Thanks Dan B for trying to throw us a lifeline. Dr Wright couldn’t swing to a basic description for the “Dan B Team” to understand. Dr Wright is giving this great class to us but the class is starting as if we missed the first 7 lectures. LUV Data>Dogma.
Another academic attempt to explain = We signed up for 100 Level Freshmen class and accidentally got enrolled in 400 Level senior class. ( it’s been 30 years since my degree is not even sure if these levels exist- ha)
I'd love for you to do an episode on the Nativity story, and how Mathew and Luke's version differ wildly. It's crazy to me how in our modern culture, we pick and choose snippets from both, even though they are so different.
Best episode yet. It would be interesting to hear more about the Judea, Israel, Kingdom of the North merger. It was mentioned here and I heard others talk about it, but a full episode would be interesting.
This was my favorite episode youth guys have done yet. It kind of put some missing puzzle pieces in place that has connected my post evangelical theology with the history if that makes sense.
This is a fascinating take. It does make a lot of sense that the need to forge and maintain some kind of identity that can survive the destruction of a previous state, in both the word's meanings as a polity and as a way of being, was the impetus for the collection and integration of the different writings. That this could then serve the same unifying function as a state and its bureaucracy, but not be limited to a physical place with a set of borders. That and the idea of democratising learning and bringing it into the home, rather than it being just a specialised branch of activity in service to a government. A lot of food for thought.
Hmmm.... -They're actually talking about their own time. -Their track record for predictions isn't particularly high. -Their "correct" predictions are more about later readers willing those predictions into being than any actual predictive power. Yeah, that tracks.
Those moments when my Brain starts to wonder why it even bothers and then Dan B speaks up and Brain sorta re-engages. Very interesting discussion altogether
Interesting perspective. I wonder though if there isn't a possibility of reversing the causation. Is it that jews historically adopted this indirect approach in light of the lessons of the literature? Or does the literature teach an indirect approach because of the historical tendencies of the jews? I'd be curious to know where the thesis falls apart or is at least at its weakest. Interesting idea for a book though. I might check it out after I get through my current pile.
Probably both. The bible wasn't written and edited all at once but over the span of several centuries while being dominated by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians and Greeks.
*Who?* I’d like to see the Who question addressed more basically. Rather than trying to identify an individual, identify the author(s’) location, education, language background, time period, and, at risk of scope creep, which relevant documents would have been available to them.
What if… a remnant of the Northern Kingdom left a record that described the cycles of prosperity and defeat. Would this record be more useful in the hands of mighty kingdoms or a marginalized people?
This is a far too conservative analysis of the Bible, it's similar to the stories Jews tell themselves about the role the Bible serves. That's PART of the story, sure, but it's not the whole story. First, regarding male authorship, I doubt very much that the J source is a man, the female perspective is too prominent in the stories. It also sounds like oral storytelling in many parts (for example, when Noah "reaches out his hand and grasps the dove", you can almost see the storyteller reaching out her hand to illustrate the gesture--- those type of details are more common in oral storytelling). So women were prominent from the start. Also, this traditional story about the Bible misses a major point that Judaism was preserved to some degree because Christianity and Islam respected it, as the ancestor religion. Without those two battling it out during the middle ages, it's not clear Judaism would have been preserved.
I think it's important to remember that in the ancient near eastern Iron Age lands and peoples were not necessarily co extant, we see this in the Hebrew laws which refer to the people who live amongst them and are not subject to these same laws. It's important not to apply our conception of nation or state onto these ancient groups and institutions.
They wanted Israel to fall, but when Isra'el (Samaria) did fall, they looked around and realized oh shit our closest big friend is gone and we are alone, and look all these migrants are coming to live with us with all their ideas about Ba'al, El and Asherah. Becareful what you wish for.
That seems to be taking for granted the dogma that there was some kind of pure Jahwist theology that was then adulterated by polytheism, rather than what scholarship shows; Jahwism began as polytheism, with monotheism arising over time.
