Dan McClellan always captivates with his scholarship and the way he breaks it down for lay people like me. I’m happy to be here early and I’m sure I’ll be here often.
The Dans should do maybe another podcast where they just go through the Bible, book by book. So great and it's so interesting how the Bible as it has been explained to me my whole life is quite different from the original translations.
Brady Haran (numberphile camera guy) has a channel that interviews academics on each book of the bible. Its called Bibledex, bit old and rather brief in comparison to this channel but decent content
If we approach the 2nd creation story (like many other origin stories) as a people just trying to figure things out. It strikes me as almost a "coming of age" tale. You're born (hopefully) into a loving environment where everything is provided but it also has rules. You grow and begin to test those boundaries by doing things you are told not to do. Eventually, you develop a larger understanding (knowledge) about the true and sometimes harsh realities of life, and then you leave home to make it on your own in the world. It's definitely condensed, but if this metaphor is valid, you'd definitely get a sense of the Old Testament, Hebrew family dynamic.
Very fine work gents. The two of you have a great rapport. I like way Dan B plays the part of the educated Everyman, asking all the questions I would love to ask and just letting Dan M answer them in his excellent, lucid manner. Big ups from me.
Wishing the two Dans and this channel the best. This is what I want, long duration podcasts of Dan McClellan in his own channel, uninterrupted, sharing his knowledge and getting into details, invite scholars to share their knowledge too.
This was a nice first episode! One suggestion for a future episode would be to address “What is ‘data’ in Biblical Studies?” For people who work in the sciences, were used to interacting with data as (essentially) numbers on a spreadsheet. It’s not exactly obvious to interested laypeople like myself what ‘data’ means in the historical fields. I could guess-I certainly have a rough sense what is meant-but I’d love to hear Dan talk about it, and it seems relevant given the podcast name!
He does talk about this a bit (of course would be good to hear more) on how scholarly consensus is used quite a bit as his backing. He also fully admits, he could be wrong! That’s why he’s so amazing
Found this from the Scathing Atheist episode you were on. Have you on tiktok as well but didn't realize you were doing a podcast as well. Amazing work guys, I'm excited for this one!
The thing modern people tend to forget about ancient texts is that most of those stories were probably well known to anyone in a multitude of slightly different retellings. So writing them down was less about spreading the message, but more about standardization where the author felt it mattered and maybe pushing its core towards a political/cultural direction they deemed necessary. So it makes sense they would acknowledge other gods, but focused on the one they hoped would push their agenda and also that they didn't feel it was necessary to include the woman receiving instructions from god, because some village elder probably told it to you when he had the desire to embellish a little. I remember reading the "Nibelungenlied", which is kind of the German founding legend. Most multigenerational Germans of my generation or older likely know the story of Sigfried, wo slew a dragon and bathed in its blood to become invulnerable. So I was looking forward to reading it in its original text, which starts with him and his entourage arriving at a castle and he was literally introduced as the guy who slew a dragon and gained invulnerability as a sub-clause. That's when it hit me: There was no need to tell that story. You probably heard it a million times, told way better than the poem ever could.
A special shout-out & thanks (well most days - sometimes I think I should have put the time into a foreign language, or painting, or the ukelele, or another pastime 😂) to Dan B & fellow uncles of The How To Heretic. Feels kind of full circle to be here now. I heard about the HTH show courtesy Radiowest & became an avid listener in the Before [Covid19] Times. As a longtime atheist NeverMo in Moridor I had largely resisted investigating the faith - no coffee? End of interest. Once the pandemic hit, I went on a wild deep dive into Mormonism & Mormon history & now into religious studies of Xianity & Judaism - so many great creators & scholars sharing their knowledge. My shelf is now full of books with God in the titl lol. And I'm still happily atheist. Also a TGIA fan & patron, still really miss THTH tho. Lol my exMo friends tease me that I know so much more Mormon lore than they do now. Let's see if DoD helps me the same way with all my Xian & Jewish family members. Also thanks to Dan M for his other channel & helping dispel all the misinformation out there.
