I can’t think of a MS episode that I’ve heard John say so little for such long stretches of time. That’s not a dig on you John. I feel it’s a testament to how powerful Dan’s message is. What an amazing “and important 😉” episode.
I have a masters degree in Divinty. Much of the three year degree was Bible Study. I have learned so much listening to this that I never knew...or understood. I sent the video to my friend Matthew Coomber who is also a PhD biblical scholar and he said "Dan's great! And I agree!" I'm aware that because I'm familiar with the the academic language I still struggled to keep up lol. I hope that people will listen to this more than once and take it all in. Bravo!!
Almost through part 2 and I will say that I have lived in areas where prepping is a big deal but I even began looking at Mormon and non-Mormon prepper sites even as a non-believer. Today I researched deep cycle batteries so I could run my flour mill. Hearing John and Dan talk about end time prophecies, I just took those batteries off my Amazon list. It is easy with online sites to get sucked into this stuff again. If I need to grind my grain into flour if a grid down, I will use my Corona steel hand grain mill that I purchased the year I joined the Church, when in 1970, people were reading "Mormon Doctrine" about the signs of the times. Thank you, Dan and John. What an eye-opener! I should receive my Oxford Annotated NRS Bible and will eventually get the Hebrew Bible.
My feeling is - the best Podcast John has put together. Dan enlightens and brings the Bible into an understanding and perspective that takes the literalist dogma out of the picture and presents a book written by humans for humans - something never taught in LDS manuals.
I loved the interviews with Patrick Mason and Jim Bennett and the like, but they hedged when they got pressed on tough questions that would rationally lead to an unorthodox position on Mormon truth claims. What I've really appreciated about Dan is how he just owns those challenges. Yeah, Deutero-Isaiah is a problem. Yeah, anachronistic codices are a problem. Yeah, restoration of polygamy is unsupported by the scriptures, and is, therefore, a problem. No hedging. No pushing aside the issues. Just owning it as a problem and moving back into the scholarship.
Agreed. But also odd because he thoroughly deconstructs any rational argument for literal belief, yet remains a believer in at least some ways. I was left both impressed at his expertise and confused at his current position.
I’m still not understand how this is a tenable position to hold. It’s like saying, hey I know that literally none of the claims are true. And there is no way to interpret the data to be true. But hey because the book which isn’t true also tells me to believe it on faith. So I’m gonna believe that one point and believe it all because reasons. Why would anyone base their lives on such epistemically hollow ground?
@@Holdthepickle70 I could only speculate on Dan's position on that, and I'm not disposed to doing so with any reliability. That said, some of the things that Dan has said give me echoes of John Hamer, who has a set of values that he negotiates in the context of the useful myth of Biblical and other LDS movement scriptures. While I think any orthodox position would be completely untenable, I do think that there is, at least on an individual level, space to negotiate an unorthodox approach to finding value in the myths of Mormonism to uphold or justify humanist values like those that Dan usually promotes. What I see from Mason and others seems less tenable to me. Those guys tend to promote some degree of orthodoxy while recognizing that the problems are extreme. I don't see how to square that circle at all.
2:55:38 The points Dan is making here about the codex and brass plates has been on my mind lately. The Book of Mormon isn’t just full of anachronisms like horses but is itself an anachronism. Lehi having a personal bound copy of all the scriptures at all (let alone on metal pages!) is akin to Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg address from his iPad. Hell, even more removed in time; it’s Shakespeare composing Romeo and Juliet from his MacBook. The holy books being in a bound codex brought all sorts of theological questions. Which books? Which order? Which version of which book? Apparently Lehi had resolved all these problems centuries ago and basically ended up with the KJV conveniently! And then to have not just resolved all those theological questions, but to have them written on brass plates? We actually have an example of writing on metal from the Copper Scroll in the Dead Sea Scrolls. For one, it’s a scroll, not a page. This isn’t exactly cleanly pressed and cut metal with precise etching. Dan also brought up the little silver scrolls used as a talisman with writing. This is what they were working with. The brass plates to have existed would look nothing like the nicely square cut and clean stacked book we are told about. Not to mention Lehi would have to have been extraordinarily wealthy to have them, so whats he even doing in Jerusalem after the first time ol’ Nebuchadnezzar rolled through? He’d be in Babylon for sure with that first wave carted off. And no one else in the whole culture was like, hey, remember that guy, who wrote all the scriptures on metal and resolved all their issues? Remember him? Should we mention him ever or replicate anything he did? No? Ok. It all goes back to treasure digging. JS couldn’t claim to find scrolls in the hillside, it had to be magical precious metals.
Did you listen to John Lundwall's presentation on Mormonish and Mormonism Live? I thought it was interesting how Lehi and his family would have had records involving "cosmic truth" rather than historical records. For example, if you're going to go back to 2200 B.C. with the Brother of Jared recording Ether, that was a pre-literacy era which relied entirely on oral tradition. The book of Ether is entirely anachronistic and just as damning as Deutero-Isaiah in the BoM. None of it could or should exist in there.
@@bonojennett I haven’t as of yet, no. Haven’t had a chance to put it on. I did see the title when they posted it and had a laugh. It’s the exact thing I said here! Must be something in the water. Looking forward to giving it a listen.
It would be so cool if a well respected Catholic or Protestant theologian was on this episode to bounce ideas off of Dan. I think that would be a fascinating dialogue.
If they are scholars, then the data would be the same for all, but their theologies would be different. Theologies are beliefs and not necessarily basted on data.
theologians are different from scholars of the bible ; they study divinity, not ( just ) the bible itself - they would be talking around each other's points at best ~
@@harlanlang6556 First, people interpret data based on their presuppositions. Second, two people can see the exact same data and come to different conclusions. Lastly, everyone has a belief system and no one is unbiased.
Excellent information. Unfortunately most LDS people will not pay attention to anything that is not sourced directly from the Church or sold in a Deseret Book Store. And they're the people who need this the most.
This is literally a conversation between two of the smartest people I've ever seen 😮 And on one of my favorite topics. I'm literally more pulled in by this than any television show, well done guys 🥰
When reading the bible, my pastor said you need to know the what, where, when, why and to whom. Helps you understand it so much better. Love this information.
How did you clearly see what JS did? Are you a seer or did you see what you want to see? Stop listening to the ex-Mormons. They have proven they cannot think critically or prove anything true or false. You still have to rely on faith.
@behonest5981 Yep, you have to rely on faith, that's what the scientologists, Jehovah Witnesses and other cult like religions say, don't use your brain, rely on fuzzy feelings.
@@behonest5981honest question, do you think trump is innocent on all four indictments or do you think there is enough evidence to think he is a criminal con man?
@@behonest5981 I am an exmo and I did not see what I wanted to see. The only time I've had an agenda since my faith transition began was when it began by my looking for information on Native American DNA. I heard something about DNA supporting the scientific conclusion that Native Americans came from central Asia over a land bridge, and I was adamant that I would find information to counter that since I knew the "true church of Jesus Christ" had always taught me that they came from Israel in a few different migrations. I did NOT want to see what I saw, which was lie after lie defending the narrative. Not truth backing up truth, but intentional misinformation and deceit designed to gaslight people in one attempt after another to defend the indefensible. I had found FAIR and, on that issue, and a host of others, NONE of what I was seeing was what I wanted to see!! Why come here and project your unwillingness to engage in critical thinking? If you must delude yourself, don't come online to push it on others. The vast majority of us are way past such obvious nonsense and all you're going to get is a lot of people wondering why "behonest" doesn't just be honest with his or herself in the first place.
DNA alone disproves this "church". Archeology alone disproves it. Their financial practices disprove it. Their handling of abuse disproves it. JS history disproves it. BY history disproves it. It takes a real head up the ass agenda to pretend that digging for facts does anything but show how fake and fraudulent this cult really is.
Another epic interview. Big thanks to Dan and John for making this critical and very informative interview happen. We are well on our way to becoming informed, as part of informed consent.