@@LambentIchor I dont think I said that. What there was, was a king ..... Let me rephrase this, the kingship in Judea comes from the Yahudites, Yehudah tribal hegemony. This is a precept. And we know its hegemony because Urushalim was originally a benjaminite city and the bible gives two excuses why benjaminites didnt deserve it. 1. The were sexually violent to a concubine and 2. They failed to kick the jebusites out. However its likely that Urushalim was the center of benjamin tribe during the early iron age, its god was Shalim (dawn) and it appears its loyalties were to El**(the father of Shalim). So just connecting dots here. The center of Yehudite tribe appears to be bethlehem (high god is Enki/Yahu*~). Bethlehem is lost to the Philistines. So The seat of *~ needs to be moved, meanwhile david gets the ark of ** because Saul lost it to the philistines. But ** is a tabernacle god, not a temple god, and when David comes into Jerusalem, it already has a patron god, so he has both the ** tabernacle and needs a new seat for *~. The tabernacle priest dont want their god in a temple, ** was kicked out of the temple in Uruk and since was a god of high peaks (Shaddai). So David instead builds his temple to *~ and allows the high alter sites of ** to remain, but keeps their tabernacle in the temple. This then leaves an opening for the high position in the north. At the same time, in the early iron age, bedoins from western peninsular arabia are expanding trade into Israel. This has to be, the mineralogy is basically going on in Aravah, Sin and Western Arabia. You cant have much of a kingdom without metals and so you need sources for copper, tin and iron. The bedoins and traders follow seasonal routes, and this trade builds wealth. At times the trade routes through syria and to phonecia are cut, so they need alternative sources. With the settlers and traders come their gods. My opinion is the YHWH was actually a chimeric god YH (*~) and an arabian/egyptian/ethiopian power god. Such gods where common. Moab had a god Kemos-Attar (Biblically Chemosh). With El's key ritual now in another kingdom Samaria probably adopted YHWH, or its even possible an Arabian chieftain took kingship. But Samaria was still polythiestic but gods probably were dissappearing. *Gad started out at the base of mt. Hermon but ends up on the eastern flank of the dead sea, a demotion. Not long after *gad dissappears. We dont here of Anath being defeated, it appears to be allied, but anath also fades. And at some point Judea is under the hegemony of Samaria, and the Yehudah probably said, hey that god YHWH is mostly our god *YH and they just merged the two and El becomes superfluous, shalim becomes increasingly marginalized, and it appears they negotiated a place for their priests (Zedek) in the new religion. So what is the difference *~ was the high god of Sages, apkallu, Oannus was the first. The Oannus looks very similar to Ioannus. Oannus were like later Mages, teachers to the kings. Where as tge Zedek of a city state were largely administrators (beurocrats) and ritual performers. Thats the easy part. The hard part here is the grand mess assyria created. Assyria was the only "dynasty" to surive the LBAC. As a result they concluded their god Asshur was supreme and they had, in their struggle against the Arameans taken a policy of leveling cities and dispersing populations. A loss of a city-state = loss of god. Rather than amass foriegn gods like the Sumerians and Babylonians did during colonization, Assyria just erased city states. During the first round 11 kings of canaan, including Israel fought Assyria. The battle resulted in a stalemate, but several kingships were destroyed and Israel lost megiddo (Galilee) to the Assyrians. The syrians attacked Samaria and at some point the Israelite king began following the Syrian god Hadad (Ba'al, Syria was promoting Hadad as a Asshur-like supreme god). So now you have Yahweh and Ba'al and both want to be like Asshur. Gods are going to start dissappear. Assyrian finally tackles Babylon (briefly) and comes back west and finishes off Samaria. Meanwhile in Judea they also want a Supreme god, their strayegy is attack within, getting rid of alter sites to other gods, including El. So the bottom line here. Prior to the LBAC there were hundreds if not thousands of gods in the ancient near east. The LBAC provided fervent new ground for new gods of microstates. Israel however adopts El as an arch diety, regions were permitted to keep their local gods. However the age of empires begins in earnest in Assyria, and there is a consolidation that occurs, as detailed in parallel in the Enuma Elish. Both Israel and Judea get caught up in the process of consolidation, but Samaria is destroyed and so simultaneously solidification intensifies under Hezekiah. So the question is why Hezekiah is tightening his loins in the face of Assyria. I think the answer is this, while Assyria was a powerful empire, it was cannablizing itself, and I think by the 7th century its becoming apparent that the household of Assyria was just going to implode - the royal infighting was sucking the strength out of the empire). Which may be the reason why Ninevah is inserted into the story of Jonah. Hezekiah and Yosiah were preparing for the day Assyria fell. In fact Yosiah went out to stop Necho II from assisting Assyria in its last stand. Hezekiah wanted Judea to be the sole survivor, but Babylon resurrected itself from Uruk (the ancient home of **) and with the medes trampled Assyria into the dust (Medes were good at genocide). Its not about what other gods were out there, Babylon still had hundreds (Ezekial -weeping to Tammuz), its about who could show they had an unquestioned supreme god.
28:28-28:33 Hey, i’ll read it. P.S.: Some king of grotesque monster that makes the Apostle Paul look like Victor Wembanyama is pictured in the introduction. Ew.