exmormon here and very interested lately about the true origin of the stories we were taught in jesus related religions to be factually historical including the concept of a demigod named Jesus. fascinating and excited. So many billions of people have been born into or converted into some form of man made religion (all of them are man made) and believe so strongly that they’re willing to die or kill for their beliefs. it’s so sad when you think these atrocities have happened for false narratives sold to them from snake oil salesmen and con artists bent on power control and/or money. this lines up so much with what i’ve been pondering on lately since leaving religion and opening my mind to the possibility that all this is made up over the centuries. 🤯🤯 thank you for this amazing first episode. I’m gonna keep listening for sure. love how you point out that the culture merged the two gods and later we can see how the NG writers took this jesus character and made him into a demigod and tied him to the Jehovah of the OT - which was a very vengeful god as mentioned. this alone has caused so many to be confused how jesus/jehovah could be so vengeful and dealing out death in the OT and preach peace and love etc in the NT. Spoiler: it’s all stories made up by men.
Dan McClellan, I had a Jewish Rabi tell me at one point that the Jewish oral law gives some insight into this garden of Eden story in that God told Adam not to partake, but then when Adam gave the commandment to even he added to the command not to touch the tree, just to keep her away from it. When the serpent came, it pushed eve into the tree and when she did not die, she questioned the command. Just interesting to me. Love your info.
Dan, I’ve been a fan of yours for some time, back in the days of the debates on some not to be named Christian apologetic forums. And I love your podcast here. Very informative. I would like to add additional perspective of Genesis 1, especially with regards to verses 26,27.. and the creation of man. When we read Gen 1, we see it has two voices. The voice of the narrator and the voice of Elohim. The narrator telling us what Elohim does. His focus is on Elohim, not anyone one else in the narrative. In verse 1-25, the narrator tells us Elohim speaks, it’s done, and it’s good. The narrative carries on as if Elohim is a solo act. If anyone else is involved in the fulfilments, it’s not mentioned. Then in verse 26 there’s a shift. , the narrator tells us that Elohim said “Let US make humans in OUR image, according to OUR likeness, and let THEM have dominion …" This appears as Elohim is appealing to others, others who would seem share image, likeness, and creative abilities with Elohim. Note what it doesn’t’ say... It doesn’t say, “Let ME create man in MY image and MY likeness.”. Nor does it say, “Let US create man in MY image and MY likeness.” Nor does it say, “Let ME create man in OUR image and OUR likeness.” It says, “Let US create man in OUR image and OUR likeness, and let THEM have dominion… “ Now Dan you point this to be the ‘Divine council’ which I can agree with to a point, but I think there is an additional nuance here. In verse 27, the narrator picks up once again and tells us what Elohim did. So God created humans in his image, in the image of God he created THEM; MALE and FEMALE he created THEM. See the nuance, verse 27 gives us more details as to the THEM, which verse 26 tells us is in the image and likeness of the US. Thus, it stands to reason that the “US” is MALE and FEMALE, and if we consider God (Elohim) to be male, then he’s appealing to at least one Female counter part when it comes to making humans. Something that is not needed in any of the creation verses 1-25. Therefore, it more reinforces the point that we as humans, both male and female are representative of deity. And if one sees God (Elohim) as a "Heavenly Father", then there is likely a “Heavenly Mother” even if the narrator doesn’t talk about her.
This conversation was amazing. Thank you for such awesome content. Incredibly refreshing compared to what you tend to get from Evangelical or Atheist creators.
I have some thoughts about your claim on “in the beginning”. While the word בראשית is always a construct state, the word ראשית without the ב is sometimes not in a construct state, examples of that you can see Leviticus 2:12, Deuteronomy 33:21, Isaiah 46:10, Nehemiah 12:44. The translation of the first verse not being a construct clause avoids the problem of the second part of the construct missing etc., and it also fits better with the ו at the beginning of verse 2 והארץ.
