] books that have talked about this. I [38:40] think the the best ones are the sin of [38:43] certainty and the Bible tells me so. Uh [38:48] I think those two might be the best [38:50] books that are that are talking about [38:52] critical scholarship from a perspective [38:55] of faith. [38:57] Uh, so I would I would look to Pete [39:00] Enz's uh publications for for more on [39:03] that, [39:04] but thank you for the question. It's [39:05] it's one I get frequently and and [39:07] usually what I do is just punt to to [39:10] Pete. [39:12] Um, Salty Tom Baseball, thank you so [39:13] much for the super chat, Dan. I can't [39:14] tell you how much I appreciate your [39:16] content. Well, I appreciate the very [39:17] kind words. Uh, faith promoting rumors [39:19] around faith does more harm than good. I [39:21] agree. uh which is why I uh try to speak [39:26] up about those whenever they're being [39:28] spread far and wide. [39:35] Uh macaroon noodles, thank you so much [39:37] for the super chat. What are the [39:38] similarities and differences of your [39:40] approach to Mormon church history versus [39:41] the Bible? How do you square that with [39:43] your beliefs? Uh I don't talk about how [39:45] I I square anything for a few different [39:48] reasons, but I would say my approach is [39:51] the same. uh I approach things [39:53] critically and I let the data lead where [39:56] they lead and I am not bothered by [40:00] whatever conclusions I arrive at whether [40:03] it has to do with the Bible or the Book [40:04] of Mormon or church history. Uh and I've [40:07] got a book that will be released in [40:09] September that I edited called um [40:11] Mormonism in 5 minutes. uh that is a [40:15] will be a collection of like 78 I think [40:18] 78 essays each of them uh fairly short [40:22] intended to be read in 5 minutes or less [40:25] the and everyone is answering a question [40:27] that one might expect to hear about a [40:29] tradition uh a religious tradition and [40:32] so all of the essays are are all about [40:34] Mormonism but I think most almost all [40:36] the essays in that volume are good [40:38] examples of um the critical approach to [40:43] the Mormon church and its history that [40:46] very similar to how I would approach it. [40:52] Hey Dan, to the best of your knowledge, [40:54] is there any mention of dinosaurs [40:55] anywhere in the Bible? Thanks. No. [41:00] And Job is not talking about dinosaurs. [41:02] Job is talking about two different [41:04] primordial mythical beasts. Uh, one of [41:08] them Behemoth, the other Leviathan. [41:13] Hi Shamgar's ox code. Yes, all is well. [41:17] Thank you. [41:19] Uh Ibex means IB is X. [41:28] Oh uh in summary, minimal witness says [41:31] that the rise of Christianity can be [41:32] explained with only two witnesses having [41:34] visions, Peter and Paul. So no actual [41:35] resurrection is required to explain the [41:37] facts. So I I think that I don't I don't [41:40] think that that hypothesis is necessary [41:43] to arrive at the conclusion that no [41:44] actual resurrection is required. Uh I [41:47] think that those are probably the two [41:50] people Peter and Paul who who have the [41:53] best who whose visions we can we can um [41:59] most firmly conclude they probably uh [42:03] talked about publicly. [42:05] Trying to think. Yeah, I I I mean it [42:08] makes sense and it's something that I [42:10] agree with that uh the catalyst for [42:15] ideas about resurrection were just [42:17] reportage about somebody claiming to [42:19] have had a vision which could have been [42:21] just somebody had a dream, could have [42:23] been somebody saw somebody across the uh [42:27] you know the agurah and was like is that [42:29] Jesus? That looks like Jesus and then [42:31] started telling people he saw Jesus. uh [42:33] could be a lot of different things that [42:35] could contribute to the development of [42:38] of the notion that oh the resurrected [42:40] Jesus appeared to someone. [42:45] Uh Jonas 6:14, thank you so much for the [42:48] super chat. Do you think John 6 54-55 is [42:50] meant to be about communion/ukarist [42:53] Lord's supper? What are the alternative [42:56] interpretations? [42:57] Um let me pull that up real quick. [43:09] Luke, no. John, learn to spell [43:12] accordance. [43:15] Your ancestors ate the mana in the [43:17] wilderness and they died. This is the [43:19] bread that comes down from heaven so [43:20] that one may eat of it [43:25] um [43:26] and not die. I am the living bread that [43:28] came down from heaven. Whoever eats of [43:31] this bread will live forever. And the [43:33] bread that I will give for the life of [43:35] the world is my flesh. Those who eat my [43:37] flesh and drink my blood have eternal [43:39] life, and I'll raise them up in the last [43:40] day. For my flesh is true food and my [43:42] blood is true drink. Yeah, I think that [43:44] is that is a reference to uh the [43:46] Eucharist. [43:48] I mean I alternative explanations maybe [43:52] it's a it's a very developed um kind of [43:56] elaboration on the idea of Jesus as as [43:59] living water. Uh but I don't see any [44:02] reason to um sidestep or avoid the [44:06] conclusion that yeah this is this is [44:07] talking about uh the eukarist in [44:10] whatever form it existed toward the end [44:12] of the first century CE. [44:15] Uh, Daniel from my Discord says, "Do you [44:18] ever get annoyed that you have to repeat [44:19] yourself and use the same phrases when [44:21] responding to commonly used apologetics? [44:22] I know you're annoyed at the apologetics [44:24] itself, but annoyed at having to keep [44:25] making videos about it." Um, there not [44:29] really, because there are a couple of [44:30] things that h constantly repeating [44:32] myself does. One, it makes it so it's [44:35] much easier to recall and I can repeat [44:38] things and I can I can get a lot of [44:40] detailed information out [44:42] extemporaneously because I've said it so [44:44] many times. So, it makes it much makes [44:46] my work much more efficient. And then [44:48] also, I would say it's job security. I [44:51] know the problem's not going away. Uh I [44:53] know that I'm always going to have grist [44:56] for the social media mill. Uh and so I [44:59] never have to worry about running out of [45:02] uh stuff to talk about and um you know, [45:05] running out of of income and not being [45:08] able to put food on the table anymore. [45:10] So, the apologists are are making my [45:12] work a lot easier in that regard. [45:16] Uh, Shamgarzox code. Hey Dan, is there [45:18] any recent OT scholarship that you are [45:19] aware of that may be interesting to [45:21] share? Uh, just a few months ago, I was [45:24] I gave the keynote at Bartman's new [45:26] insights into the Hebrew Bible [45:29] conference, which is a um a conference [45:31] that gathers a bunch of scholars to talk [45:33] about the research they're working on [45:34] that is intended for consumption by a a [45:39] general audience. So, it's not [45:42] technical, it's not jargony. Uh, I would [45:44] I would look to that for a lot of cool [45:48] uh new insights what people are talking [45:50] about right now. Um, there there's a man [45:53] there's there's too much going on to be [45:55] able to focus on um on one thing, but [46:01] oh gosh. [46:05] Yeah, there there's a lot going on right [46:08] now. I'm I'm interested in [46:12] um [46:14] embodiment, God's body. I'm interested [46:17] in uh approaches to Septuagent, [46:20] Septuagent translation. I'm interested [46:22] in cognitive science over religion [46:24] approaches to the Hebrew Bible. Uh but [46:27] yeah, there's there's so much going on, [46:29] it's hard to pick out one thing. [46:34] Um Sandy Psych, thank you so much for [46:36] the super chat. Hi Dan. Your videos have [46:38] been so helpful to me, especially the [46:39] explanation from cognitive sciences. I'm [46:41] really curious if you have ever referred [46:43] if you have ever been referred to as a [46:45] scriptoran at church uh occasionally [46:49] um by people who don't really know the [46:52] lingo very well. Uh but yeah, I've I've [46:54] been referred to that way. [47:09] Uh, hey Dan. What do you think about the [47:10] wild theories that some of the angelic [47:12] encounters of old are really just aliens [47:16] travelers? Um, [47:18] silliness. I don't think there's any [47:20] reason to uh to take those seriously. [47:24] There are dinosaurs in the Bible. Birds [47:26] are dinosaurs. [47:32] If if you want to [47:35] if you want to take it there. Yeah, [47:36] sure. [47:39] Dan needs to make an illuminated [47:41] manuscript as his next big project, says [47:43] Hayden Tank. Uh, I I prefer to focus on [47:47] the on the scholarship rather than uh on [47:49] the arts and crafts. Not that I don't [47:52] appreciate and not that I was not [47:59] sorry, just a text. Um, not that that's [48:03] not something I uh have uh dedicated an [48:06] awful lot of time to, but [48:08] but no, I I don't think I will do an [48:10] illuminated manuscript anytime soon. [48:15] What are some things that didn't make it [48:17] into the Bible? Says so. The the thing [48:20] that once I hit submit on the manuscript [48:22] that I was like, ah, I should have put [48:24] that in there was uh women having [48:28] ecclesiastical authority. That was that [48:30] was the thing that that I regret not [48:32] putting in there. But I have a whole [48:34] list of things that could go into a [48:36] volume two if my publisher ever um [48:39] agrees to that. [48:42] Uh ZPTs, thank you so much for the super [48:44] chat. Are there any apologists you can [48:46] at least stomach or are there pursuits [48:48] completely anathema to scholarship? [48:51] uh TIA I there are some folks I think I [48:55] can get along with interpersonally a [48:59] little better than others. Uh but the [49:02] apologetic endeavor as a whole I I think [49:05] is is problematic. I I do think uh some [49:10] folks are are probably more careful [49:13] about it than others. Um, and now I'm [49:15] blanking on. Uh, Gavin Ortland, I think, [49:17] has done better than many other [49:20] apologists in the past, and I have [49:23] occasionally see him seen him make [49:25] videos where he's saying, "Hey, whoa, [49:27] uh, pull it back. You guys are taking it [49:29] a little too far and advocate for more [49:31] critical perspectives." And then I've [49:33] also seen him double down on on [49:34] problematic perspectives. So I think [49:37] ultimately apologetics is uh based on a [49:42] problematic methodology and on identity [49:45] politics in a way that I think is pretty [49:47] anathema to the academic project. [49:54] Um Survivalizer, thank you so much for [49:55] the super chat. Do you think John 8:44 [49:57] gives weight to Marcian and others [49:59] argument that Jesus was talking about a [50:01] separate father? [50:03] Um, let me remind myself precisely what [50:05] is said in there. You are are from your [50:07] father, the devil, and you choose to do [50:09] your father's desires. He was a murderer [50:11] from the beginning and does not stand in [50:12] truth because there is no truth in him. [50:14] When he lies, he speaks according to his [50:15] own nature, for he is a liar and a [50:16] father of lies. No, I don't I don't [50:18] think that is supportive of Marcian and [50:21] the the Gnostic notion that uh the [50:25] creator god is is evil. Um, [50:29] I think that's just hyperbole. [50:32] Uh, that the author is talking about the [50:36] the one you follow being the, you know, [50:40] your quote unquote father, your um, [50:43] metaphorical father. Dinosaurs fell off [50:45] the ark. That's damn straight, Sad. [50:48] Thank you so much. Uh, from the Discord, [50:50] Shamgarasco says, "If you could have a [50:52] discussion with one early church father, [50:54] who do you think you'd get along with [50:56] the best? Who do you think you'd beef [50:58] with the most? Edit. Also, is you see [51:00] really as dishonest as he comes across [51:01] to me or is that my bias? I think I [51:03] would love to talk with Origin. Um, I [51:07] would beef with Augustine the most [51:09] though. [51:11] Hang on just a second. Got to respond to [51:14] a text. [51:32] Um, [51:43] okay. [51:46] Okay. Where am I? Sorry, I'm I'm going [51:49] back and forth between a bunch of [51:50] different pages. How can I get your [51:53] books in audio book? Uh, you can find [51:55] the Bible says so anywhere you get audio [51:57] books for the most part. And then I am [52:00] once I have the time and get around to [52:02] it, I will be recording myself uh an [52:08] audio book of my monograph, Adonai's [52:11] Divine Images, but that's going to take [52:12] a while. But I did get permission from [52:15] the publisher to uh record that and then [52:18] freely distribute it. So, that will be [52:20] freely available as soon as I get around [52:22] to recording it. [52:29] Uh, Salty Tom Baseball, thank you so [52:31] much for another super chat. Curious [52:32] what you can tell us about the book of [52:33] Enoch. Do you think it will ever be [52:34] unearthed? Thanks. I mean, we have the [52:38] book of Enoch. It's in it's in pretty [52:40] late manuscripts. We have uh some uh we [52:44] have some Greek mainly. It's Ethiopic [52:48] uh an original copy. No, I don't think [52:50] anything from uh before the Dead Sea [52:53] Scrolls will ever be on Earth, but we do [52:55] have some Dead Sea Scroll fragments. Uh [52:57] and I've got a bunch of videos on the [52:59] Book of Enoch. [53:01] Um some scholars think it might have [53:03] come together