I was taking this guy seriously until he starting talking about how a three thousand year old creation myth is "problematic" because it doesn't accommodate non-binary people.
In the Genesis story where Eve is created from his rib, that Adam was non-binary by definition. It is only when Eve is created that human gender comes out of the split into two beings. 😉
Which one? Whose? Which set of rules must I follow? Why do I have to struggle to find the all-powerful entity that created everything in the universe? Why are the primary source materials internally contradictory, and why do we ignore large portions of them in the modern age? Pat little answers are all well and good, but I have no reason to believe that your version of God even exists, much less is the “answer”.
@@glenwillson5073 - Please tell me where your imaginary sky Daddy predicted that England would leave the EU, especially since neither are specifically mentioned in the Bible? No, it still doesn't look like the answer is God but it is clear that you have deluded yourself into thinking so.
I've listened to this episode at least 3 times; it's got so much! (We now own the book too.)
Please don't apologize for getting in depth. It's completely appropriate especially when you have guests.
How does this only have 7,000 views?!?!?!
Because it requires thought to follow. Most people want intellectual baby food and candy.
Thanks Dan B for trying to throw us a lifeline. Dr Wright couldn’t swing to a basic description for the “Dan B Team” to understand. Dr Wright is giving this great class to us but the class is starting as if we missed the first 7 lectures. LUV Data>Dogma.
Another academic attempt to explain = We signed up for 100 Level Freshmen class and accidentally got enrolled in 400 Level senior class. ( it’s been 30 years since my degree is not even sure if these levels exist- ha)
@@moontrack4625that’s how we know the level in college. Lol. I’m in my BA so my classes are 200 level
This is an amazing episode. I eat this stuff up. More of this please!
Jakob Wright is amazingly bright and innovativ. You always get something special that makes you think of rethink. Great!!!❤🎉
favorite guest so far ! I’ve watched every episode
Wow! This episode was incredible! I found him incredibly insightful.
The beard grew back quickly 😂😂
I think one day. Another DODogma miracle.
My thoughts too 🤪
😂
Thou knowest my brother Dan is an hairy man... 😂
This episode made me subscribe. Truly fascinating and enlightening talk.
I'd love for you to do an episode on the Nativity story, and how Mathew and Luke's version differ wildly. It's crazy to me how in our modern culture, we pick and choose snippets from both, even though they are so different.
This is why I love this podcast.
Best episode yet. It would be interesting to hear more about the Judea, Israel, Kingdom of the North merger. It was mentioned here and I heard others talk about it, but a full episode would be interesting.
A fantastic episode! So many light bulb moments.
So fascinating!
This was a fascinating discussion, that brought life to these stories in ways that I’d never considered.
O loved this episode new subscriber. Just ordered the book and going to order the book. King David and Caleb.
Great discussion.
I loved Why the Bible Began. Highly recommend.
I very much appreciate this podcast. Thank you.
Heck yeah, love hearing from him.
This was my favorite episode youth guys have done yet. It kind of put some missing puzzle pieces in place that has connected my post evangelical theology with the history if that makes sense.
Fascinating discussion. Judaism is very orthopraxic, making it as much cultural guide as a religious text.
Congratulations for recognition from SBL! Great. I hope some helpful partnership in the future.
This is a fascinating take. It does make a lot of sense that the need to forge and maintain some kind of identity that can survive the destruction of a previous state, in both the word's meanings as a polity and as a way of being, was the impetus for the collection and integration of the different writings.
That this could then serve the same unifying function as a state and its bureaucracy, but not be limited to a physical place with a set of borders.
That and the idea of democratising learning and bringing it into the home, rather than it being just a specialised branch of activity in service to a government. A lot of food for thought.
Science Fiction writers often serve the role that Biblical prophets once served.
Hmmm....
-They're actually talking about their own time.
-Their track record for predictions isn't particularly high.
-Their "correct" predictions are more about later readers willing those predictions into being than any actual predictive power.
Yeah, that tracks.
@@digitaljanus Exactly, the best science fiction is commentary on the time when it was written rather than predictions about the future.
At least you got published it’s more than I have
Want to echo what Jacob said at the end. Team Dan here at Data Over Dogma is fantastic.
Those moments when my Brain starts to wonder why it even bothers and then Dan B speaks up and Brain sorta re-engages. Very interesting discussion altogether
Hopefully, in some future, the book will be presented one part at a time. There are four parts. Maybe a half part at a time.
Ouch Dan-we don’t say Hotlanta. No no no. 😂
Shout out to Cambridge Oxford and Emory for their Theology in Prison program too by the way!