After finding out the truth about the BoM, I’ve been trying to understand the Bible and its origins better. There are so many scholars and videos out there, that it has already taken me weeks to really dive deep. This interview comes at a perfect time, and I appreciate these videos so much! They contain so much valuable information. I really appreciate the data approach in contrast to the faith-promoting material only approach❤️ The Church should have done something like this waaaay earlier about the BoM. Fewer members might have left the Church if the church leaders had been more honest about the problems with the BoM. Thank you so much for your hard work. These episodes are fantastic!
I am seriously curious what he does during Sunday School class? Is he just constantly shaking his head inwardly? I’m hoping he’s giving the lessons! Amazing podcast. I learned so much.
I really appreciate this one! Losing my view of the Bible as divine has made me wonder if I value it at all. I still don't know the answer to that question for sure, but the concluding thoughts about taking whatever value I find it is something that's resonating with me. Particularly because I still find value in the gospels and, in particular, the parables of Jesus which serve as timeless stories ready to be adapted and adjusted to different times and settings.
I understand Dan's valuing the wholesome and healthy spiritual home he finds in the LDS Church, his community. The problem I find with most churches is the "othering" of those who are not members. It fosters an "us and them" way of looking at the human race. It seems logical that progressive and unbiased thinking would bring the awareness that every human being is in the same position of valuing her/his spiritual home and appreciating the values of that community and considering it the best religion, maybe the only true religion. All you have to do is travel to India or Thailand to find non-Christians who are very religious and have wholesome teachings, time tested. Is it possible to be a Christian or LDS without believing that all other religions are lesser, or evil? Is it possible be a member of a church and still feel that all human beings are your brothers and sisters, regardless of their religion? Concerning chickens, John, I've raised chickens for decades and young roosters may be sexually violent as you say, but mature roosters are a class act. They treat the hens with consideration, call them to food they find, strut to dazzle hens....and then hens respond invitingly. The hens definitely have their favorite guys. Pigeons mate for life. The hen is dazzled by her mate's strutting. She then sticks her beak into her mates beak and he regurgitates food into her beak. Pigeons call this foreplay. It's all consensual. The book of Malachi mentions that the prophet Elijah will return in the Day of the Lord prior to the coming of the Messiah. Matthew and Mark mention that Jesus was asked about this, that if He is the Messiah, then where's Elijah? Jesus indicates that John the Baptist is Elijah. So the idea of the "Return" didn't start with the expectation of the return of Christ. Christians acknowledge that Elijah didn't fly down out of the sky when he returned, that John was the return allegorically or metaphorically, not physically, but they generally insist that Jesus will fly down from heaven.....literally.
Only having read the KJV in my 50 years inthe LDS Church, I bought a New Revised Version last year. IM LOVING IT! I am just reading it as literature. I sometimes find it hard to put down. And my gosh. the Apocryphal books are the best if you find back stories to the Old Testament. Enjoy reading the “ greatest story ever told”.
Thank you for these interviews with Dan! I have seen one of his guest appearances on the channel Digital Hammurabi and have wondered about his personal story. I am also a fan of Francesca Stavrakapoulou . I just finished reading her book God: An Anatomy. It is such a fascinating and important read in understanding the god of the Hebrew Bible as to how he began and evolved into what we have today in Judaism and Christianity.
If I could have listened to this back when I was in catholic school… the hours of sleep I lost thinking about unbaptized babies burning in the fires of hell would probably have been whittled down significantly
That’s not Catholic doctrine. St. Thomas Aquinas said unbaptized babies don’t suffer. And modern Catholic doctrine says they may be in heaven and may be in limbo (no suffering but not heaven). The most extreme view was St. Augustine who said unbaptized babies suffer, but the mildest punishments. But Augustine’s opinion is not Church teaching.
Excellent episode! It is a pity that so many within Mormonism and wider evangelical Christianity are so wedded to the idea of biblical infallibility and a literal interpretation. So much good might be done and so much deeper wisdom had if more people were willing to take a step back, listen to Dan, and maybe make peace with taking all things biblical with a grain of salt.
You can't be curious and intellectual and remain Mormon. It only thrives because people don't ask questions and hide like scared turtles from real history and facts.
@@sjenson6694 As a post Mormon myself, I agree that the church benefits from ignorance and fear. Personally I was privileged to be able to deconstruct, leave, and start working on resolving years of religious trauma. My life would probably have been simpler had I stayed. I would however ask you to be cautious of victim blaming and remember that the process of deconstruction is complex and comes with high costs that not everyone is in a position to afford.
@@tezzerii being a member of the Morman social community is not the same thing as being a Mormon. You MUST believe in the supernatural to be a Mormon according to... the LDS Church. That's why Dan is walking on eggshells-- it's abundantly obvious he doesn't believe in any of the Bible or BoM's supernatural claims, but he cannot say that publicly without facing exile and breaking apart his family and friends.
Such important information. Puts LDS into perspective. I imagine most Christians know nothing about this Bible "backstory". The old saying "daylight is the best disinfectant" has new meaning. Dan is daylight.
I very much enjoy listening to Dan McClellan speak. Even with his scholarly mind I continue to be puzzled by the idea that the LDS Church is more open minded about science and theology. I come from a conversative, small town Mennonite family, but have now lived in Toronto and attended an urban Mennonite church. The theologians of the Mennonite academic world are way beyond what Dr McClellan suggests as being unique to LDS scholarship. Where Mennonite scholarship is today, and admittedly under attack by right-leaning, conservative elements in the church, continues the history of Mennonite-Anabaptists being seen as neither Protestant or Catholic. I have listened to many Follow Him podcasts over the past 1.5 years. I am surprised by the dogmatic narrowness of the hosts and many of the speakers. If the speakers main focus is not scripture, I certainly do not see scholarship at work. The POVs I hear here, in this podcast today, seem to suggest the world of biblical scholarship is binary. My own thinking is influenced by the Jewish approach - ask more questions. When a former paster and I met with an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine over the issue of inerrancy and absolute truth - this coming after our urban congregation was under attack for its open statement on our website, my friend's response was - That's the problem with you Christians. You want it all to be true, there appears to be little room for other possibilities. However, our local congregational is seeking constantly. Nevertheless, I love hearing Dr McClellan speak.
Learning about the Bible from a scholarly perspective has, restored my religion, but not really restored my faith. I'm theologically an agnostic, but I'll probably be a practicing Christian for the rest of my life because the traditions of Christianity are a part of my culture and have always been important to me. Being able to see religion as cultural practices rather than truth claims has allowed me to get back that community I once had and properly explore my spirituality, which I was unable to do when I was a practicing Latter Day Saint or a non-practicing atheist. I don't know if I'll ever be a practicing Latter Day Saint again, definitely not if the church remains how it is now, but I'm really glad I was exposed to religious scholarship, as it has helped me gain a healthy relationship with God and with myself.
I was trying to explain the CES Letter contents to a church member recently. One problem is members are ignorant of basic facts about their own religion. They don't know about competing geography theories about BM locations. They also don't know what anachronisms are. And they are clueless about the origins of certain practices like polygamy, polyandry, blood atonement, changing doctrine, and changes to the temple endowment ceremony.
As someone who grew up in the LDS church, I think that it's members are more concerned with feelings than facts i.e. good feelings = godly / desirable .... bad feelings = Satanic / undesirable ....when sometimes the bad feelings are the result of ignorance or cognitive dissonance ( the confusion caused when new facts challenge something we've already settled our minds on ).
That was really good! I'd love to see Dan back talking more on the book of Revelation. An incredibly destructive book, that so many cults use as fear leverage. He only just touched on the surface. I'd love to see Elaine Pagels on as well. More bible stuff guys. Love it.