contemporaneous with the [53:05] compilation of the Pentatuk. So the [53:07] traditions might have been parallel to [53:10] the tradition for instance that we find [53:11] in Genesis 6 or it could be an [53:14] alteration of the tradition that we find [53:16] in Genesis 6. But it is basically [53:21] building out this narrative uh in in [53:25] several different iterations because the [53:26] book of Enoch is really a collection of [53:28] five different books uh and and they're [53:31] telling a lot of the same stories over [53:32] again. But uh it is accounting for how [53:38] evil got into the world. And I think [53:40] around the time of the New Testament, [53:42] there were probably two [53:46] uh there were probably two parallel [53:49] ideas about how evil got into the world. [53:51] The Garden of Eden story and the um [53:54] fallen angel story from Enoch. And you [53:56] have authors in the New Testament that [54:00] um endorse the Enochic tradition. And [54:03] then I think it's uh like Paul who [54:06] really brings the uh the Adam and Eve [54:09] story to the four. [54:12] But thanks for a great question. Uh [54:19] uh Randomdy uh 655, thank you so much [54:22] for the question. What's your opinion of [54:24] The Last Temptation of Christ? It's a [54:26] cool movie. Um, I think [54:29] um, [54:31] William Defoe I I think probably got a [54:35] lot more flak than he deserves for for [54:37] being in that movie. Um, you know, it's [54:40] not incredibly historical, [54:44] but as a as a piece of art, yeah, it's [54:47] it's great. [54:49] Hang on just a second. [55:08] Um, IBN99, thanks so much for the super [55:10] chat. Hey Dan, have you seen comic [55:12] artist Simon Beasley's Illustrations of [55:14] the Bible? [55:16] It's great. [55:18] I have not, but I I have always liked [55:23] uh [55:25] and and I don't know I think he's [55:28] British. I don't know if it's Biffley or [55:29] Beastley. Um [55:35] okay, there we go. The Bible. [55:42] Oh yeah. [55:50] That's good stuff. [55:57] I'll have to look more into that. Thanks [55:59] you. Thank you for the recommendation. I [56:00] hadn't seen that stuff before. [56:07] All right. [56:14] What's the fit? Uh, that would be [56:21] Venom Lethal Protector. [56:32] U Michelle Ko, thank you so much for [56:34] another super chat. Been an atheist. All [56:37] Oh, I I answered this one already. Sorry [56:39] about that. Sorry for the repetition. [56:43] Um, Omnipotent Mango, thank you so much [56:45] for the super chat. Hi Dan, I sent an [56:46] email on the same topic that has more of [56:48] my reasoning if you're interested. [56:49] Anyway, do you think it's possible that [56:50] Adam and I didn't conflate with El, but [56:52] rather usurped his role? That's [56:54] something that has been discussed [56:57] uh particularly in light of like Psalm [56:59] 82. Um, [57:03] I I don't know that I find it incredibly [57:05] convincing. I I think it uh I think it [57:08] has to it treads on pretty thin ice. I [57:11] don't think there's an awful lot of data [57:13] that is that is supportive of it. Uh [57:18] that is you know if you look in the [57:19] Ugaritic literature you can kind of [57:21] reconstruct this idea that Bal usurps [57:25] the role of L. I don't know that we can [57:27] transfer that to the Hebrew Bible. And [57:29] there's so much [57:32] there are so many passages where Ellen [57:34] Adonai are are conflated. Now, you could [57:37] argue that that's kind of a spectrum [57:39] between the conflation and the [57:41] usurpation. [57:44] Um, but I would I would probably side a [57:46] little closer to the conflation side of [57:49] that spectrum just because the [57:50] conflating of two distinct deities was [57:53] something that went on quite frequently [57:55] in the ancient world. [57:58] But thank you for an interesting [57:59] question. [58:01] Uh thank you for the super chat. What is [58:02] something popular fiction and or media [58:04] gets consistently wrong about portraying [58:06] religious practice in the ancient or [58:07] fantasy world? [58:14] Um a lot. [58:19] I think [58:21] the idea that beliefs [58:25] sat so close to the surface when it came [58:27] to ritual and religious practice. Uh I [58:31] think the [58:33] the neglecting of [58:37] uh lived religion and and more domestic [58:39] religion [58:41] in favor of kind of state or official [58:45] religion. That's that's kind of a false [58:47] dichotomy in and of itself. But uh but I [58:50] think [58:52] there was a lot less central authority [58:56] um hierarchy in in ancient religious [59:00] practice. Uh but there was an awful lot. [59:04] But that's an interesting question. I'll [59:05] have to think about that. [59:08] Rational Theology podcast, thanks so [59:10] much for the super chat. Uh what's up [59:12] Dan? I'm curious to what extent you're [59:14] sympathetic to Blake Oscar's theology as [59:15] opposed to traditional folk LDS [59:18] theology. Um, I think I think it's [59:20] interesting. I I don't think that it's [59:22] any [59:25] uh don't think it's [59:28] any more appealing than traditional folk [59:30] LDS theology. I mean, there's so much [59:33] different LDS theology out there, [59:37] but I I would negotiate with it [59:40] academically in in very different ways. [59:42] But I also haven't read everything that [59:44] that um that Blake has has published on [59:47] that. [59:51] Uh John C. McGimpy 1825, thanks so much [59:53] for the super chat. Dan, is there a good [59:55] accessible academic source you'd [59:56] recommend for understanding the current [59:57] state of the cognitive psychology of [59:59] religion? Um, Claire White's [60:02] introduction to the cognitive science of [60:04] religion is the one that I would [60:07] recommend. [60:10] But if you want a real Where is it? [60:23] Hang on just a second. [60:43] Oh, this is annoying. Um, oh, it might [60:46] be up in my room. There's a [60:52] Hang on just a second. [60:59] Uh there's the newest issue of uh the [61:03] journal religion, brain and behavior [61:06] has a wonderful kind of round table [61:09] um on the current state of the cognitive [61:13] science of religion which is [61:16] what it has is a uh a target article [61:20] which is like the main article which is [61:22] a long uh academ IC article and then it [61:27] has dozens of shorter responses from [61:29] other scholars in the field and then it [61:31] has a response at the very end by the [61:33] author of the target article and the [61:35] target article is entitled toward an [61:37] embodied cognitive science of religion [61:40] and action evolution emergence and and [61:43] this was an attempt to try to say this [61:45] is where things stand right now. this is [61:47] where we should be going in the future. [61:49] And then there are dozens of responses [61:52] from other scholars saying I agree to [61:54] this degree or I disagree to that [61:57] degree. uh and then the um the author [62:00] comes back and responds in the end [62:02] because right now there's a lot of 4E or [62:04] even 5E cognition that is coming to the [62:09] four to try to resolve a lot of the [62:11] problems that have been identified with [62:13] some of the methodologies in the [62:15] cognitive science of religion. So, if [62:17] you could get a hand on [62:20] volume 16, issue two from this year, it [62:23] just came out a couple weeks ago, um, of [62:25] religion, brain, and behavior, that [62:27] would be the most upto-date, [62:30] uh, you could get. But, uh, yeah, Claire [62:34] White has published an introduction to [62:35] the cognitive science of religion that [62:37] is very good. And then also in that same [62:40] journal last year she uh she did uh she [62:44] published a target article called the [62:46] cognitive science of religion past [62:48] present and possible futures that was [62:51] the same where dozens of other scholars [62:53] responded and then she responded at the [62:55] end. So um that journal is where you're [62:58] going to find the most up-to-date [63:00] information but her introduction is [63:02] probably where you're going to find the [63:03] most accessible discussion. [63:14] When's your next meet and greet in Utah? [63:16] I'd come down from from BYU, Idaho for [63:19] that. I don't have one on the schedule, [63:21] but I have been talking with uh with my [63:24] podcast co-hosts about doing something [63:26] local. So, um stay tuned. We'll have [63:29] something [63:38] Uh, thank you for the super chat. Natty [63:40] Daddy998. Dan, weird question. What did [63:42] you think about Superman 2025 and some [63:44] of the canon violations? I wasn't upset [63:46] with the canon violations. I think [63:48] there's to there's a degree to which [63:50] movies are going to uh are going to do [63:52] that. Um, I I enjoyed it. I thought it [63:56] was a good ride. I hope there are fewer [63:58] canon violations in um in Supergirl [64:02] because um I've got that [64:06] I've got the the woman of tomorrow [64:09] um volume on my on my shelf somewhere. [64:13] It's my favorite uh Supergirl story [64:15] line, so I hope they stick fairly close [64:18] to that. I mean, they have Lobo in [64:19] there, which is already not from the [64:21] comic, but um I'm not mad about canon [64:24] violations too much. I think the the [64:26] time I got the most mad was when was [64:29] with the the Zack Snyder one with [64:32] Doomsday where they tried to do the [64:33] death of Superman and it was just so off [64:39] and I I couldn't stand that movie. [64:44] Um the UX design guy 23, thank you for [64:47] another super chat. Does Colossians 1:15 [64:49] Firstborn mean preeminence only? Um I [64:51] don't think so. I think it means first [64:54] in line. Uh, and [64:57] I I I think that's how the earliest [65:00] readers of that text or hearers of that [65:02] text would have understood it. [65:08] Uh, Tinkercraft, thanks so much for the [65:10] super chat. Hey Dan, how do some LDS [65:12] theologians and thinkers work through [65:13] Paul's argument concerning Torah [65:15] observance and belonging in Galatians? [65:21] um I don't think they work through it [65:23] very carefully. Now I I think there are [65:26] some LDS uh scholars who who probably [65:28] are are a lot more aware of what's going [65:30] on in the broader discourse uh around [65:34] these questions. And I think they're not [65:36] going to take a particularly LDS [65:38] approach to it. I think they're going to [65:39] try to adapt one of the more standard [65:43] models. Uh but I I don't think the [65:46] majority of LDS theologians uh have [65:48] thought very hard about it. Um and and [65:52] if they have, I have not seen uh [65:54] anything from them that that I find [65:57] particularly interesting. [66:09] Uh my kiddo 17 male started reading the [66:12] Bible. So, I got him the Bible says I [66:14] was a companion to keep things between [66:15] the rails. He loves it. Awesome. I'm I'm [66:17] glad to hear that. [66:19] Uh, I hope it is accessible for a [66:21] 17-year-old. [66:29] Do you think Jesus was a dog person or a [66:31] cat person? I would hope Jesus was a dog [66:35] person. [66:44] What's the best book of Job commentary [66:46] you recommend? [66:50] Um there I have not seen unfortunately [66:52] there there are not a ton of of Job [66:54] commentaries. I think there might be [66:56] some [66:58] coming out. [67:04] Um, [67:07] the most recent ones that I'm aware of, [67:09] there's one published uh Steven Vikio uh [67:12] published by Whiten Stock [67:17] from 2020, I think, is is one that I've [67:20] that I've read and appreciated. It has a [67:22] forward by Edward Greenstein, who's a [67:25] who's a really good uh job scholar. [67:31] I'm trying to look at commentaries. [67:32] There have not been a lot of recent [67:38] commentaries. Yeah, I I like what Edward [67:41] Greenstein published a translation in [67:44] 2019 that I think is decent. There's [67:47] kind of minimal commentary in there. Um, [67:53] but [67:57] yeah, I can't I can't think of anything [67:59] off the top of my head that has really [68:00] blown my hair back recently. If Hermana [68:04] comes out with one, I I think I'll I [68:07] will probably immediately say that [68:09] that's the one I would recommend, but I [68:11] don't even know if they're working on [68:12] one. [68:16] Uh, hi Dan. Thank you for all the work [68:18] you do. Thank you for the kind words. [68:20] Can you speak to your online biblical [68:21] Hebrew course for beginners and do you [68:24] teach a Greek language course as well? [68:26] Uh so the online biblical Hebrew course [68:27] I just I finished uh last month uh part [68:32] one but all the classes they're they [68:34] occur twice a week. Uh they're all [68:37] recorded so people who sign up can take [68:40] it live or asynchronously and then the [68:43] recordings remain available so anybody [68:44] can can purchase access to the class at [68:47] any time and and go through at their own [68:49] pace. And yes, it starts from scratch, [68:52] assuming no uh uh experience with Hebrew [68:55] whatsoever. Uh but it does move at a [68:57] pretty good clip. So you got to uh if [68:59] you are taking it live, you you got to [69:01] be um consistently doing the reading and [69:03] all that kind of stuff in order to keep [69:05] up. I'm I'm mulling over doing a a [69:08] biblical Greek course. I've had a number [69:11] of requests for that. Uh I've got to do [69:13] part two of my Hebrew course first, [69:15] though, which may happen at the end of [69:17] this year. But I'm thinking uh I'm [69:19] behind on um on my second book and so I [69:23] I think I have to make that a