Great guest! It’ll be neat to see how far out these are filmed based on beard length
I am so happy that Dr. Wright took on the light and public how to read Bible = as the teaching message for mankind.
Huh. So THIS is what renegotiation with the text looks like?
I know Jacob wright! He is my friends brother!
👏
Interesting perspective. I wonder though if there isn't a possibility of reversing the causation. Is it that jews historically adopted this indirect approach in light of the lessons of the literature? Or does the literature teach an indirect approach because of the historical tendencies of the jews? I'd be curious to know where the thesis falls apart or is at least at its weakest.
Interesting idea for a book though. I might check it out after I get through my current pile.
Probably both. The bible wasn't written and edited all at once but over the span of several centuries while being dominated by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians and Greeks.
*Who?*
I’d like to see the Who question addressed more basically.
Rather than trying to identify an individual, identify the author(s’) location, education, language background, time period, and, at risk of scope creep, which relevant documents would have been available to them.
What if… a remnant of the Northern Kingdom left a record that described the cycles of prosperity and defeat. Would this record be more useful in the hands of mighty kingdoms or a marginalized people?
This is a far too conservative analysis of the Bible, it's similar to the stories Jews tell themselves about the role the Bible serves. That's PART of the story, sure, but it's not the whole story. First, regarding male authorship, I doubt very much that the J source is a man, the female perspective is too prominent in the stories. It also sounds like oral storytelling in many parts (for example, when Noah "reaches out his hand and grasps the dove", you can almost see the storyteller reaching out her hand to illustrate the gesture--- those type of details are more common in oral storytelling). So women were prominent from the start. Also, this traditional story about the Bible misses a major point that Judaism was preserved to some degree because Christianity and Islam respected it, as the ancestor religion. Without those two battling it out during the middle ages, it's not clear Judaism would have been preserved.
The Amazing disappearing reappearing beard😂
I think it's important to remember that in the ancient near eastern Iron Age lands and peoples were not necessarily co extant, we see this in the Hebrew laws which refer to the people who live amongst them and are not subject to these same laws. It's important not to apply our conception of nation or state onto these ancient groups and institutions.
22:22-22:41 👍
They wanted Israel to fall, but when Isra'el (Samaria) did fall, they looked around and realized oh shit our closest big friend is gone and we are alone, and look all these migrants are coming to live with us with all their ideas about Ba'al, El and Asherah. Becareful what you wish for.
That seems to be taking for granted the dogma that there was some kind of pure Jahwist theology that was then adulterated by polytheism, rather than what scholarship shows; Jahwism began as polytheism, with monotheism arising over time.
@@LambentIchor I dont think I said that. What there was, was a king ..... Let me rephrase this, the kingship in Judea comes from the Yahudites, Yehudah tribal hegemony. This is a precept. And we know its hegemony because Urushalim was originally a benjaminite city and the bible gives two excuses why benjaminites didnt deserve it. 1. The were sexually violent to a concubine and 2. They failed to kick the jebusites out. However its likely that Urushalim was the center of benjamin tribe during the early iron age, its god was Shalim (dawn) and it appears its loyalties were to El**(the father of Shalim). So just connecting dots here. The center of Yehudite tribe appears to be bethlehem (high god is Enki/Yahu*~). Bethlehem is lost to the Philistines. So The seat of *~ needs to be moved, meanwhile david gets the ark of ** because Saul lost it to the philistines. But ** is a tabernacle god, not a temple god, and when David comes into Jerusalem, it already has a patron god, so he has both the ** tabernacle and needs a new seat for *~. The tabernacle priest dont want their god in a temple, ** was kicked out of the temple in Uruk and since was a god of high peaks (Shaddai). So David instead builds his temple to *~ and allows the high alter sites of ** to remain, but keeps their tabernacle in the temple. This then leaves an opening for the high position in the north.
At the same time, in the early iron age, bedoins from western peninsular arabia are expanding trade into Israel. This has to be, the mineralogy is basically going on in Aravah, Sin and Western Arabia. You cant have much of a kingdom without metals and so you need sources for copper, tin and iron. The bedoins and traders follow seasonal routes, and this trade builds wealth. At times the trade routes through syria and to phonecia are cut, so they need alternative sources. With the settlers and traders come their gods. My opinion is the YHWH was actually a chimeric god YH (*~) and an arabian/egyptian/ethiopian power god. Such gods where common. Moab had a god Kemos-Attar (Biblically Chemosh). With El's key ritual now in another kingdom Samaria probably adopted YHWH, or its even possible an Arabian chieftain took kingship. But Samaria was still polythiestic but gods probably were dissappearing. *Gad started out at the base of mt. Hermon but ends up on the eastern flank of the dead sea, a demotion. Not long after *gad dissappears. We dont here of Anath being defeated, it appears to be allied, but anath also fades. And at some point Judea is under the hegemony of Samaria, and the Yehudah probably said, hey that god YHWH is mostly our god *YH and they just merged the two and El becomes superfluous, shalim becomes increasingly marginalized, and it appears they negotiated a place for their priests (Zedek) in the new religion.