@@barbsilvey3276if you go to his website, he teaches a whole bunch of classes like these discussions, and I think he asks for only a minimum donation of $1 US, I respect that he’s committed to the democratization of education
I appreciate Dan’s videos quite a bit. They’ve helped me in my own deepening understanding of the Bible as a cradle Catholic who largely punted on theology as something worked out thousands of years ago by the magisterium. I’m exploring a lot more now and am drawn towards a High Church Protestantism, as I do find the Catholic liturgy much more comforting. That said, there’s one thing in this interview that I take small issue with and may just be under-informed on: at 2:34:00 or thereabouts, Dan argues that Athanasius brought the Book of Revelation into the canon to combat heretical Gnostics. I think Dan’s rhetoric is at its weakest when it baldly proclaims ill or nefarious intentions of some kind of those with any amount of power. But Irenaeus was just as concerned about heresy, specifically Gnostic heresy, centuries earlier when the Early Church didn’t have anywhere near the kind of political power it would later have. He was also convinced the Revelation was given to John the Apostle, who was the author of the Gospel of John in his estimation, and it met his standards for being promulgated. It’s anachronistic to say he called it “canonical,” but he surely supported its status as an inspired text of the Church. My other divergence from Dan is around the KJV. I defer to experts that it is a faulty translation of the Bible as written, but Dan’s main argument against its AESTHETIC value is that its influence on English was accidental and it was considered difficult when it was first published. To this, I’d say that Moby-Dick was a complete failure upon release, and Ulysses was labeled as obscenity, yet both remain pillars of English-language literature today despite poor early reception. The Bible that moved Melville and Faulkner and all of America’s greatest writers so deeply surely has value as a literary work that far exceeds most. These are minor quibbles, ultimately, though, and while I think Dan and I diverge pretty widely on politics (understood here to be the mechanisms by which power does and ought to operate, both in the past and present) I owe him a great deal for helping introduce me to a variety of controversies in Biblical scholarship that have enriched my engagement with my own faith. Thank you for such an exhaustive interview!
Hi Dan & ya'll ❤ I was 12 and a Baptist when I discovered that they believed in a 3in1 body god the trinity, I was Shocked Began reading Bible and found Multiple Marriage Covenants and especially a Covenant David & Jonathan entered into as well as Abraham and Israel and Jacob as the Covenant of Manservants or Husbandmen that was a love beyond women acceptable before the Lord Ain't no way Daviv & Jonathan could make love and not have Samuel or Nathan all over that unless it was acceptable and one of them probably sealed them Then Jesus has a special parable about HUSBANDMEN and regarding Himself 12 years old and began to understand same gender marriage was really of God and not man's ways Then of course the 3 Heavens in 1 Corinthians Sooooo left the Baptist Church at 12
This, indeed is very interesting, though I am only 25 minutes into it. Since I discovered so many questions in Mormonism, I began a study of the history of both the Bible and Christianity. Through the online "The Great Courses" college lecture series, I have studied Bart Ehrman, Amy Jill-Levine of Vanderbilt U., Prof Gafne of Hebrew U. in Jerusalem, and Molly Worthen, of U. Of N.C. I have listened to quite a few talks by Francesca Stav... I have found that most people I have met who are Christians have no Idea what is in their holy book of scripture. I also read some of the Gnostic scriptures with the Book of Thomas, so this podcast is something I am writing down on blank pages remaining in my LDS combination. Back to the podcast.
I love this so much! I’m so interested in taking his course but don’t want credit or have to do work! I just want to learn more 🤣I would definitely pay!
Half of Sunday School Bible study in the Mormon church is defining all the archaic words like "upbraideth" or "talent," explaining and interpreting what the verse means. By keeping an old version and inferior translation of the Bible, the church is additionally allowed to give their own interpretation or "translation" by choosing the preferred definitions and explanations in their teaching manuals. What I mean to say is, the further your translation of the Bible is from being obvious and clear, the more spaces and room there is for the teacher/institution to add in their biases or agendas.
Eine phänomenal gute Episode! Wäre eine super Sache, so etwas in Institutsklassen oder im Seminar zu zeigen! Hätte mich damals als junges Mädchen sehr interessiert zu wissen. Das Seminsrprogramm -besonders für das Alte Testament- war eine riesige Herausforderung für mich.
Just remember that they’ve found the real Mount Sinai in Sadi Arabia. TH-cam it, it’s amazing. The burnt mountain top, the split Rock, golden calf alter, the alter built by Mosses & much more is all there and really well persevered. It’s been said you can read the Exodus account like a map it’s so accurate. I feel like it’s easy to loose your faith listening to this guy, but I truly believe this discovery is a corner stone for those to reinsure your on the right path still. God is real, and these events did take place.
Poppycock. The rock at the top of the entire range of Jebel Al Lawz is basalt. It's naturally dark and blackened. It was never burned. You should also be aware that there's not one scrap of evidence for an exodus.
I'm not a church member but I got a few Mormon friends. One of them doesn't like this channel because he believes that this is an anti-Mormonism platform. I sent him one of the episodes and expected his feedback. Apparently, he didn't even open the link though.
based on the definition of bosom it would be an assumption to say that it relates to marriage. it very well could but we cant always assume every situation associated with this word includes marriage.
2:54:00 ok, so since the Book of Ether came from a pre-literacy era (explained in John Lundwall's research), along with the brass plates not being available to Lehi at the time, then basically Ether is a record that could not exist within another record that could not exist.
Maybe Dan gets to this but I am only 2 hours in and I am wondering how Dan reconciles the Inaccuracies and issues with the Book of Mormon? Does anyone know if mentions it here or anywhere else. I am super curious. I do like Dan's interpretation of the bible but when I found out he was Mormon, it change the way that I valued what he was saying... Does anyone know if he mentions these things here or anywhere else? Please let me know. Thanks!
I agree. I’m all for this type of research applied to the Biblical text. I am curious how he applies this same criteria to the BOM, and what he can conclude from a data perspective on the BOM text.
Thank you both, John & Dan. Don't necessarily agree with) accept all, but do surely appreciate your research, ruminations, & report. Specially glad for literary exploration & how tied into cultures, eras, & global areas. Abstract is meaning- less without mundane points of reference & vice versa. And what we don't know, recognize, understand all hidden in material mix awaiting access to/for/by human psyche. Maybe another 4.5 billion years ..? So all information is good for separating mustard seeds from poppy seeds. ✌️
Amazing episode. Dan might be the most important Bible scholar on earth right now. His explanations parallel that of the Urantia Book. Never heard of it? Start with Part 4: the life and teachings of Jesus. The time is coming where the most important event on earth of 2000 years ago will finally be decoupled from these egoic false churches and Jesus will draw all humans to Himself.
Listening to scholars, like Dan, have really shown how religion develops and how a culture narrative grows and is built. As it grows the influences of that time and writer are added. Buddhism has the same build up over time. Religion is a cultural construct that often helps people within its. Ultyre
My personal opinion is that the Frist 5 books of the old testament are the most reliable. The length that the Hebrews went to preserving the texts, going so far as to writting them on rolls of silver,
I'd be fascinated to hear a discussion about the parallels between how "Homer" composed the Iliad, the Odyssey, et.al, and how the Bible was composed. It seems there many similarities, at least as Dan describes things.
Dan suggested that Exodus 22:29-30 calls for sacrifice of the first born son (1:47:15). I don't see it in the text: 29 “Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits and of thy liquors. The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto Me. 30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it to Me. The word used for "...shalt thou give..." is "nāṯan". I can't find a definition that says "sacrifice". When we reference Exodus 13:12-13 it's saying to "devote" the first offspring. If this were to be a blood sacrifice it seem "zeḇaḥ" would have been used.
Yes, Dan’s interpretation is nonsense. Human sacrifice is abomination in the Law. Pretty much, his whole view of the OT is built on an eighteenth century theory called the “documentary hypothesis” which has been shown to be wrong in many ways since then.
Around the 3 hour point Dan McClellan mentioned Robert Alter, JPS, the JPS Tanakh commentary. I am so pleased i have owned those for a few years. There is an updated KJV extant now, which seems unusual since most scholars I know think it's a really poor version.