priority. [69:25] So I might do part two of Hebrew at the [69:27] beginning of next year and maybe I'll uh [69:30] Greek would be toward the end of next [69:31] year. Maybe. [69:35] Um thanks so much for the super chat. As [69:37] someone your age who became irreligious [69:39] early on and also of the rainbow [69:40] persuasion, super thanks for being that [69:42] middle-aged dad who defends the alphabet [69:44] soup gang. Excellent Ryan Miller [69:46] re-education. Thank you so much for for [69:48] the very kind words. And uh and yeah, [69:51] there I [69:53] there are kids in my neighborhood who uh [69:55] who need it. And so um definitely I'm uh [70:01] I'm a lot more aggressive about it in [70:03] person than than I am on um on social [70:06] media when when it gets problematic. [70:12] Uh and Senzari 12, thanks so much for [70:15] the super chat. Do you have any book [70:16] recommendations for an intro to [70:18] cognitive science of religion? Yes, [70:19] Claire Whites. An introduction to [70:21] cognitive science of religion is where I [70:23] would start. [70:25] Um, Survivor Series 7. Thanks so much. I [70:27] am a conservative Jew who views the [70:29] Hebrew Bible as a library of [70:30] history/tradition/culture, [70:32] etc. However, there are so many small [70:33] stories that exist in the Hebrew Bible. [70:36] Are they all just made up? um a lot of [70:39] the smaller ones. Yeah, I think we have [70:42] uh the Hebrew Bible is most historical [70:45] when it's speaking in broad terms about [70:48] largecale geopolitical events and and [70:52] characters and figures and things like [70:53] that. Certainly, there are some smaller [70:56] characters that are are going to be [70:57] historical. They're a little more [70:59] difficult for us to sus out, though. Uh [71:01] but I would say no, they're not all just [71:03] made up. [71:08] Uh, Fertiv Patak, good to see you. And [71:11] oh, hang on. Uh, let let me get to this [71:13] question and then I can see I've I've [71:15] missed uh I knew that Hayden was going [71:17] to comment on the job thing. Um, are [71:20] there any legit resources to look into [71:22] that explore connection between the [71:23] Asherim and the Manora? My contrude [71:25] hoodie is a great convo starter and I'd [71:27] love to know more Asher lore. Thanks. [71:30] Yes. [71:31] Um, and I have to [71:41] I have to remember who the scholar is [71:44] who writes about it. [71:49] There have been a few publications that [71:52] talk about Okay, so this is probably [71:55] going to be the best one. Joan Taylor [71:57] who's wonderful um she published in 1995 [72:01] a paper in the journal for the study of [72:03] the old testament the asher the manora [72:06] and the sacred tree [72:08] uh which I think does a really good job [72:11] of talking about it shows and and has a [72:13] bunch of illustrations including the [72:16] lisher which I think is the clearest [72:20] um most clearly excuse me depicts the [72:24] ash tree and something that we would [72:26] interpret as a manora. Um, and I've [72:29] talked about that in a few videos as [72:30] well. So, Joan Taylor from 1995 as the [72:33] the best article on that. [72:42] Uh, Mishna the Elder asked, "What do you [72:44] think of them?" Oh, that's right. Um, [72:46] dang it, I did it again. What do you [72:47] think of my Mymonity's notion of God in [72:49] the in the guide to the perplexed also [72:51] is quite radical explanation of the [72:53] creation within the arisatalian [72:54] approach. Um [72:57] I would say that [73:00] I think it is a very philosophical [73:02] approach that uh doesn't strike me as [73:04] having much to do with the biblical [73:06] representation. But there's a wonderful [73:08] book that I'm reviewing right now for [73:09] the journal journal for the study of [73:12] Judaism by David Gberg called the [73:13] evolution of Jewish monotheism. God is [73:15] one from antiquity to modernity uh which [73:18] talks at length about mymonades's [73:21] approach um to God and conceptualizing [73:26] God as one uh and and I think the as you [73:29] go through the book you can see how [73:31] desperate and different all the [73:33] different approaches are and he talks uh [73:35] about the role of of Aristotle as well. [73:38] So that's where I would go for for that. [73:40] But I I it's it's very clearly just a [73:43] straight philosophical take. Um [73:47] Sham Garzox [73:50] says from my Discord, uh Religion for [73:52] Breakfast has two great videos on why [73:54] fictional religions feel fake. So that's [73:56] from an older comment. Have you ever [73:58] read Lovecraft's work? And if so, what [74:00] are your thoughts on his mythology? [74:01] Aside from the misidentification of take [74:03] on Um I I haven't really read much of [74:06] Lovecraft. I've just kind of have [74:08] passively been exposed to to some of it. [74:11] Uh I I think it is it is very evocative [74:15] and I think it is powerful literarily [74:17] but but yeah um would probably say it it [74:22] uh feels fake. Uh CL Sea on Job is great [74:27] says Hayden Tank. He's done the first [74:28] half second half coming. [74:31] Um, [74:32] so yeah, Seao uh also wrote a popular [74:35] introduction of biblical Hebrew that a [74:37] lot of uh a lot of students have used. [74:39] Do I have Sea's commentary on Job? [74:46] I don't. [74:48] I have his commentary on Ecclesiastes, [74:52] but not Job. [74:56] Okay, I'm going to What time is it? It's [74:58] 4. I'm going to have to be going [74:59] shortly. Um, [75:04] Sadib says, "You keep saying that [75:05] there's no monotheism in the Bible, but [75:07] what's the scholarly consensus on that?" [75:09] I think the the scholarly consensus is [75:12] probably still that there's monotheism [75:14] somewhere, but I think that that [75:15] majority is dwindling. Um, and for se [75:19] for over a decade now, we've been having [75:21] a lot of scholars talk about, well, [75:22] should we get rid of the idea of [75:24] monotheism? I kind of like it. and and [75:27] trying to defend um keeping it on board. [75:30] Uh I I wrote the entry on monotheism [75:34] that is in the Oxford Research [75:35] Encyclopedia of Religion and I talk a [75:38] little bit more about that in there. But [75:40] I would probably say if not a majority, [75:43] probably a plurality of scholars would [75:45] still say there's monotheism in the [75:47] Bible, but I would quibble with how they [75:49] understand the concept of monotheism. [75:51] Okay. Sorry. Uh 620 Chavez, thanks so [75:53] much for the question. In Genesis when [75:55] it says man was made in God's image, [75:56] what does image mean? Is it physical [75:58] appearance or something else? Thanks for [76:00] everything. I think the idea is [76:02] something related to form or physical [76:04] appearance. I think the idea is that uh [76:06] is actually image in the sense of divine [76:09] image or idol [76:11] that humanity is made as the divine [76:14] image. Therefore, don't worship other [76:16] humanmade divine images. But it also is [76:19] closely related to ancient West Asian [76:21] ideas of a king as the image of the god. [76:25] And so it's kind of democratizing that [76:26] relationship to deity. So there's a [76:29] degree to which it's also talking about [76:32] uh representation and sovereignty and [76:34] things like that. So it's it's a mixed [76:36] bag. But um [76:39] let's see. Um Mcdow [76:45] Katherryn McDow wrote a book called The [76:46] Image of God in the Garden of Eden. [76:48] That's a really good discussion of [76:50] what's going on there. And then Steven [76:52] Herring, who was my Hebrew instructor at [76:53] Oxford, published a book called Divine [76:55] Substitution, Humanity is the image of [76:58] God in the Hebrew Bible. So um I and I [77:02] discuss that in my open access book, [77:04] Adonized Divine Images. [77:11] Uh, weirdo rock hyrax Evan, thank you so [77:13] much for the super chat. Why do people [77:15] harp on the Bible is not anti-gay, just [77:17] anti- stuff it entails by the but they [77:20] didn't understand logic. It also can't [77:22] have opinions about stars. Maybe we just [77:25] stop following ancient books. I would [77:27] agree that we stop following ancient [77:29] books. Um, and [77:33] the Bible's not anti-gay, just anti- [77:35] stuff it entails. Uh when I talk about [77:38] that, uh what I point out is that yes, [77:40] there are authors in in the Bible that [77:43] don't like certain acts of same-sex [77:45] intercourse. But when we say that's [77:48] anti-gay, what we're doing is we're [77:50] taking the scope that is being [77:52] addressed, the group of people being [77:54] condemned, and we're significantly [77:57] expanding it to include [78:00] people who may have never had any kind [78:03] of homosexual intercourse at all. um [78:06] we're condemning people who are very [78:08] clearly not being condemned in the text [78:10] and I think that is harmful [78:13] and that that kind of condemnation has [78:15] resulted in children taking their own [78:17] lives and it's just not in the text. So [78:20] I think it is important to parse what is [78:22] and is not actually being condemned in [78:25] there if you're going to take the text [78:27] as authoritative. Now again I would say [78:30] we already overrule the Bible's [78:32] authority on a bunch of stuff. Everybody [78:34] does. There are no exceptions. No, not [78:37] even you. And I don't mean you, weirdo, [78:39] rock, hierrox, Evan. I just mean if [78:41] anyone out there thinks they're the [78:42] exception, you're not. Um, [78:45] everybody is on their own. Everybody is [78:48] relying on the authority of the group to [78:51] which they adhere. The Bible has no [78:52] authority of its own. Uh, but they [78:55] didn't understand logic. I think is [78:57] important because [78:59] if we want to understand what they're [79:00] getting at, we should try to understand [79:02] their ration, their motivations, their [79:04] frameworks. And when we do that, what we [79:07] see is the things that stack up to [79:10] result in their condemnations are a [79:12] bunch of things that we know are not [79:13] true. And so that helps make the point [79:17] that what they're doing is outdated, is [79:20] harmful, is wrong. We know better now. [79:23] We have all the authority we need to [79:25] overrule them. So, let's just do that. [79:28] And I think critical to that is that [79:31] careful parsing of what precisely is [79:33] going on. What are they condemning? Why [79:35] are they condemning it? What is their [79:37] rationale? And how do they understand [79:39] it? [79:44] But thank you for the question. Um, [79:49] Alan Goldmith, DC1, thanks so much for [79:51] the super chat. What's going on with the [79:52] Exodus story where Adonai tries to kill [79:54] Moses only to relent after Zapora [79:56] circumcises her son and calls Moses her [79:58] bridegroom of blood? We don't know. Is [80:02] long story short, we imagine that [80:05] there's some kind of motif or tradition [80:08] about uh some kind of apotropeic [80:14] ritual like circumcision that wards off [80:16] the deities that are that are trying to [80:18] to get you. Um [80:22] we we we have no um [80:26] we have no direct witness to any such [80:28] tradition. Uh but most scholars would [80:30] would probably say [80:33] probably there was something some [80:35] tradition that was floating around that [80:37] they decided to adapt and have Adonai be [80:40] the aggressor, the divine aggressor. Um, [80:44] and and that's about as much as we can [80:46] say about that. But it it almost [80:48] certainly is kind of a scary stories to [80:51] tell in the dark about why you should [80:53] circumcise your kid cuz otherwise maybe [80:56] God's going to come and get you or [80:58] something like that. [81:00] I think there are probably a few stories [81:02] where that's ultimately what's going on. [81:07] Uh, Carl, thank you so much for the [81:10] super chat. Judges 21:25 ends, "In those [81:12] days there was no king in Israel." Do [81:13] you think the scholar wrote this to [81:15] justify Israel having a king? I think [81:17] that's a big part of it. Yes. Uh I think [81:19] this is Deuteronomistic editing going on [81:23] where um the Deuteronomist is advocating [81:27] for a king as a way to prevent these [81:30] kinds of, you know, everybody doing what [81:32] was right in their own eyes approach. [81:36] Uh Buck Perry 6479, thanks so much for [81:39] the question. How would you define [81:40] divine? I would not divi def define [81:43] divine because uh I don't think [81:44] conceptual categories can be uh [81:47] adequately defined. However, in my book, [81:50] I have a copy of it around here [81:51] somewhere. There it is. [81:56] In my book, Adonai's divine images, a [81:58] cognitive approach, chapter one is [82:03] what is a deity? And uh based on [82:06] cognitive linguistics, the cognitive [82:08] science of religion, I go through that [82:10] chapter and talk about this is what God [82:12] concepts are. This is where they came [82:13] from. This is what the texts indicate. [82:16] Here's what we can say. And and here is [82:19] how I conclude. [82:22] Uh [82:26] I'll just read the whole page. What this [82:28] chapter has argued is that concepts of [82:29] deity originate in intuitions about [82:31] unseen agency in the world around us. [82:33] These agents could be discussed within [82:35] social groups represented in material [82:37] media utilized by social institutions [82:39] deployed to explain unknown phenomena [82:41] and assigned features, biographies, and [82:43] character traits. At some point along [82:45] the way, social institutions would begin [82:47] to link ritual acts with interactions [82:49] with these agents. The ability of such [82:51] agents to covertly monitor others, to [82:53] provide special access to strategic [82:55] information, and to punish would have [82:57] provided the institutions with leverage [82:58] over a host of pro-social forces. The [83:01] increased use of material media to [83:02] presence the deities and ritual to [83:04] curate the relationship of individuals [83:06] to such agents would have also increased [83:09] the perception that those agents were [83:10] present and monitoring behavior. This [83:12] would increase discourse within the [83:14] society regarding those agents, further [83:16] embedding them in the prior expectations [83:18] of individuals, causing them to more [83:20] frequently appeal to them as [83:22] explanations for unknown and unexplained [83:24] events. It's probably at this point that [83:26] these agents could be called deities [83:27] according to the most representative use [83:29] of the term in English today. But there [83:31] is no analytically useful way to draw a [83:33] firm line of distinction between what is [83:35] and what is not a deity in an ancient [83:37] society. If it is important to have a [83:39] boundary, we must hope to identify those [83:42] drawn by the society itself. Even though [83:44] those boundaries will usually be fuzzy [83:46] and debated, as entangled as they will [83:48] so often be with the situational [83:50] structuring of values and power by [83:52] people and institutions, particularly [83:54] within large and complex societies, [83:57] because deities are not unique [83:58] categories that occur in nature, there [84:00] is no acid into which we can dip a text [84:03] to see if deity is present. They are [84:05] constructed and curated by individual [84:07] cognition, by cultural evolution, and by [84:09] social institutions. Which means the [84:11] most direct answer to the question posed [84:13] by the title of this chapter is rather [84:15] simple if a bit disappointing. A deity [84:17] is whatever a group says is a deity. [84:21] In the next chapter, I will apply the [84:23] theoretical framework developed above to [84:25] the material remains of first millennium [84:27] BC is Israel and Judah in order to see [84:29] what insights that framework can [84:31] generate regarding the use of material [84:32] media to presence divine agency and and [84:35] then I describe what the chapters after [84:37] that will do. So that's what I would say [84:39] about uh divine. [84:49] How did you feel about your discussion [84:50] with Glenn Scriber on his channel? Um I [84:54] I thought it was fine. Uh it was not [84:57] presented to me as a debate even though [84:59] it was then published on YouTube as a [85:00] debate. I did not come into it as a [85:02] debate. I did not prepare anything. Uh, [85:06] I hopefully will one day get to meet [85:09] Josh and and chat with him. I'm I will [85:12] read his book. I look forward to reading [85:14] his new book on the Trinity. And uh [85:17] yeah, I saw a lot of people uh [85:19] misunderstanding and misrepresenting uh [85:21] all three of us um afterwards. [85:25] But I did see somebody today actually on [85:28] Twitter, somebody shared something [85:33] with me, a writeup that they did on on [85:36] that discussion that I thought was [85:38] phenomenally [85:40] uh thoughtful and insightful. [85:42] And so let me just [85:50] yeah it was somebody named Nola Kennedy [85:56] uh published uh a discussion the trinity [85:58] is not an algebra problem but it isn't a [86:00] simple answer either a critical analysis [86:03] of the scrier suad mlelen conversation [86:05] on the historical coherence [86:07] philosophical defensibility and [86:09] scriptural grounding of trinitarian [86:10] doctrine. I thought that was a really [86:12] really good write up on on what went on. [86:15] Um, [86:18] so those that's how I felt. [86:27] Have you caught Spider Noir yet? Um, [86:30] I've watched I think two episodes. [86:32] Unfortunately, I was watching these [86:34] episodes while I was flying across the [86:37] Atlantic uh going to Rome. And so I was [86:42] very sleepy and didn't really [86:45] I didn't really uh retain much I don't [86:48] remember much uh of the episode. So I'll [86:51] I'll probably start them over again. [86:55] Uh NS Mike87, thanks so much for the [86:57] super chat. Uh and and I'm probably [86:59] going to have to start doing a lightning [87:01] round here shortly. Uh hi Dan, you often [87:05] focus on not just the text but also [87:07] making good arguments. So, have you ever [87:08] considered covering these techniques [87:09] themselves? Uh, I've I've thought about [87:12] it, but uh, a lot of my discussion would [87:15] be more intuitive than based on um on [87:18] scholarship and and study. So, I [87:21] probably need to go and do some more [87:23] research on that. But, yeah, I think [87:24] that would be that would be something [87:26] that that I think would be pretty [87:28] helpful. Uh, but yeah, I I would need to [87:31] bone up on on what exactly is going on [87:33] with um with debate and argumentation [87:36] and stuff like that. [87:39] Um, alpha alphabetto, thanks so much for [87:41] the super chat. I've seen Spanish [87:42] translations of Genesis 1 to the effect [87:44] of in the beginning when God created, is [87:46] that reading justifiable? Seems like [87:47] trying to force both a subordinate [87:49] clause and an absolute beginning. Thank [87:51] you. Thank you so much for the question. [87:52] I do think that is trying to force both [87:55] readings into the text. Uh, I I don't [87:58] think in the beginning works period or [88:01] is the best reading period. I think you [88:03] got to just say when God created. Um, [88:06] and there's a there was a Journal of [88:07] Biblical Literature article recently [88:09] that was published within the last few [88:11] months that tries to argue against that [88:13] reading, and I'm going to have to find [88:16] some way to respond to that um because I [88:19] I don't think it makes a strong case. [88:22] But thank you for the question. Uh, [88:24] Misha the Elder, thanks so much for uh [88:27] the super chat. [88:32] Um, and Peas is my name. Thank you. Just [88:36] wanted to say thanks. Well, well, thank [88:37] you so much. I appreciate it. And thanks [88:38] to you. [88:41] Uh, Ben von877, what are your thoughts [88:44] on the work being done on Marcian/Luke [88:46] by Drs. Jack Bull, Mark Bilby, and [88:48] Marcus Vincent over at the Petristica [88:51] channel? I haven't really looked into [88:54] that work, but uh I I think there's I I [88:57] look forward to seeing where people go [88:58] with this uh particularly related to uh [89:01] maybe Luke 1 and two being later [89:03] additions to the gospel based on um on [89:09] Marcian's movement. But yeah, I haven't [89:11] looked deep into it, but I'm I'm sure [89:13] it's uh it's good work. Uh but I I will [89:17] have to look into it, that's for sure. [89:20] um acoustic radiation. Thanks so much [89:22] for the super chat. In 1 Corinthians [89:23] 7:14, do you think Paul means that the [89:26] belief of a spouse just has a good [89:27] effect on their partner, or do you think [89:28] Paul believed in sanctification by the [89:31] belief of a spouse? Uh let me pull it up [89:35] real quick. [89:41] Oh, belief in the sense of of being a [89:43] spouse who is believing. For the [89:44] unbelieving husband is made holy through [89:45] his wife, and the unbelieving wife is [89:47] made holy through the brother. [89:48] Otherwise, your children would be [89:50] unclean, but as it is, they are holy. [89:53] Um, [89:55] yeah, I I think the idea is that [90:00] um you've got to have at least one [90:02] believer there. And part of what he's [90:04] arguing is um [90:07] that you you don't necessarily need to [90:09] divorce uh if there's one believer and [90:12] one non-believer. And and some people [90:14] have argued that [90:17] because there was an idea that that it [90:19] was fornication or adultery to stay [90:22] married to somebody who was not a [90:23] believer. And there are some people who [90:25] think that because Paul was saying it's [90:27] fine, it's no big deal. uh that when in [90:29] the book of revelation when it is saying [90:32] that uh there is somebody who is like [90:35] Jezebel who is um saying it's okay to [90:38] commit fornication that maybe they were [90:40] talking about Paul because [90:43] um a believer staying married to an [90:46] unbeliever could be referred to as [90:48] fornication. So, uh, yeah, I think the [90:52] idea is just trying to make a case that [90:55] it's okay to stay married because [90:57] there's a there's a sanctification going [90:59] on [91:01] as long as one of them is believing. And [91:03] that was controversial at the time. Uh, [91:06] but you you'd have to find a a Paul [91:08] scholar to get uh too much more detailed [91:10] than that. [91:13] Um, [91:15] S3 Rios, thank you so much for the [91:17] question. You rightly talk a lot about [91:19] the academic consensus on issues. I'm [91:20] interested if there are significant [91:21] instances where you break with the [91:23] consensus. Uh yeah, I I think I break [91:25] with a consensus when I talk about there [91:27] not being any monotheism anywhere in the [91:28] Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. I [91:30] think I break with a consensus when I [91:32] say that uh John, the Gospel of John [91:35] does not present Jesus as God anywhere. [91:39] Um I think those are a couple of [91:40] examples. Uh and and those are things I [91:43] talk about quite a bit. So, so on my [91:45] channel I generally uh I generally uh [91:49] kind of punt to the consensus view [91:51] unless it's something on which I myself [91:52] have published my own scholarship in [91:54] which case I will advocate for my own [91:57] position [91:58] uh and and there are times when that is [92:01] in a disagreement with the consensus. [92:04] Um Jolly Gooden, thank you so much for [92:06] the super chat. I love your content and [92:07] want to learn from other credible [92:09] scholars as well. What should I look for [92:10] in a Bible scholar to know they are [92:11] legit? And what is a sign someone is not [92:13] a reliable scholar? Um, I think when [92:17] scholars can take correction, when [92:19] scholars can be open and transparent [92:22] about their methodologies, about their [92:24] their biases, and I think when when [92:27] scholars prioritize the data, um, when [92:31] scholars are speaking to a specific [92:36] a specific faith group, particularly [92:40] their own faith group, uh, I think their [92:42] their work is going to be more biased. [92:48] And when [92:50] um scholars advocate for just [92:54] off-the-wall theories that that have no [92:56] relationship to what's going on in the [92:59] uh in the field at the time, that's a [93:02] red flag. And a also when scholars [93:08] spend an awful lot of time harping on [93:11] issues that are outside of their [93:13] specialization. [93:15] For instance, you might have an [93:17] Egyptologist [93:19] who does nothing but talk about the [93:22] Hebrew Bible or textual criticism of the [93:26] Hebrew Bible or source criticism of the [93:28] Hebrew Bible. And their PhD has [93:30] absolutely nothing to do with that. and [93:32] they've never published any [93:33] peer-reviewed scholarship related to [93:35] that, that's a sign that maybe they're [93:37] trying to leverage their uh their [93:40] credential to endow them with more [93:44] authority than they actually have to [93:46] comment on on specific issues. So, [93:49] that's something that's an issue, which [93:50] is why for the most part, I mean, I I [93:52] think I'm pretty I think I do a pretty [93:53] good job of this. I tend to, like I [93:56] said, punt to the consensus unless it's [93:58] something in my area of specialization, [94:02] in which case I will happily duke it out [94:04] uh for my own uh position and and I try [94:08] to only do that when it's things that I [94:11] have uh published peer-reviewed [94:12] scholarship on. [94:15] Uh, I think that's a red flag when when [94:17] people spend all their time trying to [94:19] overturn the majority positions of [94:21] fields in which they are not publishing. [94:27] Uh, thank you for the super chat. Have [94:29] you seen The Sunset Limited with Tommy [94:30] Lee Jones and Samuel Jackson? What did [94:32] you think? I am sorry. I have not seen [94:34] that. I've heard of it. Uh, [94:35] unfortunately I've not seen it. Although [94:37] I love both of those actors and so I [94:39] might have to check it out. [94:42] Um, Henry, excuse me, tripping over my [94:46] dental trays. Um, maybe this is, uh, [94:49] Enri Moran, uh, or Henry Morant. Thank [94:53] you for the super chat. This is outside [94:54] your field, but I was wondering if [94:55] you've looked into Dan Vogel scholarship [94:57] on early Mormonism. If so, what do you [94:59] think of it? I I think Dan Vogle, for [95:01] the most part, does a really good job. [95:03] Uh, there are things I disagree with, [95:04] but but yeah, I would I would uh I would [95:08] take his work seriously. [95:13] Uh, Clever Dgies, thank you so much for [95:16] the super chat. Hey Dan, does the [95:17] serpent from the garden represent a [95:18] specific deity the author was throwing [95:20] shade at, or did the author just not [95:22] like serpents? I think personally that [95:24] that it's mostly there as an ideology [95:27] and origin story for why people don't [95:29] like snakes, particularly um, [95:32] uh, in chapter 3. Uh [95:36] it's certainly plausible that there was [95:39] some deity that was associated with [95:42] snakes. Some people think Adonai was [95:43] associated with with snakes. Um but I I [95:47] don't think we could identify a a given [95:50] deity. I think the snake was a symbol of [95:52] like wisdom [95:55] uh but also craftiness. So I think it's [95:58] functioning uh in more symbolic terms [96:00] than as a a u symbol of a specific [96:05] deity. [96:07] Uh Misha the Elder, thank you so much [96:08] for another super chat. What is your [96:10] opinion if any on the radical notion of [96:12] or lack thereof god in the guide for the [96:14] perplexed by Moses Mymonities? Are you [96:16] familiar with it? Um I think I already [96:19] responded to this question. Uh so again [96:23] I would recommend um I I don't know my [96:27] monities well enough to be able to argue [96:30] against what Gberg shares in the [96:33] evolution of Jewish monotheism. I I [96:35] thought it was a pretty good discussion [96:37] and as far as I know um [96:40] accurately represents things. cuz I I [96:42] will just say yeah, my monities didn't [96:44] seem to be working um primarily from the [96:48] text of the Hebrew Bible and was [96:50] primarily advocating for a philosophical [96:52] approach. [96:57] Um Adam Draven, thank you so much for [96:59] the um super chat. Venzent has said that [97:03] the three duderopoline epistles [97:04] originated from a Polycarb school prior [97:07] to being collected by Marcian. How [97:09] accepted is that? I don't think that's [97:10] widely accepted. I think it's an [97:12] interesting theory. Uh I think maybe it [97:16] uh yeah, I I don't know enough about it [97:19] uh to say anything other than in my [97:22] experience that's not a very widely [97:24] accepted theory, but it if it's a new [97:26] theory, then then maybe it will be more [97:28] widely accepted in the future. But thank [97:30] you for the the followup and [97:32] clarification. [97:34] Uh Bob Builder 5123, thanks so much for [97:37] the super chat. Hey Dan, I'm a preacher, [97:38] but I love your content and I loved your [97:40] new book. Well, thank you so much. I [97:42] appreciate it. Anyway, everyone takes [97:43] for granted that the pastorals are [97:44] forged. Could you possibly steer me to [97:46] an academic discussion as to why um or a [97:50] video? [97:52] There are um [97:57] there's a there's a commentary in the um [98:03] commentary in the New Testament library [98:05] commentary series by Collins [98:08] on first and second Timothy and Titus. [98:12] And in that commentary, there's a decent [98:15] discussion. It's not a a huge or a very [98:17] detailed discussion, but I think there's [98:19] a good summary of what's going on that [98:21] convinces scholars that the pastorals [98:24] are forgeries. So, that's one place I [98:25] would look. I have probably published a [98:28] handful of videos where I'm doing [98:29] something very similar, just summarizing [98:32] uh what's going on without getting deep [98:34] into the weeds of the arguments. So, uh [98:37] you can probably just search for Mlen [98:40] pastoral epistles and you can probably [98:42] come up with some of those summaries. [98:44] But if you're looking for a publication, [98:46] I would check out Collins's NTL [98:48] commentary on the pastorals for for a [98:50] good summary. [98:55] Uh, Mystic Mima, thanks so much for the [98:57] super chat. Hi, Dan. I've heard theories [98:58] that Paul was gay. Opinion. Um, I've [99:01] heard that as well. Uh, I think there [99:04] was Paul had some kind of uh thing going [99:08] on when it came to sexuality. Some [99:10] people think he was asexual. Some people [99:12] think he was just gay and and trying to [99:15] suppress that. Uh I don't know that we [99:18] have enough data to say one way or [99:20] another, but it's an interesting theory. [99:25] Uh Adam Draian, thank you so much for [99:27] another super chat. I buy the argument [99:28] that Axe used Josephus. I I think it's [99:31] an interesting argument, too. I think [99:32] I've heard you say you're not convinced [99:33] ashare is the same author as Luke. Could [99:35] you elaborate? Uh I used to say that. [99:37] Uh, and I've been yelled at enough that [99:39] I'm I'm backing away from saying that [99:41] and I will just endorse the uh the um [99:47] consensus view that that they do share [99:49] the same author. So, in that regard, no, [99:51] I cannot elaborate. [99:55] Um, MPZ 2988, thank you so much for the [99:58] super chat. What data do we have on how [100:00] non-elites or the general populace [100:02] practice Yaoism and later early Judaism? [100:05] What was the reality on the ground? We [100:07] don't have a ton. Uh the the stuff that [100:11] probably gets the closest to that would [100:13] be work on um household religion [100:16] particularly I'm thinking of two books [100:19] uh edited volumes uh one by uh Rainor [100:22] Albert Beth Albert Nai Salon and Hudiger [100:26] Schmidt from 2014 called family and [100:28] household religion toward a synthesis of [100:31] old testament studies archaeology [100:32] epigraphy and cultural studies. Uh [100:35] you've also got something very similar. [100:39] Um [100:41] oh is it this is just a chapter. There's [100:43] a chapter by Andrea Berlin called [100:46] household Judaism which is a similar [100:49] approach but it's talking about later [100:51] Judaism and that is in the volume [100:54] Galilee in the late second temple and [100:56] Mishnaic periods which was published by [100:59] Fortress Press in 2014. [101:03] And then we've got uh Bodell. Bodell and [101:07] Olon edited a volume called Household [101:09] and Family Religion in Antiquity. That's [101:11] going to do very similar things. [101:13] However, it's going to be a little [101:15] broader than just the Bible. Um and then [101:18] Brody in 2018 published [101:27] uh published a a paper in the journal. [101:30] What journal is this? Near Eastern [101:32] Archaeology in 2018 called materiality [101:34] of religion in Judeian households a [101:37] contextual analysis of ritual objects [101:39] from iron age to tel and nazbe. [101:43] So like when it comes to that kind of [101:46] stuff it's going to be pretty technical [101:48] stuff. It's going to be journal articles [101:50] that are going to um give you the most [101:51] detail and talk about that the most. [101:54] trying to think if there's a [101:58] um [102:00] here's an open access book so that you [102:03] you could go on SPL's website and just [102:05] download the PDF of this book by Jose uh [102:09] Bals Gayera called Household and Family [102:12] Religion in Persian period Judah an [102:14] archaeological approach it's open access [102:17] but it is going to be a little more [102:18] technical so um yeah but those would be [102:22] those would be Um, [102:25] the things I would I would point you to [102:29] uh and thank you John Roth 4302 for the [102:32] super sticker. [102:35] Uh, and account such and such. Thank you [102:37] so much for the super chat. Hey Dan, I [102:39] don't know if you ever touched upon [102:40] Unitarian stuff before, but I'm seeking [102:42] English sources on Unitarian Church of [102:44] Transylvania, Hungary, and Romania from [102:46] 1568, not Unitarian Universalism. any [102:50] stuff you are aware new I'm afraid not [102:55] uh that that is [102:58] a period in history and a place in in [103:01] history where I have done pretty much no [103:03] actual research so I don't know that I [103:05] have um I could point you in the [103:07] direction of anything but give me just [103:09] one second to see if something pops up [103:14] um [103:17] that's a very specific year So, [103:22] uh, 1568. [103:31] Okay. I've got a a paper [103:35] that was published in 1869 [103:39] called [103:41] Narrative of a Visit to the Unitarian [103:43] Churches of Transennsylvania on occasion [103:45] of the 300th anniversary of the first [103:48] proclamation of religious freedom at [103:49] Tora in 1568, which may be why you have [103:53] that very specific date. uh that was [103:55] published [103:57] a while ago, [103:59] but that would be that would be a start. [104:03] Uh I'm seeing a lot of a history of [104:06] Unitarianism in Transennsylvania, [104:08] England, and America. That's from 45. [104:11] Okay, hang on a second. My wife is [104:13] texting me. [104:30] Okay. Um, [104:33] the late [104:36] Okay, this is interesting. [104:40] This is from a book called [104:41] Anti-Trinitarianism and Unitarianism in [104:44] the Early Modern World, which was [104:46] published, it looks like it was [104:47] published just two years ago. [104:51] And there's a there's a a paper called [104:54] the late confessionalization of the [104:56] Transian Unitarian Church and the Polish [104:59] Brethren [105:00] which talks about um 1568 cotification [105:04] of of some laws. So So it's it sounds [105:07] like that's that's a topic that I was [105:10] not aware of that there has been uh [105:11] quite a bit of stuff on. What I would [105:13] recommend is going to scholar.google.com [105:15] google.com [105:17] and googling Unitarian Transennsylvania [105:21] 1568 and you'll find a lot of stuff. You [105:24] you won't be able to fully access all of [105:26] it. Some of it you will be able to, some [105:28] of it you won't, but that would be the [105:30] best way to uh to find sources. [105:38] Fishing hard. Thank you so much for the [105:40] super chat. Haven't seen you running [105:42] around our neighborhood lately, Dan. Get [105:44] back to it. love your work. Thank you so [105:46] much, uh, mystery commenter. And I [105:51] assume you mean, um, the neighborhood in [105:53] which I live. Uh, yes, I I intend to get [105:56] back at it, but, you know, I've been out [105:57] of the country for a bit and uh, [106:01] yeah, things get in the way, but uh, but [106:03] thank you for reminding me that I need [106:05] to get back at it. [106:13] Uh, stranger to YouTube. Thanks so much [106:15] for the super chat. Hi Dan. Not a [106:16] question, just my pipe dream. Uh DMAC [106:19] Bible translation in my own language, [106:20] Polish. I'd gladly spend a few years [106:22] translating it for free. It might take [106:25] more than a few years. Uh brother Bill, [106:27] thank you so much for uh the super chat. [106:31] Uh Kellogg 333, thank you so much. While [106:34] reading Matthew today for residence, I [106:36] noticed that Matthew begins with a [106:37] genealogy linking Abraham to Joseph [106:39] before claiming Jesus was born from and [106:42] hopefully you continue on [106:47] somewhere [106:49] because I don't see [106:52] I don't see uh the rest of your comment. [106:56] So hopefully [107:11] Uh if if you want to follow up or or [107:14] post the rest of that comment, I'll be [107:15] happy to respond to it. [107:18] Um the nomads log, thanks so much for [107:20] the super chat. Just tuned in an hour [107:22] late. Sorry. My question is, why do [107:23] scholars believe in the existence of a [107:24] historical Paul who wrote even one [107:26] Pauline epistle if there's no evidence [107:27] for the disciples? What evidence is [107:28] there for Paul? Thanks. Uh, we don't [107:31] have direct archaeological evidence for [107:35] the overwhelming majority of the people [107:37] that we believe existed in ancient [107:39] history. For a lot of people, we don't [107:43] we don't have enough to be able to [107:45] definitively conclude this person did or [107:48] did not exist. For the overwhelming [107:50] majority of people, the best we can do [107:52] is say, okay, here are where the this is [107:54] where all the data stand. [107:57] What is the explanation that we believe [107:59] best accounts for how the data got to be [108:01] the way they are? And so we're weighing [108:03] probabilities. And when it comes to [108:05] Paul, [108:07] there's there aren't really many [108:09] accounts of how the data got to be the [108:11] way they are that begin from the [108:13] position that Paul didn't exist. Uh the [108:16] overwhelming majority of the accounts [108:18] begin from the position that there was a [108:20] historical Paul and that these texts [108:22] were written by him. Um and so yeah [108:25] there there's no direct uh confirmation [108:28] verification but when we weigh the [108:30] evidence and the probabilities [108:32] overwhelmingly it is more likely than [108:35] not that uh Paul wrote these you know [108:39] the authentic Pauline epistles. [108:42] Uh Gordon loves science. Thanks so much [108:43] for the super chat. Hi Dan. Thanks for [108:45] broadening my knowledge of the Bible. I [108:46] find the subject fascinating. I do too. [108:48] Thank you so much for the kind words and [108:49] I'm glad you are finding it helpful. [108:53] Doughyhead, thank you for the super chat [108:54] and Justin B trifo. Why is Justin having [108:56] such a hard time convincing him that [108:58] another is God if the Jews at that time [109:00] believed in divine images? Because it [109:04] was not so one, it was not so much about [109:07] divine images. I don't think Justin is [109:09] consciously presenting an image [109:11] Christology. Justin is treating Jesus as [109:15] an emanation or an extrusion from God to [109:18] the degree that Jesus is identified with [109:20] the word. And Justin says that uh he is [109:23] able to take those titles like God as a [109:28] distinct entity because he comes from [109:31] God and he is united in will with God. [109:34] So that's not directly an image [109:36] christologology. Uh it's