I'm actually curious about the distinction between a cherubim and a sphinx in these contexts. Because those descriptions seem rather similar. At least in the contemporary way we know them today.
This was a fascinating discussion. I did not want this to end. Thank you for this. It clarified some issues in the Scriptures for me. Also, then could the Gnostics have been correct?
Why would god not want us to have knowledge or be godly? Were we really merely made to be gardeners without knowledge? To only garden, not think, then die?
When God moved over the face of the water, would the ancient conception have been that there was already an air pocket of some sort? That some solid mass floated in the cosmic ocean, maybe with some air nearby? And then God put in the firmament to protect the air and keep the land mass dry and stable?
the "bronze serpent" was NOT a serpent - it was a "burning worm" that burrows into the flesh. You wrap the exposed part around a twig/stick and pull it out.
Even the traditional Jewish interpretation is that Genesis was not contemporaneous with creation, at best it was attributed to Moses, and that was not always consistent. edit: Monotheism is not biblical, one can argue it maybe henotheistic. So it seems that Tiamat-> Lothan-> Leviathan So maybe Marduk-> Baal -> Adonai?
Absolute Monotheism is not Biblical! The Israelites of the Two Powers in Heaven from where Christianity comes from isn't an Absolute Monotheism. As Paul states this in 1 Corinthians 8:5,6.
@@TheRegimentalscot it probably just comes down to how much people revere/respect the gods they aren't worshipping. Making a case strongly for either is likely to be very challenging.
@Vishanti so if I understand correctly, the difference is the intensity of the worship? To use a (bad? slightly incorrect?) example, something like Henotheism would be a Hindu exclusively worshiping, say Shiva while accepting Brahma, Vishnu et. al. As being Co-Equals but "not your thing"? Whereas Monolatry would be something like "The Caananite and Egyptian God's exist, but only Jehovah has the power to save and grant eternal life, and that's why we only worship and acknowledge him?" Is my understanding of those differences (as badly as I described them) close?
@@TheRegimentalscot probably more like "monolatry thinks other nations worship their gods but those gods are garbage and worthless" - the Henotheism thing seems pretty spot-on tho
There are different ways to slice the apple. Regardless of whatever, it wasn't the beginning of the entity who was the creator of whatever. It would be safe to assume, there was something other than whatever was created or whatever was used to create with. The major failure in all the dogma is having nothing to do with whatever was other than what was being worked. It's not thought out but what we generally have is a creator confined to this universe. Practically operating within universal law. It would help if people who believed in an all-powerful creator would consider what was before whatever beginning they are believing in. A little thought on the matter, and that creator gets very, very big....very very fast. The creation gets very, very small...very, very fast. All of a sudden, the God of the Bible (defined by their interpretations of the texts) becomes very, very small. The interactions within the Bible become minute. I think it's one of the easiest ways to break free from dogma. The God of most of the religions is more like the Wizard of Oz. A guy behind a curtain, pulling on levers.
Incorrect. According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"* (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), which appears to be a later addition, Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
It never struct me before but does the phrase "dragon with 7 heads" caught me. I was wondering if this has parallels with earlier incarnations of the Hercules legend, as this parallels Herakles and the hydra, being the son of the lord of heaven/storm god of Zeus. Wondering if you think the two may be derivations of earlier indoeuropean mythology they have in common.
Thank you for the riveting show! I think it’s pretty obvious that the older creation story in Genesis 2-3 was developed after the Israelites settled in Canaan, because nothing in it captures what you would expect a nomadic raider tribe worshipping a flash flood-storm god of Arava to come up with; it is instead very agrarian, from the very beginning of the story. Question: the older creation story seems to have some Babylonian influence, with the garden tended by people who were allowed to eat the fruits of the garden except from specific trees reserved for the gods; is that a correct parallel? If so, could it mean the story is younger than 8th-7th century BCE and more aligned with the Babylonian exile? If it is pre-exile, what influenced the garden and forbidden tree motif?