So I really like Dan and I agree with about 99% of what he was saying... though I think he kind of misses a bit on one point. I mostly agree with his point but I think he slightly misrepresents what most people would think behind it. He pointed out things like rabbis being atheist, being religious in a non-theist way. Then he makes a point he makes often that as a result of the reformation and enlightenment religion has become about truth claims, implying it wasn't before. I get part of what he's saying, people didn't always literally believe all the stories happened, but they had some meaning to them etc. Yes I think that's part of it but a key part of it that doesn't really fit this is that post enlightenment when some started questioning whether any deity really existed we started to have the more literal definition of atheists a=non theist=believer in god/gods. Yes in defense of that we had Christians that started to take everything completely literally which didn't fully match those that came before... but his implication stretches a bit too far to almost encompass this idea that non theists (aka atheists but people seem to overcomplicate that definition) views were common before this. That's a bit too far. Sure people didn't historically seem to hold to all the beliefs literally and completely like many do now, but as far as I can tell they still mostly believed in a deity or deities and believed that some of the supernatural elements of their religions were in fact truth claims. So this idea that he doesn't exactly put out there directly but seems implied being included of a religious non-theist who believes all supernatural claims are false essentially only following the philosophy of a religion existed pre-enlightenment seems misleading. I think his argument that his sort of hyper truth claim religious view was a post enlightenment product but I'd also argue so is the non-theist non-supernatural religious view. Things were more in between but both ends are products of that era and what happend later.
59:35 I’ve been noticing that John wants to talk about what is True or Not True while Dan puts it in terms of what’s supported by the data. The podcast Apocrypals I think deals with this well. They say “Robin Hood real” or “Caesar real”, which means that both Robin Hood and Caesar are “real” in the sense that they both made an enormous mark on cultural history. The difference is that the data don’t support the literal existence of Robin Hood, but it does support the literal existence of Caesar. Just because a figure might fall into the Robin Hood Real category, that doesn’t mean that they haven’t influenced our culture and beliefs in very real ways. In other words, Robin Hood Real figures can still be true in the sense that there is truth in their stories and truth in what people believe about them. But they’re not data supported. They’re not Caesar Real. By sticking to data-based language, I think Dan is trying to make a similar distinction. Saying that something is True doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s data supported, and saying something is Not True doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not data supported.
Maybe this is a novel point, or maybe it's been addressed somewhere in the comments. Dan knows religion isnt "true" in the sense of literalism. But.. he also LOVES comic books. I would imagine he doesn't take them to be true but... he loves the charectures and stories. Maybe its the same with his LDS membership and the bible as a whole? Thoughts?
Loved everything except the term “Coco-esk”. I don’t think we should be attributing a Mesoamerican belief to the corporate monster that is Disney. “Similar to Día de los Muertos” wouldn’t have taken much longer to say and would actually draw a line between one ancient belief of the afterlife to another. Just something to think about.
I’m curious what Dan would say about Luke 3:28-38? Is the whole genealogy useless or can he point to what person from Jesus tracing back to Adam was placed without evidence. Almost all scholars of antiquity agree now that Jesus and his father Joseph were historically real people. So we have a starting point.
Regarding the picture of Washington kneeling next to his horse praying. Indeed, most consider him praying to the Christian God. I would suggest that indeed Washington was a Diest like Dan suggests. I would also suggest the possibility that this picture of Washington shows him posing in a kind of Freemasonic position with his knee bent to the square and the unusual position of his sword forming the compas. Freemasons are Deists and pray to the Grand Architect of the Universe...so mote it be.
Too funny. My interpretation of how the Bible came about is exactly like the Hosts. I’ve had this same idea since grade school. So glad you shared that.
01:00:04 DAN: "Defaulting to assuming the literalness of every last word of the scripture is something that ... as a faith matures and grapples with these things, they tend to move further away from." You'd think so, huh? But somebody needs to tell that to the passive dozers at my local Baptist church. Even the pastor says he's never heard of the theory that Matthew didn't write the book of Matthew. Of course Matthew wrote it! Of course the walking-talking snake in Eden is historical fact! As far as my experience goes, these matters don't progress. And, excluding one or two enlightened niches, hasn't the internet polarised the debate further?
The comment that the next wave of faith crisis will come from the church not doing enough with Bible is the exact situation I am grappling now. I learned more about James the Brother of Jesus, and I am trying to understand the Ebionite traditions associated with his life and teachings. For example, Ebionites not believing in the virgin birth. They believed Jesus biological father is Joseph. Who am I going to trust more? Traditions that came from Jesus' brother or a visionary leader from the mid-1800s?
The ebionites were divided on that subject. Some did in fact believe in the virgin birth. But all of them believed that Jesus fully human, but exalted to the right hand of God at his resurrection. And they surely never thought he was the God of Israel.
@Mikha335 Thanks for the correction, I double-checked my references. Here is a quote from Eusebius, "They (Ebionites) held him (Christ) to be a plain and ordinary man who had achieved righteousness merely by the progress of his character and had been born naturally from Mary and her husband...But there were others besides these who have the same name. They escaped the absurd folly of the first mentioned, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a Virgin and the Holy Spirit, and but nevertheless agreed with them in not confessing his pre-existence as God, being Logos and Wisdom..."
@@spencerlercher4059 It’s obvious to see that the human christology of the ebionites came straight from the apostles. The book of Acts contains the clearly examples. If there is to be a restoration it will be to the historic faith in the Messiah- not a phony pyramid scheme invented to exercise power over others. Unfortunately, not many are interested in the historic truth. But think on this: if the Ebionites didn’t believe in the preexistence of Jesus, what do you think they would think of the Mormon doctrine of universal pre existence?
@Mikha335 There isn't a direct link from the Apostles to the Ebionites. It looks like the Ebionites started with Ebion from Pella. It looks like you meant that the Ebionites and Apostles shared the same Christology. This doesn't quite work because the views of Jesus Christology are different amongst the Gospels. We learn about the Ebionites' christological views from the Patristic Fathers. The Ebionites would probably think the idea that humans have souls stemming from the prexistence to be blasphemous because Ancient Jews believed that God, the divine wisdom, and Christ to be pre-existant beings. It is a wild guess to think about how ancient people would react to ideas that developed well after their time.
I can’t think of a MS episode that I’ve heard John say so little for such long stretches of time. That’s not a dig on you John. I feel it’s a testament to how powerful Dan’s message is. What an amazing “and important 😉” episode.
5 hours-incredible. Honestly, this should be a standard for these types of discussions.
I know- ten hours of Dan out of the blue for me. It’s like xmas.
I have a masters degree in Divinty. Much of the three year degree was Bible Study. I have learned so much listening to this that I never knew...or understood. I sent the video to my friend Matthew Coomber who is also a PhD biblical scholar and he said "Dan's great! And I agree!" I'm aware that because I'm familiar with the the academic language I still struggled to keep up lol. I hope that people will listen to this more than once and take it all in. Bravo!!
Almost through part 2 and I will say that I have lived in areas where prepping is a big deal but I even began looking at Mormon and non-Mormon prepper sites even as a non-believer. Today I researched deep cycle batteries so I could run my flour mill. Hearing John and Dan talk about end time prophecies, I just took those batteries off my Amazon list. It is easy with online sites to get sucked into this stuff again. If I need to grind my grain into flour if a grid down, I will use my Corona steel hand grain mill that I purchased the year I joined the Church, when in 1970, people were reading "Mormon Doctrine" about the signs of the times. Thank you, Dan and John. What an eye-opener! I should receive my Oxford Annotated NRS Bible and will eventually get the Hebrew Bible.
My feeling is - the best Podcast John has put together. Dan enlightens and brings the Bible into an understanding and perspective that takes the literalist dogma out of the picture and presents a book written by humans for humans - something never taught in LDS manuals.
I loved the interviews with Patrick Mason and Jim Bennett and the like, but they hedged when they got pressed on tough questions that would rationally lead to an unorthodox position on Mormon truth claims.
What I've really appreciated about Dan is how he just owns those challenges. Yeah, Deutero-Isaiah is a problem. Yeah, anachronistic codices are a problem. Yeah, restoration of polygamy is unsupported by the scriptures, and is, therefore, a problem.
No hedging. No pushing aside the issues. Just owning it as a problem and moving back into the scholarship.
Agreed!!
Seems like it's because we dont even know what his testimony is, other than he's an active member of the church..
Agreed. But also odd because he thoroughly deconstructs any rational argument for literal belief, yet remains a believer in at least some ways. I was left both impressed at his expertise and confused at his current position.