more of a kind [109:40] of an an agency christologology to some [109:43] degree. uh that is also kind of logos [109:47] based and and also the the intuitive [109:50] logic of divine images is not always [109:52] close enough to the surface for people [109:54] to be consciously aware of what they're [109:56] doing and so they usually don't explain [109:58] it that way even if subconsciously [110:00] that's what's going on. [110:04] Uh but thank you for the question. [110:17] Um, WRN32, thanks so much for the super [110:19] chat. I created a philosophical [110:21] framework to base theology and [110:22] relational coherence rather than [110:23] metaphysics. Do you have a preferred [110:25] venue where I can invite you to review [110:28] my work? Um, I I don't really have the [110:31] bandwidth to be reviewing uh folks uh [110:34] work right now. So, uh, while I I [110:37] appreciate you thinking of me, uh, I I [110:40] that's not something that I have, uh, an [110:42] opening in my schedule to be able to do. [110:44] And also, philosophy is not really my my [110:47] wheelhouse. And for a handful of [110:49] different reasons, I would probably be [110:51] pretty skeptical of um, a philosophical [110:55] framework related to theology based on [110:58] relational coherence. I'm I tend to be [111:00] pretty critical of of arguments based on [111:02] coherence rather than based on grounding [111:05] in uh anything uh databased or or [111:09] anything that's uh we can experiment or [111:12] things like that. [111:14] But thank you for the question and and I [111:16] apologize to uh to disappoint, but uh I [111:19] have been turning down uh even like [111:22] requests from publishers to review stuff [111:24] I've had to return down I've had to turn [111:26] down recently because of my schedule. [111:30] Misha the Elder, thanks so much for [111:31] another super chat. Are you familiar [111:32] with Yahoo Kaufman's multi-toned [111:35] monograph on monotheism of the Hebrew [111:36] Bible? I am. I referred to it in my [111:39] entry in the Oxford Research [111:41] Encyclopedia of Religion on Monotheism. [111:43] I believe it was written in the 1950s. [111:45] Yeah. Originally written in Hebrew and [111:46] then translated into English. Uh and I [111:50] talk about how Calfman represents a a [111:53] specific point on this trajectory uh of [111:56] the development of concepts of [111:58] monotheism. So I'm not particularly [112:00] convinced by Calfman, but definitely was [112:02] a formative and important voice in in [112:05] the development of the idea of [112:06] monotheism. [112:10] Joey Smith, thanks so much for the super [112:12] chat. I recently advised my evangelical [112:13] family that I no longer believe what [112:15] they raised me to believe. They [112:16] obviously reacted reasonably. Sarcasm. [112:18] Your videos and book have helped me a [112:20] lot during this time of my life. Thank [112:21] you. Well, thank you so much for sharing [112:23] that. That means a lot and I'm glad that [112:25] it has been helpful for you and I'm [112:27] sorry you're having to go through that [112:28] with your family. [112:34] Uh thank you, [112:37] Gia [112:39] RO. I apologize. I I probably should [112:41] have gotten that better. And that's [112:43] probably Portuguese as well. Um, in John [112:46] 8:58 is before Abraham existed, I [112:48] already existed or similar translations [112:50] of possibility is a possibility. I don't [112:52] think it's very likely. Uh, but there [112:54] are people who would argue that that's [112:56] what's going on in the text. I happen to [112:58] think it is a [113:01] a wink at the divine name and [113:05] um, ego me in the in the Septuagent. [113:08] Muhammad Shu, thanks. so much for the [113:10] super chat. Hey Dan, I was wondering as [113:12] a Muslim, I think our version of the [113:13] afterlife was influenced by biblical or [113:15] extra biblical traditions, but what was [113:18] the view of the afterlife pre-Bible love [113:20] of your channel? Thank you so much, [113:21] Muhammad. Um, pre-Bible, the view of the [113:24] afterlife was that everybody went to [113:27] Shaol, that this realm of the dead, and [113:30] that was understood to be underground, a [113:33] murky existence, and you were there as [113:35] long as your name was invoked, [113:38] remembered. uh your image was inscribed [113:41] depending on on what part of ancient [113:44] West Asia you're in, but there's no idea [113:46] of divine reward or divine punishment in [113:49] the afterlife. Afterlife and grave goods [113:53] um [113:55] hang on just a second. [113:58] Uh and grave goods uh are indicative of [114:00] ongoing relationships between [114:04] um the living and the dead where they're [114:06] sharing meals with them. They're [114:07] provisioning them with food, with drink, [114:09] with light, things like that. Uh so [114:13] yeah, it's it's a very cool discussion. [114:15] There's a lot going on there. And there [114:17] are a lot of books on on uh what's a [114:20] good one? [114:24] Oh gosh, I can't remember the [114:33] um [114:39] there's a there was a book that was [114:41] recently published that is in uh an SPL [114:45] series and oh gosh, I'm blanking on the [114:49] author. [115:00] I want to say it's [115:09] come on. [115:12] There it is. Uh, caring for the dead in [115:15] ancient Israel is a good discussion of [115:17] um [115:19] what likely went on with their [115:20] conceptualization of the afterlife in uh [115:24] ancient Israel and Judah. But thank you [115:26] for a great question. [115:29] Uh Ken, thanks so much for the super [115:30] chat. What English translations do you [115:32] prefer of Ecclesia and Logos for the [115:34] Mlelen Bible? Um I I like congregation [115:37] or maybe even community for ecclesia and [115:39] logos. That's one where a lot of people [115:42] would argue just just transliterate it. [115:44] Don't even translate it. Uh I think the [115:46] traditional rendering word is is not [115:48] incredibly accurate but is going to [115:50] resonate with a lot more. Readership um [115:54] I I haven't decided yet though. But an [115:57] important question I will have to tackle [115:59] at some point. Uh thank you for another [116:02] super chat. Uh hey Dan, I'm looking for [116:03] English books and articles on Unitarian [116:05] Church of Transennsylvania from 1568. It [116:07] seems nobody know about this part [116:09] peculiar or particular church. Do you [116:11] have any say on that? So hopefully you [116:14] uh heard my uh earlier response to that [116:17] and uh we'll go look on Google Scholar. [116:20] There's a lot of uh research that pops [116:21] up when you Google that. But thank you [116:23] for the question. Uh Gold 6762, thanks [116:26] so much. Hey Dan, not sure if this has [116:27] already been asked, but what do you make [116:28] of the use of we in certain parts of [116:30] Acts? I don't think it's evidence that [116:33] this is uh Paul's traveling partner. Um, [116:37] so I I think that the going back and [116:39] forth is is might be a redactional [116:43] uh artifact or it could be an attempt on [116:46] the part of the author to try to perform [116:48] this kind of oh I'm I'm Paul's traveling [116:50] partner. I don't think that's very [116:51] convincing though. [116:54] Uh but thank you for the question. [116:57] And [117:03] uh Joe Wilson on my Discord asks, [117:05] "Discussing Paul's sexuality makes me [117:07] wonder who you draw on concerning sexual [117:09] identities in the Middle East during [117:10] biblical times." Um there are a handful [117:14] of um folks that I uh draw on. Uh [117:21] Bernardet Brutin is uh a wonderful [117:23] scholar of this uh for ancient sexuality [117:28] more generally. Um [117:31] hang on, let me pull up some of these so [117:33] that I can remember everybody. Uh [117:36] probably one of the best is William [117:38] Loader. Uh he's published a number of [117:42] books on sexuality. Enoch, Levi, and [117:44] Jubilees on sexuality is one book. Pho [117:47] Josephus and the testaments on sexuality [117:49] is another. The pseudapigria on [117:51] sexuality is another. The New Testament [117:54] on sexuality is another. Those are those [117:57] are phenomenal. Uh a book that I'm [118:00] working through right now. Thomas Kaisen [118:03] uh is a scholar that I've um I've worked [118:05] with before does a good work in the [118:08] cognitive science of religion. dirt, [118:09] shame, status, perspectives on same-sex [118:13] sexuality in the Bible and the ancient [118:14] world is is a phenomenal discussion. I [118:17] would highly recommend that one. Um [118:21] uh Joseph Marshall is uh and Marshall is [118:24] M A R C H um A L has uh done a lot of [118:31] work on queer hermeneutics and [118:32] particularly in Paul. [118:35] So, Joseph is is wonderful. [118:38] uh there there are a lot of uh good [118:40] discussions. Marilyn Skinner has a a [118:43] wonderful discussion of sexuality in [118:44] Greek and Roman literature that I think [118:46] is is very informative. So yeah, those [118:49] those would be the main ones that I [118:51] would um that I would recommend. [119:06] Uh, Caleb [119:08] Alvarado, thank you so much for the [119:10] question. What did you think of He-Man? [119:11] Do you like He-Man? I haven't seen it. I [119:13] was supposed to go see it tonight, but [119:15] my wife and my kids are like, "No, [119:17] that's too late." No, we have to have [119:18] dinner first. And so, uh, I think it [119:20] might get pushed off for a couple more [119:22] days. But I've I've heard good things [119:23] about it. Uh, if if it's a nostalgic, [119:26] uh, fun romp, then then I'm all for it. [119:31] Uh thank you so much for the super chat. [119:34] Uh Digi Kenna [119:37] and thank you. [119:39] Don't know how uh that's supposed to be [119:41] pronounced but but thank you for the [119:42] super chat. God and Jesus are both [119:44] directly and metaphorically described as [119:46] the bridegroom i.e. of Israel. Another [119:48] example of Jesus manifesting God's [119:50] divine presence as a nuptual image of [119:52] sorts. [119:54] I I think that's a metaphor that gets [119:56] transferred [119:58] to some degree. [120:03] Yeah, I would have to I would have to [120:04] think about that a little more. But I [120:06] think mostly people think of that as as [120:08] uh just transferring the metaphor rather [120:10] than suggesting that this is kind of an [120:12] an overlap of of their presences. But [120:15] that's an interesting take. I'll I'll [120:17] have to think about that a bit. Sadiv [120:19] says, "What's the scholarly consensus on [120:21] monotheism in the Hebrew Bible?" I think [120:23] it's probably I think a plurality if not [120:25] a majority would still say that by the [120:27] time of dutero Isaiah we've got [120:28] monotheism in the Hebrew Bible and I [120:30] flatly disagree with that and Salon [120:33] published a wonderful paper um on that [120:36] 13 years ago I think uh and I've talked [120:39] about that as well Mike Kaiser has [120:41] talked about that as well other scholars [120:43] have uh I don't think that that's [120:45] monotheism [120:52] Um, Big Dog 112, thanks so much for the [120:54] super chat. Do you have any [120:55] recommendations for someone that talks [120:56] about the historical aspects of the [120:58] Quran like you do for the Christian [121:00] Bible and Jewish text? I get asked that [121:02] a lot. I don't know of anybody off the [121:03] top of my head um that that does that. [121:06] There is a study Quran that I think um [121:10] does a decent job, but it's it's not [121:14] this is a critical scholarly approach to [121:16] the Quran, but that's the closest to [121:19] kind of a popular level treatment of the [121:22] Quran that is intended for non-Muslim [121:24] audiences. [121:29] So, that might be where I would where I [121:31] would look. But thank you for the [121:33] question. [121:36] Um, Josiah Baker, thanks so much for the [121:38] super chat. I've never seen you and [121:39] Jesus in the same room. That's none of [121:41] your damn business. Um, but nor have I. [121:46] Uh, KG Gospel, thanks so much for the [121:49] question. Hi Dan. Any suggested reading [121:50] or scholars to follow on early Christian [121:53] wisdom Christology? Yeah, actually uh [121:56] Dustin Smith is somebody I got to know [121:58] in Rome last week who does wisdom [122:00] christologology and published a book uh [122:02] on wisdom Christology that he is and [122:04] he's sending a uh a copy to me. [122:11] What is and the book is called wisdom [122:13] christologology and the gospel of John [122:15] and Dustin uh has a podcast called [122:21] I think biblical unitarian podcast [122:24] something like that. [122:26] Uh but we're probably going to have them [122:28] on our podcast to talk about wisdom [122:30] Christologology as well. [122:33] Thank you for the question. Uh Tess, [122:36] thank you so much for the super chat. [122:37] How do you navigate apologetics with [122:38] family? Well, I don't have to navigate [122:41] it really with family. Uh, I want to [122:42] prioritize data over dogma, but when [122:44] beliefs are tied to identity, evidence [122:45] alone rarely seems to matter. Any [122:47] advice, [122:49] excuse me. Um, [122:57] it can be difficult. And, uh, a good [123:00] discussion is David McCrainy's book, How [123:03] Minds Change: The Surprising Science of [123:05] Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion. Uh and [123:09] and this talks a lot about the fact that [123:12] uh all the data in the world is not [123:14] going to convince someone if they don't [123:17] let their their rhetorical guard down uh [123:20] of their identity politics. And and [123:23] David talks about a variety of different [123:24] ways to understand how to engage folks [123:28] to increase the likelihood that they'll [123:30] listen, that they'll let their guard [123:31] down, and that they might change their [123:33] mind. There there obviously is no silver [123:34] bullet for that. So uh so obviously it's [123:37] difficult but the things that are most [123:39] likely to help people change their minds [123:41] are um personal experiences and close [123:43] personal relationships. So if if you can [123:47] if if you can conduct your discussions [123:51] um [123:52] on on that level so that they're they're [123:55] thinking about that and aware of that [123:57] that that might increase your odds of of [123:59] getting through to them. But again there [124:01] there's no silver bullet for that. [124:03] Ditimus thanks so much for the super [124:04] chat. Did the biblical writers conceive [124:06] of natural versus supernatural or was [124:08] everything natural? Uh I I think there [124:11] was I don't know if you could say [124:13] natural versus supernatural but but [124:15] certainly human versus divine although [124:17] that would be more of a spectrum or a [124:20] continuum than a dichotomy which is how [124:23] we tend to treat it. Uh and so most most [124:26] uh the better scholarship these days and [124:28] and for the last couple of decades, [124:31] probably for the last few decades, has [124:33] been talking about this as as more of a [124:35] spectrum or a gradient than a dichotomy [124:39] or a binary. [124:43] Hot Ninja, thank you so much for the [124:46] super chat. I replied to my previous [124:47] blank super chat with my question [124:49] because I don't know what I'm doing. [124:50] Anyways, thank you so much for your [124:52] work. I'm grateful I found your channel [124:53] last year. Well, thank you so much for [124:55] following up uh and and for the kind [124:57] words. I appreciate it. [125:15] All righty. And [125:19] uh Marco Millius, thank you so much for [125:22] the super chat. Hey Dan, are you [125:23] familiar with LG White/Adventer [125:25] hermeneutic sanctuary doctrine? Not [125:27] incredibly familiar with it. From a [125:29] historical critical point of view, how [125:30] do you see their proof texting of Daniel [125:32] and Revelation? I can tell you right off [125:34] the bat, not great. Um I without knowing [125:37] the specifics of the hermeneutic I I do [125:40] know that it's going to be trying to uh [125:43] harmonize or treat as as univocal uh [125:47] these texts as a way to inform their [125:50] their prognostications about the the [125:52] future and all that kind of stuff which [125:55] uh is already a problematic foundation [125:58] on which to build. So uh it it's not [126:01] going to satisfy a a critical [126:03] interrogation. Uh but but I am not [126:06] familiar with the details uh of the [126:08] doctrine. But yeah, any any attempt to [126:10] try to um correlate Daniel and [126:13] Revelation is going to run into all [126:15] kinds of problems. Uh but thank you for [126:18] the question, Nick T. Thanks so much for [126:19] the super chat. Thoughts on Richard [126:20] Carrier's version of Jesus mythicism? I [126:23] mean, it it's probably the most popular [126:25] version of Jesus mythicism out there and [126:27] it's rejected by the overwhelming [126:29] majority of scholars. And um yeah, I I I [126:33] don't think it's an incredibly strong [126:35] framework. [126:39] Uh we will Clark, thanks so much. Sorry, [126:43] my my eyes are getting bad. Um in fact, [126:47] in fact, I have these this might help a [126:50] little a little with with reading. Oh [126:53] yeah, that's much clearer. Got any [126:54] suggestions for scholarly works on [126:56] Christian esquetology? Thank you for all [126:58] you do. Uh thank you for the kind words. [127:01] There's uh so much on on Christian [127:03] esquetology, but let me just see what I [127:06] have in my digital library [127:09] that I might start with. [127:14] Yeah, most of most of what I have is [127:16] esquetology in uh early Judaism. And [127:25] yeah, [127:27] I'm and some reason I'm thinking about [127:30] uh apocalypticism, which is not what [127:33] we're what we're talking about, [127:41] although it's related. [127:49] Um, [127:55] yeah, there there's a lot of of stuff on [127:58] on Christian esquetology. I wouldn't [128:00] even know where to start, but um I'll [128:04] some of it is it's like theological [128:06] rather than critical scholarly in [128:08] nature. [128:12] Oh, and some of it is older. [128:15] Uh that's from that's from 1996. [128:19] Um the C Jurgen Moltman is um [128:24] there's a a book called The Coming of [128:26] God, Christian Esquetology, which won [128:28] the Grow Meer Award, which is a big-time [128:30] award. So that would probably be a good [128:32] place to start. Published in 1996. There [128:35] was a Fortress Press paperback in 2004 [128:37] that's probably going to be a little [128:38] more easy to um access. Uh, one thing [128:43] you could do is look in uh, there's a [128:46] paper on esquetology [128:49] in the [128:51] um, Cambridge Companion to Orthodox [128:54] Christian Theology which was published [128:56] in what year? It's not telling me what [128:59] year. It was published fairly recently. [129:02] Uh, but that 2008 or so, but that will [129:05] have that will have a lot of references [129:08] in the bibliography that could probably [129:09] get you better uh, information. [129:15] But yeah, the Moltman book would [129:17] probably uh be a good start even though [129:19] it's it's uh a bit outdated. But thank [129:22] you for the question. Sorry I wasn't [129:23] better prepared to to rattle off more [129:26] stuff for you. Uh ontological shock. [129:28] Thanks so much for the super chat. Hey [129:30] Dan, I was wondering, do you think the [129:31] similitudes were an original part of [129:32] First Enoch prior to Christianity? [129:35] Thanks. Hope you're doing well, Timothy. [129:36] Uh I think probably not. I think they [129:40] were probably I I was just talking with [129:42] Lauren Stukenbrook about this last week [129:44] and he suggests that the similitudes [129:46] were probably written toward the end of [129:48] the first century CE. So around the same [129:50] time that the New Testament was written. [129:52] So um it wouldn't they wouldn't have [129:56] even have been composed prior to [129:57] Christianity much less been a part of [129:59] first Enoch prior to Christianity. [130:01] That's debated though. Um in fact that's [130:04] a question I should add to my Oh no I [130:06] did add that question. Yeah. After I s [130:07] talked with Lauren, I I immediately [130:09] added it to the uh my survey. So, uh [130:13] hopefully soon I'll have very robust [130:15] data on when scholars think the [130:17] similitudes were were written. But but [130:19] Lauren, who knows an awful lot more than [130:21] I do about First Enoch, uh and is [130:23] actually going to be publishing his own [130:25] translation of the similitudes here [130:27] shortly, uh says that probably late [130:29] first century. [130:35] Lissius, thank you so much for the super [130:36] chat. Any recommendations for reading up [130:38] on polytheistic Judaism, specifically [130:40] Adam IV Ball and his later coalescence [130:43] with L. Uh, so the there are a handful [130:48] of of scholars who have written stuff [130:50] like the early of his the early history [130:51] of God by Mark Smith. Um, [130:57] and then, oh gosh, why why can't I think [130:58] of [131:00] the origins of biblical monotheism by [131:02] Mark Smith is about Israel's [131:04] polytheistic background. [131:07] Uh, but I I I would say Mark is more of [131:11] a a conflation of Ellen Adoni. Um, [131:18] so that might be [131:21] uh that might be a good place to start. [131:23] Um, the book that I'm working on now [131:26] that I actually have I have a a draft [131:28] the draft of one of the chapters up on [131:30] my computer right now. That's what I was [131:32] working on when I was like, I need a [131:33] break. I'm gonna do a live stream. Um, [131:35] is going to be on how the God of the [131:37] Bible changes uh from the earliest [131:39] layers through to the latest. So, I'm [131:41] going to be talking quite a bit about [131:42] Adonai Vball and Adonai's conflation [131:45] with with L. Um Seth Sanders has talked [131:49] a little bit about this what he calls [131:53] um what does he call it? Pantheon [131:55] reduction is what he uh talks about. [131:59] John Day has some things on Adonai and [132:02] the gods and goddesses of Canaan. [132:05] Um [132:07] yeah, I'm I'm trying to think of stuff [132:09] from the last 10 years and there's not a [132:11] whole ton. Although [132:14] I did just pick up this book which is [132:16] brand new. Uh I appeared as El Shadai [132:20] tracing the origins of the God of [132:22] Israel. And this is primarily about the [132:24] epithet El Shadai. Uh but that's going [132:26] to be a good discussion. Oh uh there's [132:28] another one that that would be good. [132:34] It's uh it's a very large book. [132:38] Uh the origin and character of God by [132:40] Ted Lewis from I think 2020. As you can [132:42] see, it's it's quite big. But this is [132:45] going to have quite a bit of discussion [132:46] of Adonai's relation to Ball as well as [132:49] to L um and a lot of other stuff. So, [132:53] uh, that's probably the most thorough [132:56] discussion, [133:03] but thank you for the question and [133:04] hopefully we're getting close to the end [133:06] here, so I can go [133:19] tuning in from the front line in [133:21] Ukraine. Uh well stay safe [133:24] out there. [133:34] Uh the Oxford Handbook of Esquetology by [133:36] Jerry Wells. Yeah, that that would be a [133:38] phenomenal one. The Oxford Handbooks are [133:41] are always phenomenal. It's going to be [133:43] leading scholarship. They're going to [133:44] have the best uh bibliographies, the [133:47] most up-to-date. So yeah, I would [133:48] definitely start there. Daniel Fleming, [133:50] Adonai Before Israel. Uh, definitely a [133:53] good one regarding the origins of [133:54] Adonai. Not really much about the actual [133:57] conflict with Ball or conflation with L [133:59] though. [134:07] Uh, hi Dan. Do you have a favorite [134:09] Christian/apologetics YouTube channel [134:10] that you think is more scholarly [134:12] compared to the rest? I've said I think [134:14] Gavin Ortland does a better job usually [134:16] than a lot of other apologists out [134:18] there, but recently I've seen some [134:19] squirly things from him, too. So, [134:31] all right, hang on just a second. [134:33] Texting [134:39] the wife. Okay, thank you the doubting [134:40] one by heart for the super chat. Hi Dan. [134:44] Through your scholarship, I've accepted [134:45] that the Trinity isn't proven by [134:46] scripture, but I'm it's still my creedle [134:49] and it's still a framework I derive [134:50] meaning from. Is this [134:51] problematic/foolish? [134:52] I I don't think so. Um because [134:57] the the treatment of of religion as [135:01] fundamentally a question of of truth [135:03] claims is a very a more recent [135:07] Protestant idea. Uh if if this is about [135:11] making meaning, if this is about finding [135:13] community, if this is about [135:14] phenomenology, if this is about the [135:16] collective effervescence of ritual, if [135:19] this is about all those other things for [135:20] you more than it is about, you know, [135:22] what's the most true thing, [135:25] I I I don't think there's an issue with [135:27] that. Religion is a lot more [135:28] multi-dimensional than a Protestant [135:30] approach would have you believe, [135:35] which is why I don't think that [135:39] I think that it is a it is a problem to [135:42] try to reduce all religious activity and [135:46] all religious membership to true or [135:49] false and and then criticize people [135:52] based on that because it is there are so [135:54] many other dimensions to it that for a [135:56] lot of people because of their cognitive [135:58] makeup and their experiences uh have [136:00] have a different approach and find value [136:02] in in other dimensions. So I don't I [136:05] don't think that's phenomenally [136:06] problematic. [136:10] Joy Smith, thanks so much for the super [136:11] chat. [136:13] Besides Bartman, who are some critical [136:15] biblical scholars you recommend I read? [136:17] I love the style of Bartman. Oh, there [136:19] there are a bunch of of wonderful [136:21] critical scholars out there. I've [136:22] already mentioned some uh on the [136:25] channel, but um my doctoral supervisor [136:28] Francesca Stabraulu [136:32] is wonderful. God and Anatomy is uh is a [136:36] phenomenal book also quite big and also [136:39] this is the coolest book cover I have [136:41] ever seen. Uh now this is only on the UK [136:44] version of the of the book so the US [136:46] version is not a great cover. [136:51] Um, [136:54] but I I uh was just hanging out in Rome [136:57] with uh Lauren Stukenbrook and Gabriela [136:59] Bokeachini, which uh the two wonderful [137:02] scholars on on First Enoch. My friend [137:04] James McGrath, who's a New Testament [137:05] scholar who talks an awful lot about [137:07] John the Baptist and the Mandians is is [137:10] a wonderful critical scholar. Mark [137:11] Goodaker is a wonderful New Testament [137:13] scholar who um spends a lot of time uh [137:16] critiquing uh Q. there are uh tons and [137:20] tons of of wonderful scholars. [137:22] Um [137:25] yeah, so I I I don't want to just rattle [137:29] off as many names as I can think of, but [137:31] uh those those are a handful. Uh and [137:35] yeah, you can you can find plenty of [137:36] work by them. [137:38] But thank you for the question. Uh [137:40] missionary discussions 1286, thank you [137:42] so much for the super chat. When is your [137:43] survey about the question of Pauline [137:44] authorship of the pastoral epistles due [137:46] out and what is the best argument you [137:47] find for Pauline authorship? I am [137:49] unconvinced myself. Uh I don't find [137:51] incredibly convincing arguments for [137:53] Pauline authorship. My survey is um I [137:57] I'm going to be sending it to SPL within [138:01] the next week or so and then um we're [138:04] going to run it through hopefully run it [138:06] through some committees uh who will help [138:08] whittle down some questions maybe [138:10] recommend some questions and then once I [138:13] have their buy off then I will submit it [138:16] to the uh the human research [138:19] um folks at uh my institution. My sister [138:23] will do the same at her institution [138:25] because she's the head of data and [138:26] analytics at a university and she's [138:29] going to be the one crunching all the [138:30] numbers. So, it's still a ways off from [138:32] being published, but but we're we're [138:34] making progress. Uh and and I think the [138:36] most common I don't think there are [138:39] really good arguments for Pauline [138:40] authorship, but I think recently the [138:42] most common argument has been uh like uh [138:47] what do they call them? not word studies [138:50] but certain kinds of uh like word print [138:54] analysis and and things like that where [138:56] people are looking at the occurrence of [138:59] function words and and trying to [139:00] determine authorship that way and and I [139:03] I see an awful lot of that which I don't [139:05] think is incredibly convincing. [139:08] Uh Hot Ninja, thanks so much for another [139:10] super chat. What utility does the Bible [139:12] have today? Just trash. I I don't think [139:15] uh it is just trash. I think it has [139:17] utility for a lot of people for a lot of [139:19] different reasons. And uh what is it [139:21] that Paul Blum Paul Bloom says about [139:25] literature? Gosh, now I forget. I always [139:28] forget this quote. [139:35] I I'm I'm tracking down a quote from um [139:39] Paul Bloom. Yes, there we go. [139:42] We read to find ourselves more fully and [139:46] more strangely than otherwise we could [139:48] hope to find. And and I think the Bible [139:51] is something that we read and and I [139:52] think a lot of people find themselves in [139:55] different ways uh in the Bible. And um [139:59] the history of the Bible is is so rich [140:02] and so deeply entangled with uh our own [140:05] geopolitical histories and and uh ethnic [140:08] histories and things like that. I think [140:10] there the Bible does a lot for a lot of [140:12] people and and it also causes a lot of [140:14] harm. Uh but I think that if we are [140:17] transparent and open and honest and [140:19] critical about that kind of stuff, we [140:21] can uh we can find a lot of uses for the [140:23] Bible. Uh thank you for the super chat. [140:26] Ira Olsen. Hey Dan, if you assume divine [140:28] inspiration and univocality of KJV and [140:30] were forced to create a dogmatic [140:32] religion, what would your religion's [140:33] doctrine look like? [140:43] That's a difficult question. Uh, I think [140:46] it would probably look I think just [140:49] because I would be negotiating with the [140:51] text and I would be in charge of [140:53] negotiations, I think it would end up [140:55] looking probably more like uh the [140:57] Quakers than than many other groups. Uh, [141:02] but don't uh don't quote me on that. [141:04] I'll deny I ever said it. Um [141:08] Josh Hold on. Thank uh thank you for the [141:10] super chat. Thoughts on the idea that [141:12] Mark including the original ending was [141:13] appalling PMIC against Jerusalem. [141:15] Lowering their authority Peter takes [141:17] shot after shot after shot. Uh [141:21] interesting theory. I I don't think [141:22] there um is much to commend it though, [141:26] but I would I would have to see an [141:27] argument for it. Uh but just based off [141:30] the the theory itself, [141:33] um I don't think it makes a whole lot of [141:36] sense of uh what's going on in the [141:38] gospel, [141:39] but thank you for the question. [141:45] Dit 8825, thanks so much for the super [141:47] chat. Suggestions for an aspiring Bible [141:49] scholar. I start my MTS at Harvard [141:51] Divinity in fall and want to do what you [141:53] do, public scholarship, academia, etc. [141:56] Uh well, that's awesome. Good for you [141:57] and congrats on uh getting into Harvard [142:00] Divinity. I was just there a couple [142:02] months ago to participate in a religious [142:04] trauma symposium. Uh suggestions for an [142:07] aspiring biblical scholar or Bible [142:09] scholar. Uh focus on the languages as [142:12] much as you can and I would say focus on [142:15] the primary texts. U a lot of your your [142:19] degree and particularly if you go on to [142:21] like an MA or a PhD is going to be [142:23] focused on secondary literature. And so [142:26] I would say take the time you have now [142:28] to focus on languages and primary [142:30] literature and that will build a more [142:33] solid foundation for everything that you [142:35] do after that. Um [142:39] and in terms of uh public scholarship [142:44] uh I kind of uh am very very fortunate [142:47] to have fallen into uh doing what I am [142:50] doing now. And uh when people ask me how [142:53] I do it or or when universities ask me [142:55] how I can help them scale their public [142:58] scholarship across a bunch of different [143:00] uh programs, the only thing I know it is [143:03] not is this. So I I don't know how to [143:06] help you other than that uh getting into [143:09] public scholarship. But apart from [143:12] saying um and and teaching courses is a [143:16] good way to do this. Find out ways to [143:18] break things down into digestible [143:20] smaller chunks and let your students put [143:24] those chunks back together to create the [143:27] full construction. And the better you [143:29] are at breaking things down into [143:32] manageable chunks, the better you're [143:34] going to be able to communicate complex [143:37] academic frameworks and theories and [143:38] models and things to uh the general [143:41] public. [143:43] Uh so that's the the advice uh I would [143:47] have for you but but good luck uh at [143:49] Harvard Divinity. [143:52] Okay. My name is Glaziel [143:55] uh Aruzu. [143:57] Okay. Aruzu. Yes. PTBR. Excellent. Thank [144:01] you for for for the followup and the and [144:03] the help with the pronunciation. And [144:05] then thank you straight dog 178 for the [144:08] super chat. Um, and let's get back to [144:21] um [144:24] Ed Pichon 841 says, "Question of good [144:27] bookation for non-Jewish ladder [144:31] traditions." [144:32] Your adviser, I assume you were going to [144:34] go on to say something else. Uh, [144:35] non-Jewish Adonai traditions don't [144:37] exist. [144:39] uh non-Jewish L traditions. Uh I would [144:42] look at the Ugaritic literature on that. [144:45] Um [144:47] Nick Wyatt has published uh the uh [144:50] religious texts from Yugarit, which is [144:52] translations of all of the uh all the [144:55] mythological texts from Yugarat. That's [144:57] probably going to be one of the better [145:00] ways to go. And then yeah, Yuggaritic [145:02] uh the there is a lot of stuff on [145:06] Yugoritic and and the L traditions [145:08] within the Ugaritic literature. [145:20] And somebody says you can you can be an [145:23] atheist and a Quaker. Seriously though, [145:26] from what I heard, Quakers are pretty [145:28] cool. Quakers are pretty cool. I have [145:29] some Quakers in my family. [145:33] Where did All right, let's see it [145:34] originate. Uh kind of organically the [145:37] when I first started making videos and [145:39] and I saw that people needed a a video [145:42] needed a hook in the first, you know, [145:44] five, six, seven seconds. Uh and so I I [145:47] made a few videos where uh somebody [145:49] would make a claim and I'd swoop in and [145:51] say, "All right, let's see it." Or [145:52] something like that. and and then uh [145:54] people started responding to that and [145:56] and that became a bit of a a tagline. [145:59] So, [146:01] do you believe in the documentary [146:02] hypothesis? What hypothesis do you [146:04] believe in? I I don't talk about excuse [146:07] me, I don't talk about these hypotheses [146:08] of things I believe in. Uh I I would say [146:12] that probably a uh the supplementary [146:15] hypothesis is probably a little closer [146:17] to what I think probably happened. [146:22] But certainly there were certainly we we [146:25] can speak of P and D as separate sources [146:28] and then everything else would be nonP. [146:30] Uh I think source critically we can say [146:33] that much. [146:52] Is this what is your opinion on the [146:55] Kennite hypothesis? So the the Kennite [146:57] Midionite hypothesis is the idea that [147:01] uh Adonai was brought up into the [147:04] central and northern hill country from [147:06] from Midian from groups that were were [147:09] further south. and and we find [147:10] vestigages of that memory in the [147:13] references to um you know Moses going [147:16] down to Midian and that's where Adonai [147:18] reveals themselves to the Israelites and [147:21] all that kind of stuff. Um [147:24] I I I think I I can uh I I like parts of [147:28] it. I think um uh Daniel Fleming's book [147:32] Adonai Before Israel, Glimpses of [147:34] History in a Divine Name is is closer to [147:37] uh to what I think is probably going on. [147:49] Can I barbite hypothesis? I'm not [147:51] familiar with the barbite. [147:58] Have you read Arrum's book Genesis [148:01] adaptation? The um the graphic [148:04] novelization. Uh yes. [148:10] All right. I have to go cuz I've got um [148:13] there's a dinner in the crockpot. I've [148:15] got to go shred some chicken and then my [148:17] uh wife and daughter are going to be [148:19] home soon and I'm going to have to o [148:24] and I've got other stuff I evidently [148:26] have to take care of now that has come [148:29] in since uh [148:32] I have been uh on the live stream. So, [148:34] thank you everybody for your time and [148:36] for your attention. I um Oh, we had [148:38] another super chat come in. Um hi Mr. [148:43] Mega Matt X. Thanks so much. Uh Dan, [148:45] I've been itching to ask you if you [148:46] heard about an apologist named Matt [148:48] Slick. He's a perfect example of someone [148:50] who puts dogma over data. You debating [148:51] him would be music to my ears. Matt [148:53] Slick used to run Karm if I'm not [148:57] mistaken. And I've I've uh [149:01] 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years [149:03] ago, somewhere around there, I I uh had [149:06] some run-ins with with Matt. And yeah, [149:09] he doesn't really have a good idea what [149:11] he's talking about pretty much all the [149:13] time. Uh, but thanks for the comment. [149:16] Uh, Straight Dog 178, thank you so much. [149:18] What is your opinion on the lost years [149:19] of Jesus? Are there any concrete [149:21] writings? No. Uh, there are no lost [149:23] years of Jesus. Nobody started writing [149:25] about Jesus until he started claiming to [149:27] be the Messiah and then died and people [149:29] started claiming he was resurrected. And [149:32] so uh what we have are writings from [149:35] people who [149:37] start with the when he started claiming [149:39] to be the Messiah and then anything [149:41] prior to that is somebody later on ma [149:44] making up a story about what happened [149:46] earlier. And so there are no lost years. [149:48] There is just the madeup stories only [149:51] are only kind of uh sporadically cover [149:55] Jesus's past. Uh, and so yeah, the [149:58] claims that he went to a monastery in [150:00] Tibet and and all that kind of stuff, [150:03] that's all stuff that was made up and [150:04] primarily in the 19th century. So, yeah, [150:07] nothing to see there. All right, thank [150:09] you so much everybody for your time and [150:10] your attention. I really appreciate it. [150:12] Thank you so much for for all the super [150:14] chats and for your patience with me. And [150:16] I hope you all have a wonderful morning, [150:19] afternoon, or evening wherever you [150:20] happen to be located. I hope you got [150:22] enough food on the table. I hope you [150:23] have people around you who love you. And [150:25] I hope you have a warm, safe place to to [150:27] spend the night. So I will talk to [150:29] you'all later. Bye everybody.  ## Highlights - Biblical scholar Dan McClellan conducts a live Q&A session covering diverse topics from textual criticism to personal faith questions - Note: Key claim #atom/literature/h1 - Discusses methodological approaches to both biblical scholarship and Mormon history using critical academic methods - Note: Key claim #atom/literature/h2 - Addresses contemporary issues like rapture anxiety, biblical cosmology, and the relationship between scholarship and faith - Note: Key claim #atom/literature/h2 - Provides scholarly perspectives on disputed authorship, early Christian development, and ancient Near Eastern context - Note: Key claim #atom/literature/h3