So what is the difference *~ was the high god of Sages, apkallu, Oannus was the first. The Oannus looks very similar to Ioannus. Oannus were like later Mages, teachers to the kings. Where as tge Zedek of a city state were largely administrators (beurocrats) and ritual performers.
Thats the easy part. The hard part here is the grand mess assyria created. Assyria was the only "dynasty" to surive the LBAC. As a result they concluded their god Asshur was supreme and they had, in their struggle against the Arameans taken a policy of leveling cities and dispersing populations. A loss of a city-state = loss of god. Rather than amass foriegn gods like the Sumerians and Babylonians did during colonization, Assyria just erased city states. During the first round 11 kings of canaan, including Israel fought Assyria. The battle resulted in a stalemate, but several kingships were destroyed and Israel lost megiddo (Galilee) to the Assyrians. The syrians attacked Samaria and at some point the Israelite king began following the Syrian god Hadad (Ba'al, Syria was promoting Hadad as a Asshur-like supreme god). So now you have Yahweh and Ba'al and both want to be like Asshur. Gods are going to start dissappear. Assyrian finally tackles Babylon (briefly) and comes back west and finishes off Samaria.
Meanwhile in Judea they also want a Supreme god, their strayegy is attack within, getting rid of alter sites to other gods, including El.
So the bottom line here. Prior to the LBAC there were hundreds if not thousands of gods in the ancient near east. The LBAC provided fervent new ground for new gods of microstates. Israel however adopts El as an arch diety, regions were permitted to keep their local gods. However the age of empires begins in earnest in Assyria, and there is a consolidation that occurs, as detailed in parallel in the Enuma Elish. Both Israel and Judea get caught up in the process of consolidation, but Samaria is destroyed and so simultaneously solidification intensifies under Hezekiah.
So the question is why Hezekiah is tightening his loins in the face of Assyria. I think the answer is this, while Assyria was a powerful empire, it was cannablizing itself, and I think by the 7th century its becoming apparent that the household of Assyria was just going to implode - the royal infighting was sucking the strength out of the empire). Which may be the reason why Ninevah is inserted into the story of Jonah. Hezekiah and Yosiah were preparing for the day Assyria fell. In fact Yosiah went out to stop Necho II from assisting Assyria in its last stand. Hezekiah wanted Judea to be the sole survivor, but Babylon resurrected itself from Uruk (the ancient home of **) and with the medes trampled Assyria into the dust (Medes were good at genocide).
Its not about what other gods were out there, Babylon still had hundreds (Ezekial -weeping to Tammuz), its about who could show they had an unquestioned supreme god.
Is it appropriate to speak of nations prior to the modern state?
judean stories - "levitic stories and stuff of kings"
Some hateful people had too much time on their hands.
Maybe edit the thumbnail so your guests face isn’t covered up?
28:28-28:33 Hey, i’ll read it.
P.S.: Some king of grotesque monster that makes the Apostle Paul look like Victor Wembanyama is pictured in the introduction. Ew.
34:10-34:25 i hope not. They suck.
49:15-49:19 i don’t like theocritus.
47:49-47:55 i don’t like ptolemy l soter.
I was taking this guy seriously until he starting talking about how a three thousand year old creation myth is "problematic" because it doesn't accommodate non-binary people.
Bye then
In the Genesis story where Eve is created from his rib, that Adam was non-binary by definition. It is only when Eve is created that human gender comes out of the split into two beings. 😉
The answer you are struggling to find is God.
Which one? Whose? Which set of rules must I follow? Why do I have to struggle to find the all-powerful entity that created everything in the universe? Why are the primary source materials internally contradictory, and why do we ignore large portions of them in the modern age? Pat little answers are all well and good, but I have no reason to believe that your version of God even exists, much less is the “answer”.
Um, no. That is the answer you are asserting but that isn't "The answer".
@@nates9029 Once, I might have been inclined to believe you, but then England went and left the European Union, so looks like it's God I'm afraid.
@@glenwillson5073 - Please tell me where your imaginary sky Daddy predicted that England would leave the EU, especially since neither are specifically mentioned in the Bible? No, it still doesn't look like the answer is God but it is clear that you have deluded yourself into thinking so.
She said she doesn’t know you.