I’m still not understand how this is a tenable position to hold. It’s like saying, hey I know that literally none of the claims are true. And there is no way to interpret the data to be true. But hey because the book which isn’t true also tells me to believe it on faith. So I’m gonna believe that one point and believe it all because reasons.
Why would anyone base their lives on such epistemically hollow ground?
@@Holdthepickle70 I could only speculate on Dan's position on that, and I'm not disposed to doing so with any reliability.
That said, some of the things that Dan has said give me echoes of John Hamer, who has a set of values that he negotiates in the context of the useful myth of Biblical and other LDS movement scriptures. While I think any orthodox position would be completely untenable, I do think that there is, at least on an individual level, space to negotiate an unorthodox approach to finding value in the myths of Mormonism to uphold or justify humanist values like those that Dan usually promotes.
What I see from Mason and others seems less tenable to me. Those guys tend to promote some degree of orthodoxy while recognizing that the problems are extreme. I don't see how to square that circle at all.
2:55:38 The points Dan is making here about the codex and brass plates has been on my mind lately. The Book of Mormon isn’t just full of anachronisms like horses but is itself an anachronism. Lehi having a personal bound copy of all the scriptures at all (let alone on metal pages!) is akin to Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg address from his iPad. Hell, even more removed in time; it’s Shakespeare composing Romeo and Juliet from his MacBook.
The holy books being in a bound codex brought all sorts of theological questions. Which books? Which order? Which version of which book? Apparently Lehi had resolved all these problems centuries ago and basically ended up with the KJV conveniently!
And then to have not just resolved all those theological questions, but to have them written on brass plates? We actually have an example of writing on metal from the Copper Scroll in the Dead Sea Scrolls. For one, it’s a scroll, not a page. This isn’t exactly cleanly pressed and cut metal with precise etching. Dan also brought up the little silver scrolls used as a talisman with writing. This is what they were working with. The brass plates to have existed would look nothing like the nicely square cut and clean stacked book we are told about.
Not to mention Lehi would have to have been extraordinarily wealthy to have them, so whats he even doing in Jerusalem after the first time ol’ Nebuchadnezzar rolled through? He’d be in Babylon for sure with that first wave carted off.
And no one else in the whole culture was like, hey, remember that guy, who wrote all the scriptures on metal and resolved all their issues? Remember him? Should we mention him ever or replicate anything he did? No? Ok.
It all goes back to treasure digging. JS couldn’t claim to find scrolls in the hillside, it had to be magical precious metals.
Once you see it you can’t unsee it
Did you listen to John Lundwall's presentation on Mormonish and Mormonism Live?
I thought it was interesting how Lehi and his family would have had records involving "cosmic truth" rather than historical records. For example, if you're going to go back to 2200 B.C. with the Brother of Jared recording Ether, that was a pre-literacy era which relied entirely on oral tradition. The book of Ether is entirely anachronistic and just as damning as Deutero-Isaiah in the BoM. None of it could or should exist in there.
@@bonojennett I haven’t as of yet, no. Haven’t had a chance to put it on. I did see the title when they posted it and had a laugh. It’s the exact thing I said here! Must be something in the water. Looking forward to giving it a listen.
It would be so cool if a well respected Catholic or Protestant theologian was on this episode to bounce ideas off of Dan. I think that would be a fascinating dialogue.
If they are scholars, then the data would be the same for all, but their theologies would be different. Theologies are beliefs and not necessarily basted on data.
theologians are different from scholars of the bible ; they study divinity, not ( just ) the bible itself - they would be talking around each other's points at best ~
@@harlanlang6556 First, people interpret data based on their presuppositions. Second, two people can see the exact same data and come to different conclusions. Lastly, everyone has a belief system and no one is unbiased.
You're absolutely right!@@tmack62
If they’re legit scholars their personal faith doesn’t matter.
Excellent information. Unfortunately most LDS people will not pay attention to anything that is not sourced directly from the Church or sold in a Deseret Book Store. And they're the people who need this the most.
I am going to make sure the loved ones of mine, who are struggling in certain areas, listen to this!!!
This is literally a conversation between two of the smartest people I've ever seen 😮 And on one of my favorite topics. I'm literally more pulled in by this than any television show, well done guys 🥰
When reading the bible, my pastor said you need to know the what, where, when, why and to whom. Helps you understand it so much better. Love this information.
Dan, thank you for being so generous with your time❤
I never had any doubts about my religion until I clearly saw what JS did. That realization turned ne into an instant apostate. Thank you ex-mo's.
How did you clearly see what JS did? Are you a seer or did you see what you want to see? Stop listening to the ex-Mormons. They have proven they cannot think critically or prove anything true or false. You still have to rely on faith.
@behonest5981 Yep, you have to rely on faith, that's what the scientologists, Jehovah Witnesses and other cult like religions say, don't use your brain, rely on fuzzy feelings.
@@behonest5981honest question, do you think trump is innocent on all four indictments or do you think there is enough evidence to think he is a criminal con man?
@@behonest5981 I am an exmo and I did not see what I wanted to see. The only time I've had an agenda since my faith transition began was when it began by my looking for information on Native American DNA. I heard something about DNA supporting the scientific conclusion that Native Americans came from central Asia over a land bridge, and I was adamant that I would find information to counter that since I knew the "true church of Jesus Christ" had always taught me that they came from Israel in a few different migrations.
I did NOT want to see what I saw, which was lie after lie defending the narrative. Not truth backing up truth, but intentional misinformation and deceit designed to gaslight people in one attempt after another to defend the indefensible. I had found FAIR and, on that issue, and a host of others, NONE of what I was seeing was what I wanted to see!!
Why come here and project your unwillingness to engage in critical thinking? If you must delude yourself, don't come online to push it on others. The vast majority of us are way past such obvious nonsense and all you're going to get is a lot of people wondering why "behonest" doesn't just be honest with his or herself in the first place.
DNA alone disproves this "church". Archeology alone disproves it. Their financial practices disprove it. Their handling of abuse disproves it. JS history disproves it. BY history disproves it. It takes a real head up the ass agenda to pretend that digging for facts does anything but show how fake and fraudulent this cult really is.
I have appreciated all forms of Dan's scholarship and personal story regarding the understanding and scripture. Thank you!
Another epic interview. Big thanks to Dan and John for making this critical and very informative interview happen. We are well on our way to becoming informed, as part of informed consent.
After finding out the truth about the BoM, I’ve been trying to understand the Bible and its origins better. There are so many scholars and videos out there, that it has already taken me weeks to really dive deep.
This interview comes at a perfect time, and I appreciate these videos so much! They contain so much valuable information.
I really appreciate the data approach in contrast to the faith-promoting material only approach❤️
The Church should have done something like this waaaay earlier about the BoM. Fewer members might have left the Church if the church leaders had been more honest about the problems with the BoM.
Thank you so much for your hard work. These episodes are fantastic!
I am seriously curious what he does during Sunday School class? Is he just constantly shaking his head inwardly? I’m hoping he’s giving the lessons! Amazing podcast. I learned so much.
Just finished the first part of this on a long drive and was sad because I wanted more. Then I looked and there’s 5 hours more. Amazing.
I really appreciate this one! Losing my view of the Bible as divine has made me wonder if I value it at all. I still don't know the answer to that question for sure, but the concluding thoughts about taking whatever value I find it is something that's resonating with me. Particularly because I still find value in the gospels and, in particular, the parables of Jesus which serve as timeless stories ready to be adapted and adjusted to different times and settings.
I understand Dan's valuing the wholesome and healthy spiritual home he finds in the LDS Church, his community. The problem I find with most churches is the "othering" of those who are not members. It fosters an "us and them" way of looking at the human race. It seems logical that progressive and unbiased thinking would bring the awareness that every human being is in the same position of valuing her/his spiritual home and appreciating the values of that community and considering it the best religion, maybe the only true religion. All you have to do is travel to India or Thailand to find non-Christians who are very religious and have wholesome teachings, time tested. Is it possible to be a Christian or LDS without believing that all other religions are lesser, or evil? Is it possible be a member of a church and still feel that all human beings are your brothers and sisters, regardless of their religion?