El, El-Shadai, Elohim -- can you parse these out a little bit. I got the impression that El is the name of the chief god of the pantheon (short for El-Shadai?) and Elohim is maybe more of a title or position, i.e. Deity. Are El and Elohim related etymologically? Am I understanding any of this correctly?
Hi, I'm not Dan, but i wanted to see if I could help a little, so El is the chief God in the Ugaritic pantheon, and it's not short for El - Shadday but shadday is instead an epithet of El, and shadday most likely probably means almighty so when combined with El makes the name God almighty, Elohim is the pluralized form of El or Eloah (The singular word for God in hebrew) and while this name is plural it can be used as a singular when paired with a singular verb as within Gen 1:1. The Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible says this when it comes to the name elohim, they say it is "The most frequent generic name for God in the OT; possibly a plural of Eloah, itself an expansion of El, “god.”" Hope this helped a little.
It seems to me that Dan is implying Elohim is more of a title than a name. Like any member of the Divine Council could use, and sometimes means the entire Council. El-Shadai seems to be a way of distinguishing El the individual as opposed to the generic concept.
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"* (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), which appears to be a later addition, Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
1:01:30 Elohim said he would send an angel before the children of Israel. Maybe this Angel came to be known as YHWH. He would have started showing up at the time of the Exodus.
I love the podcast but the music…. It’s not necessary but if you want to still have music as transition from topic to topic… maybe find some music that doesn’t sound like a 90’s talking sports theme? Please
All right, let's see it.
You win the comment section. 😂
😂👏👏
"Okkk less do it"
*Alright
See what?
Dan McClellan always captivates with his scholarship and the way he breaks it down for lay people like me. I’m happy to be here early and I’m sure I’ll be here often.
The Dans should do maybe another podcast where they just go through the Bible, book by book. So great and it's so interesting how the Bible as it has been explained to me my whole life is quite different from the original translations.
We have plans to do book-by-book analyses on this podcast.
I'd buy that for a dollar!
@@dataoverdogma I NEED
Brady Haran (numberphile camera guy) has a channel that interviews academics on each book of the bible. Its called Bibledex, bit old and rather brief in comparison to this channel but decent content
... RELAX ! DO NOT OVER EXITE YOURSELF. CHECK IT OUT. DO NOT BELIEVE ME.
FACT: THE BIBLE IT IS NOT HISTORICALLY ACCOURATE.
"Dave's not here, man!".....😂
Best reference of the episode.
Proud to be one of the first listeners. I've been eagerly awaiting this podcast & it is exactly what I was hoping for 😁
If we approach the 2nd creation story (like many other origin stories) as a people just trying to figure things out. It strikes me as almost a "coming of age" tale. You're born (hopefully) into a loving environment where everything is provided but it also has rules. You grow and begin to test those boundaries by doing things you are told not to do. Eventually, you develop a larger understanding (knowledge) about the true and sometimes harsh realities of life, and then you leave home to make it on your own in the world. It's definitely condensed, but if this metaphor is valid, you'd definitely get a sense of the Old Testament, Hebrew family dynamic.
Hebrew family dynamic? They were just as dysfunctional as everyone else in this World, except they used "God" to justify all their evil.
This is going to be so good. Congratulations gentlemen
It definitely is!
I'm so glad two of my favorites creators are doing this together.
Very fine work gents. The two of you have a great rapport. I like way Dan B plays the part of the educated Everyman, asking all the questions I would love to ask and just letting Dan M answer them in his excellent, lucid manner. Big ups from me.
Wishing the two Dans and this channel the best. This is what I want, long duration podcasts of Dan McClellan in his own channel, uninterrupted, sharing his knowledge and getting into details, invite scholars to share their knowledge too.
The dynamic duo of Dans! ❤ the first episode, looking forward to another take on these texts.