Concerning chickens, John, I've raised chickens for decades and young roosters may be sexually violent as you say, but mature roosters are a class act. They treat the hens with consideration, call them to food they find, strut to dazzle hens....and then hens respond invitingly. The hens definitely have their favorite guys. Pigeons mate for life. The hen is dazzled by her mate's strutting. She then sticks her beak into her mates beak and he regurgitates food into her beak. Pigeons call this foreplay. It's all consensual.
The book of Malachi mentions that the prophet Elijah will return in the Day of the Lord prior to the coming of the Messiah. Matthew and Mark mention that Jesus was asked about this, that if He is the Messiah, then where's Elijah? Jesus indicates that John the Baptist is Elijah. So the idea of the "Return" didn't start with the expectation of the return of Christ. Christians acknowledge that Elijah didn't fly down out of the sky when he returned, that John was the return allegorically or metaphorically, not physically, but they generally insist that Jesus will fly down from heaven.....literally.
Such great episodes!! Dan is amazing! Going
To listen again!!! Thanks for having him, John.
Only having read the KJV in my 50 years inthe LDS Church, I bought a New Revised Version last year. IM LOVING IT! I am just reading it as literature. I sometimes find it hard to put down. And my gosh. the Apocryphal books are the best if you find back stories to the Old Testament. Enjoy reading the “ greatest story ever told”.
Thank you for these interviews with Dan! I have seen one of his guest appearances on the channel Digital Hammurabi and have wondered about his personal story.
I am also a fan of Francesca Stavrakapoulou . I just finished reading her book God: An Anatomy. It is such a fascinating and important read in understanding the god of the Hebrew Bible as to how he began and evolved into what we have today in Judaism and Christianity.
If I could have listened to this back when I was in catholic school… the hours of sleep I lost thinking about unbaptized babies burning in the fires of hell would probably have been whittled down significantly
That’s not Catholic doctrine. St. Thomas Aquinas said unbaptized babies don’t suffer. And modern Catholic doctrine says they may be in heaven and may be in limbo (no suffering but not heaven). The most extreme view was St. Augustine who said unbaptized babies suffer, but the mildest punishments. But Augustine’s opinion is not Church teaching.
This was absolutely the BEST podcast I have ever listened to!🎉😊❤
Yay! Thank you!
It's a precious thing to see a man of faith who also wrestlers with that faith.
i love a good five-hour video about something that has nothing to do with my daily life😂🖤 infinitely intriguing
Excellent episode! It is a pity that so many within Mormonism and wider evangelical Christianity are so wedded to the idea of biblical infallibility and a literal interpretation. So much good might be done and so much deeper wisdom had if more people were willing to take a step back, listen to Dan, and maybe make peace with taking all things biblical with a grain of salt.
You can't be curious and intellectual and remain Mormon. It only thrives because people don't ask questions and hide like scared turtles from real history and facts.
@@sjenson6694 As a post Mormon myself, I agree that the church benefits from ignorance and fear. Personally I was privileged to be able to deconstruct, leave, and start working on resolving years of religious trauma. My life would probably have been simpler had I stayed. I would however ask you to be cautious of victim blaming and remember that the process of deconstruction is complex and comes with high costs that not everyone is in a position to afford.
@@sjenson6694 Actually you can, and lots do. Bit of a sweeping, "tar them all with the same brush" comment.
@@tezzerii being a member of the Morman social community is not the same thing as being a Mormon. You MUST believe in the supernatural to be a Mormon according to... the LDS Church.
That's why Dan is walking on eggshells-- it's abundantly obvious he doesn't believe in any of the Bible or BoM's supernatural claims, but he cannot say that publicly without facing exile and breaking apart his family and friends.
Such important information. Puts LDS into perspective. I imagine most Christians know nothing about this Bible "backstory". The old saying "daylight is the best disinfectant" has new meaning. Dan is daylight.
I very much enjoy listening to Dan McClellan speak. Even with his scholarly mind I continue to be puzzled by the idea that the LDS Church is more open minded about science and theology. I come from a conversative, small town Mennonite family, but have now lived in Toronto and attended an urban Mennonite church. The theologians of the Mennonite academic world are way beyond what Dr McClellan suggests as being unique to LDS scholarship. Where Mennonite scholarship is today, and admittedly under attack by right-leaning, conservative elements in the church, continues the history of Mennonite-Anabaptists being seen as neither Protestant or Catholic. I have listened to many Follow Him podcasts over the past 1.5 years. I am surprised by the dogmatic narrowness of the hosts and many of the speakers. If the speakers main focus is not scripture, I certainly do not see scholarship at work. The POVs I hear here, in this podcast today, seem to suggest the world of biblical scholarship is binary. My own thinking is influenced by the Jewish approach - ask more questions. When a former paster and I met with an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine over the issue of inerrancy and absolute truth - this coming after our urban congregation was under attack for its open statement on our website, my friend's response was - That's the problem with you Christians. You want it all to be true, there appears to be little room for other possibilities. However, our local congregational is seeking constantly. Nevertheless, I love hearing Dr McClellan speak.
This is such a valuable video!!! 🙌🏻🙌🏻
So glad!
Mind blown!!! Thank you for sharing the scholarship on these topics, Dan!
Learning about the Bible from a scholarly perspective has, restored my religion, but not really restored my faith. I'm theologically an agnostic, but I'll probably be a practicing Christian for the rest of my life because the traditions of Christianity are a part of my culture and have always been important to me. Being able to see religion as cultural practices rather than truth claims has allowed me to get back that community I once had and properly explore my spirituality, which I was unable to do when I was a practicing Latter Day Saint or a non-practicing atheist. I don't know if I'll ever be a practicing Latter Day Saint again, definitely not if the church remains how it is now, but I'm really glad I was exposed to religious scholarship, as it has helped me gain a healthy relationship with God and with myself.
I was trying to explain the CES Letter contents to a church member recently. One problem is members are ignorant of basic facts about their own religion. They don't know about competing geography theories about BM locations. They also don't know what anachronisms are. And they are clueless about the origins of certain practices like polygamy, polyandry, blood atonement, changing doctrine, and changes to the temple endowment ceremony.
Ignorance is bliss…
As someone who grew up in the LDS church, I think that it's members are more concerned with feelings than facts i.e. good feelings = godly / desirable .... bad feelings = Satanic / undesirable ....when sometimes the bad feelings are the result of ignorance or cognitive dissonance ( the confusion caused when new facts challenge something we've already settled our minds on ).
If they weren't willfully ignorant, they wouldn't be members.
That was really good! I'd love to see Dan back talking more on the book of Revelation. An incredibly destructive book, that so many cults use as fear leverage. He only just touched on the surface.
I'd love to see Elaine Pagels on as well. More bible stuff guys. Love it.
This guy should be a professor…I would take ALL his classes!!
He does online classes
@@JenAltman - I am old, so what I was imagining is sitting in a classroom, listening to him, lecture. He knows all the things!
@@barbsilvey3276if you go to his website, he teaches a whole bunch of classes like these discussions, and I think he asks for only a minimum donation of $1 US, I respect that he’s committed to the democratization of education
This guy has a photographic memory! Amazing!
I appreciate Dan’s videos quite a bit. They’ve helped me in my own deepening understanding of the Bible as a cradle Catholic who largely punted on theology as something worked out thousands of years ago by the magisterium. I’m exploring a lot more now and am drawn towards a High Church Protestantism, as I do find the Catholic liturgy much more comforting.
That said, there’s one thing in this interview that I take small issue with and may just be under-informed on: at 2:34:00 or thereabouts, Dan argues that Athanasius brought the Book of Revelation into the canon to combat heretical Gnostics. I think Dan’s rhetoric is at its weakest when it baldly proclaims ill or nefarious intentions of some kind of those with any amount of power. But Irenaeus was just as concerned about heresy, specifically Gnostic heresy, centuries earlier when the Early Church didn’t have anywhere near the kind of political power it would later have. He was also convinced the Revelation was given to John the Apostle, who was the author of the Gospel of John in his estimation, and it met his standards for being promulgated. It’s anachronistic to say he called it “canonical,” but he surely supported its status as an inspired text of the Church.
My other divergence from Dan is around the KJV. I defer to experts that it is a faulty translation of the Bible as written, but Dan’s main argument against its AESTHETIC value is that its influence on English was accidental and it was considered difficult when it was first published. To this, I’d say that Moby-Dick was a complete failure upon release, and Ulysses was labeled as obscenity, yet both remain pillars of English-language literature today despite poor early reception. The Bible that moved Melville and Faulkner and all of America’s greatest writers so deeply surely has value as a literary work that far exceeds most.
These are minor quibbles, ultimately, though, and while I think Dan and I diverge pretty widely on politics (understood here to be the mechanisms by which power does and ought to operate, both in the past and present) I owe him a great deal for helping introduce me to a variety of controversies in Biblical scholarship that have enriched my engagement with my own faith. Thank you for such an exhaustive interview!
Hi Dan & ya'll ❤
I was 12 and a Baptist when I discovered that they believed in a 3in1 body god the trinity, I was Shocked
Began reading Bible and found Multiple Marriage Covenants and especially a Covenant David & Jonathan entered into as well as Abraham and Israel and Jacob as the Covenant of Manservants or Husbandmen that was a love beyond women acceptable before the Lord
Ain't no way Daviv & Jonathan could make love and not have Samuel or Nathan all over that unless it was acceptable and one of them probably sealed them
Then Jesus has a special parable about HUSBANDMEN and regarding Himself
12 years old and began to understand same gender marriage was really of God and not man's ways
Then of course the 3 Heavens in 1 Corinthians
Sooooo left the Baptist Church at 12
This, indeed is very interesting, though I am only 25 minutes into it. Since I discovered so many questions in Mormonism, I began a study of the history of both the Bible and Christianity. Through the online "The Great Courses" college lecture series, I have studied Bart Ehrman, Amy Jill-Levine of Vanderbilt U., Prof Gafne of Hebrew U. in Jerusalem, and Molly Worthen, of U. Of N.C. I have listened to quite a few talks by Francesca Stav... I have found that most people I have met who are Christians have no Idea what is in their holy book of scripture. I also read some of the Gnostic scriptures with the Book of Thomas, so this podcast is something I am writing down on blank pages remaining in my LDS combination. Back to the podcast.
I love this so much! I’m so interested in taking his course but don’t want credit or have to do work! I just want to learn more 🤣I would definitely pay!
There’s no credit or coursework. Just a 1 hour lecture and 1/2 hour Q&A. After the live class, everyone who registers gets a recording.
@@dtrick924👍
Excellent episode. Finally worked my way through and I'm really astonished by Dan's breadth of knowledge. Thanks!
This may be a top 5 favorite episode of mine. Amazing!
Holy cow... There I was as a Mormon Missionary in Chile testifying of things I didnt know...
Being raised a catholic I can never remember any problem accepting evolution.
A great source of information. You helped me understand the process of how to view the Bible
Several points that Dan has made I have also heard from Tim Mackie of the Bible Project.
Half of Sunday School Bible study in the Mormon church is defining all the archaic words like "upbraideth" or "talent," explaining and interpreting what the verse means.
By keeping an old version and inferior translation of the Bible, the church is additionally allowed to give their own interpretation or "translation" by choosing the preferred definitions and explanations in their teaching manuals.
What I mean to say is, the further your translation of the Bible is from being obvious and clear, the more spaces and room there is for the teacher/institution to add in their biases or agendas.
I like Dan McClellan as a bible scholar and especially as a bible critic.
Top 3 Best Interviews...easily..Thank you John and Dan❤
@chrisrowe9534 which other interviews do you recommend? Thank you!
Excuse me while I go put on my "I don't care what the bible says" t-shirt
Lol I NEED one of those shirts 😄
Eine phänomenal gute Episode! Wäre eine super Sache, so etwas in Institutsklassen oder im Seminar zu zeigen! Hätte mich damals als junges Mädchen sehr interessiert zu wissen. Das Seminsrprogramm -besonders für das Alte Testament- war eine riesige Herausforderung für mich.
Just remember that they’ve found the real Mount Sinai in Sadi Arabia. TH-cam it, it’s amazing.
The burnt mountain top, the split Rock, golden calf alter, the alter built by Mosses & much more is all there and really well persevered. It’s been said you can read the Exodus account like a map it’s so accurate.
I feel like it’s easy to loose your faith listening to this guy, but I truly believe this discovery is a corner stone for those to reinsure your on the right path still.
God is real, and these events did take place.
Poppycock. The rock at the top of the entire range of Jebel Al Lawz is basalt. It's naturally dark and blackened. It was never burned. You should also be aware that there's not one scrap of evidence for an exodus.
That’s not true at all about Mt Sinai, and there’s no historical proof of the exodus happening
@@dboyoioi yea it is.
dan mclelan is a rockstar of biblical scholarship!
I'm not a church member but I got a few Mormon friends. One of them doesn't like this channel because he believes that this is an anti-Mormonism platform. I sent him one of the episodes and expected his feedback. Apparently, he didn't even open the link though.
based on the definition of bosom it would be an assumption to say that it relates to marriage. it very well could but we cant always assume every situation associated with this word includes marriage.
Big fan of your show, John. This was my favorite of all of the episodes I’ve watched. So, so interesting!
I bought a Jerusalem Bible when an elderly man (now deceased) told me that was his favorite edition.
2:54:00 ok, so since the Book of Ether came from a pre-literacy era (explained in John Lundwall's research), along with the brass plates not being available to Lehi at the time, then basically Ether is a record that could not exist within another record that could not exist.
As always, Dan is the Man
Spectacular! I could have listened for another 5 hours.
Awesome questions and comments John!👏🏽🔥
Maybe Dan gets to this but I am only 2 hours in and I am wondering how Dan reconciles the Inaccuracies and issues with the Book of Mormon? Does anyone know if mentions it here or anywhere else. I am super curious. I do like Dan's interpretation of the bible but when I found out he was Mormon, it change the way that I valued what he was saying... Does anyone know if he mentions these things here or anywhere else? Please let me know. Thanks!
I agree. I’m all for this type of research applied to the Biblical text. I am curious how he applies this same criteria to the BOM, and what he can conclude from a data perspective on the BOM text.
What an incredible interview. Dan is awesome.
Thank you both, John & Dan. Don't necessarily agree with) accept all, but do surely appreciate your research, ruminations, & report. Specially glad for literary exploration & how tied into cultures, eras, & global areas. Abstract is meaning- less without mundane points of reference & vice versa. And what we don't know, recognize, understand all hidden in material mix awaiting access to/for/by human psyche. Maybe another 4.5 billion years ..?
So all information is good for separating mustard seeds from poppy seeds. ✌️
Amazing episode. Dan might be the most important Bible scholar on earth right now. His explanations parallel that of the Urantia Book. Never heard of it? Start with Part 4: the life and teachings of Jesus. The time is coming where the most important event on earth of 2000 years ago will finally be decoupled from these egoic false churches and Jesus will draw all humans to Himself.
Listening to scholars, like Dan, have really shown how religion develops and how a culture narrative grows and is built. As it grows the influences of that time and writer are added. Buddhism has the same build up over time. Religion is a cultural construct that often helps people within its. Ultyre
My personal opinion is that the Frist 5 books of the old testament are the most reliable. The length that the Hebrews went to preserving the texts, going so far as to writting them on rolls of silver,
This is a great interview. Thanks for it.👍
I'd be fascinated to hear a discussion about the parallels between how "Homer" composed the Iliad, the Odyssey, et.al, and how the Bible was composed. It seems there many similarities, at least as Dan describes things.
I have read many books about Martin Luther and I think he was awesome!!!
five hours? I'll listen to it next time I drive from Reno to Salt Lake.
Wow I loved listening to these two eps. Thanks for all thr work u all do
Dan suggested that Exodus 22:29-30 calls for sacrifice of the first born son (1:47:15). I don't see it in the text: 29 “Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits and of thy liquors. The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto Me.
30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it to Me.
The word used for "...shalt thou give..." is "nāṯan". I can't find a definition that says "sacrifice". When we reference Exodus 13:12-13 it's saying to "devote" the first offspring.
If this were to be a blood sacrifice it seem "zeḇaḥ" would have been used.
Yes, Dan’s interpretation is nonsense. Human sacrifice is abomination in the Law. Pretty much, his whole view of the OT is built on an eighteenth century theory called the “documentary hypothesis” which has been shown to be wrong in many ways since then.
I love these videos. But why so long? 😊
No offense, but, the LDS Church rejects " the tradition of the Christian faith ' the use the KJV Bible but do not believe it to be inspired.?
You should break it up in chapters like part 1. Thanks! 🙏
Around the 3 hour point Dan McClellan mentioned Robert Alter, JPS, the JPS Tanakh commentary. I am so pleased i have owned those for a few years. There is an updated KJV extant now, which seems unusual since most scholars I know think it's a really poor version.
So what does Dan think about Joseph's "revelations" in D&C regarding interpretations and clarifications on the Book of Revelations?
i listen to his podcast it's not fair that he's so good looking and smart
Soooooooooooo good omg
So I really like Dan and I agree with about 99% of what he was saying... though I think he kind of misses a bit on one point. I mostly agree with his point but I think he slightly misrepresents what most people would think behind it. He pointed out things like rabbis being atheist, being religious in a non-theist way. Then he makes a point he makes often that as a result of the reformation and enlightenment religion has become about truth claims, implying it wasn't before. I get part of what he's saying, people didn't always literally believe all the stories happened, but they had some meaning to them etc. Yes I think that's part of it but a key part of it that doesn't really fit this is that post enlightenment when some started questioning whether any deity really existed we started to have the more literal definition of atheists a=non theist=believer in god/gods. Yes in defense of that we had Christians that started to take everything completely literally which didn't fully match those that came before... but his implication stretches a bit too far to almost encompass this idea that non theists (aka atheists but people seem to overcomplicate that definition) views were common before this. That's a bit too far. Sure people didn't historically seem to hold to all the beliefs literally and completely like many do now, but as far as I can tell they still mostly believed in a deity or deities and believed that some of the supernatural elements of their religions were in fact truth claims. So this idea that he doesn't exactly put out there directly but seems implied being included of a religious non-theist who believes all supernatural claims are false essentially only following the philosophy of a religion existed pre-enlightenment seems misleading.
I think his argument that his sort of hyper truth claim religious view was a post enlightenment product but I'd also argue so is the non-theist non-supernatural religious view. Things were more in between but both ends are products of that era and what happend later.
59:35 I’ve been noticing that John wants to talk about what is True or Not True while Dan puts it in terms of what’s supported by the data. The podcast Apocrypals I think deals with this well. They say “Robin Hood real” or “Caesar real”, which means that both Robin Hood and Caesar are “real” in the sense that they both made an enormous mark on cultural history. The difference is that the data don’t support the literal existence of Robin Hood, but it does support the literal existence of Caesar. Just because a figure might fall into the Robin Hood Real category, that doesn’t mean that they haven’t influenced our culture and beliefs in very real ways. In other words, Robin Hood Real figures can still be true in the sense that there is truth in their stories and truth in what people believe about them. But they’re not data supported. They’re not Caesar Real. By sticking to data-based language, I think Dan is trying to make a similar distinction. Saying that something is True doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s data supported, and saying something is Not True doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not data supported.
3:50 it was Judah son of Jacob. I believe this is the linage of Jesus
Maybe this is a novel point, or maybe it's been addressed somewhere in the comments.
Dan knows religion isnt "true" in the sense of literalism. But.. he also LOVES comic books. I would imagine he doesn't take them to be true but... he loves the charectures and stories. Maybe its the same with his LDS membership and the bible as a whole? Thoughts?
Loved everything except the term “Coco-esk”. I don’t think we should be attributing a Mesoamerican belief to the corporate monster that is Disney. “Similar to Día de los Muertos” wouldn’t have taken much longer to say and would actually draw a line between one ancient belief of the afterlife to another. Just something to think about.
Any thoughts on all the extra books in the big Catholic Bibles?????
I’m curious what Dan would say about Luke 3:28-38? Is the whole genealogy useless or can he point to what person from Jesus tracing back to Adam was placed without evidence. Almost all scholars of antiquity agree now that Jesus and his father Joseph were historically real people. So we have a starting point.
Regarding the picture of Washington kneeling next to his horse praying. Indeed, most consider him praying to the Christian God. I would suggest that indeed Washington was a Diest like Dan suggests. I would also suggest the possibility that this picture of Washington shows him posing in a kind of Freemasonic position with his knee bent to the square and the unusual position of his sword forming the compas. Freemasons are Deists and pray to the Grand Architect of the Universe...so mote it be.
The long form explanations are so great.
In Jonah at the end god says if people repent that’s enough for me but it is you people who want to punish.
This soo interesting!
Too funny. My interpretation of how the Bible came about is exactly like the Hosts. I’ve had this same idea since grade school. So glad you shared that.
thx for this awesome episode
I love u Dan Mclellan ur one of my favorite scholars just like jessica ur superviser is ❤😂😮😊
This is a categorically fascinating episode! This crusty exmo wants to look deeper in the bible! Lol
01:00:04 DAN: "Defaulting to assuming the literalness of every last word of the scripture is something that ... as a faith matures and grapples with these things, they tend to move further away from."
You'd think so, huh? But somebody needs to tell that to the passive dozers at my local Baptist church. Even the pastor says he's never heard of the theory that Matthew didn't write the book of Matthew. Of course Matthew wrote it! Of course the walking-talking snake in Eden is historical fact! As far as my experience goes, these matters don't progress. And, excluding one or two enlightened niches, hasn't the internet polarised the debate further?
there are about 8-10 million Jehovah`s Witnesses and would like you to do a pod cast or interview on the religion and thier veracity
The comment that the next wave of faith crisis will come from the church not doing enough with Bible is the exact situation I am grappling now.
I learned more about James the Brother of Jesus, and I am trying to understand the Ebionite traditions associated with his life and teachings. For example, Ebionites not believing in the virgin birth. They believed Jesus biological father is Joseph.
Who am I going to trust more? Traditions that came from Jesus' brother or a visionary leader from the mid-1800s?
The ebionites were divided on that subject. Some did in fact believe in the virgin birth. But all of them believed that Jesus fully human, but exalted to the right hand of God at his resurrection. And they surely never thought he was the God of Israel.
@Mikha335 Thanks for the correction, I double-checked my references.
Here is a quote from Eusebius, "They (Ebionites) held him (Christ) to be a plain and ordinary man who had achieved righteousness merely by the progress of his character and had been born naturally from Mary and her husband...But there were others besides these who have the same name. They escaped the absurd folly of the first mentioned, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a Virgin and the Holy Spirit, and but nevertheless agreed with them in not confessing his pre-existence as God, being Logos and Wisdom..."
@@spencerlercher4059
It’s obvious to see that the human christology of the ebionites came straight from the apostles. The book of Acts contains the clearly examples. If there is to be a restoration it will be to the historic faith in the Messiah- not a phony pyramid scheme invented to exercise power over others.
Unfortunately, not many are interested in the historic truth.
But think on this: if the Ebionites didn’t believe in the preexistence of Jesus, what do you think they would think of the Mormon doctrine of universal pre existence?
@Mikha335 There isn't a direct link from the Apostles to the Ebionites. It looks like the Ebionites started with Ebion from Pella. It looks like you meant that the Ebionites and Apostles shared the same Christology. This doesn't quite work because the views of Jesus Christology are different amongst the Gospels. We learn about the Ebionites' christological views from the Patristic Fathers.
The Ebionites would probably think the idea that humans have souls stemming from the prexistence to be blasphemous because Ancient Jews believed that God, the divine wisdom, and Christ to be pre-existant beings. It is a wild guess to think about how ancient people would react to ideas that developed well after their time.