This was a nice first episode! One suggestion for a future episode would be to address “What is ‘data’ in Biblical Studies?” For people who work in the sciences, were used to interacting with data as (essentially) numbers on a spreadsheet. It’s not exactly obvious to interested laypeople like myself what ‘data’ means in the historical fields. I could guess-I certainly have a rough sense what is meant-but I’d love to hear Dan talk about it, and it seems relevant given the podcast name!
He does talk about this a bit (of course would be good to hear more) on how scholarly consensus is used quite a bit as his backing. He also fully admits, he could be wrong! That’s why he’s so amazing
Stunning podcast. Thanks for good scholarship. Looking forward for more.
This feels like Christmas (the Santa version)!
Let's Go!
Well done! Really enjoyed listening to you two!
Found this from the Scathing Atheist episode you were on. Have you on tiktok as well but didn't realize you were doing a podcast as well. Amazing work guys, I'm excited for this one!
The Dans are taking over!
The thing modern people tend to forget about ancient texts is that most of those stories were probably well known to anyone in a multitude of slightly different retellings. So writing them down was less about spreading the message, but more about standardization where the author felt it mattered and maybe pushing its core towards a political/cultural direction they deemed necessary. So it makes sense they would acknowledge other gods, but focused on the one they hoped would push their agenda and also that they didn't feel it was necessary to include the woman receiving instructions from god, because some village elder probably told it to you when he had the desire to embellish a little.
I remember reading the "Nibelungenlied", which is kind of the German founding legend. Most multigenerational Germans of my generation or older likely know the story of Sigfried, wo slew a dragon and bathed in its blood to become invulnerable. So I was looking forward to reading it in its original text, which starts with him and his entourage arriving at a castle and he was literally introduced as the guy who slew a dragon and gained invulnerability as a sub-clause. That's when it hit me: There was no need to tell that story. You probably heard it a million times, told way better than the poem ever could.
This was excellent! Thank you !
Whats up all. Loved this
A special shout-out & thanks (well most days - sometimes I think I should have put the time into a foreign language, or painting, or the ukelele, or another pastime 😂) to Dan B & fellow uncles of The How To Heretic. Feels kind of full circle to be here now. I heard about the HTH show courtesy Radiowest & became an avid listener in the Before [Covid19] Times. As a longtime atheist NeverMo in Moridor I had largely resisted investigating the faith - no coffee? End of interest. Once the pandemic hit, I went on a wild deep dive into Mormonism & Mormon history & now into religious studies of Xianity & Judaism - so many great creators & scholars sharing their knowledge. My shelf is now full of books with God in the titl lol. And I'm still happily atheist. Also a TGIA fan & patron, still really miss THTH tho. Lol my exMo friends tease me that I know so much more Mormon lore than they do now. Let's see if DoD helps me the same way with all my Xian & Jewish family members. Also thanks to Dan M for his other channel & helping dispel all the misinformation out there.
Hey man- what a kind comment!
Editing is looking great!
This is amazing!! Can't wait for more episodes
Love this podcast. So informative ❤
That’s quite the intro tune!
Do you like it, or hate it?
@@danielbeecher8053 I like it!
Very interesting and a great first episode. I’m looking forward to how this develops.
Amazing podcast 👍🏽 Love that Raider jab. Lol
Great, simply great. Can't wait for more
♥️♥️♥️
Looking forward to it. Great panel today also!
Well, this was fun! I'm looking forward to more!
thank you im looking forward to more
Boy, is this a lot different than what I learned at catholic parochial school
Might I say...we've been waiting. Looking forward to this. Got to go finish Deep Drinks p.2 first, though.
I think this is gonna be a good program.
Great first episode!
Yes!
I love this
This is golden! Thanks for that amigo!
Great content. Subbed 😁👍
This was fantastic. Can't wait for more episodes.
Glad you started a podcast! This is going to be something I tune into every week you do this. Was great
Yes. I will be following 👍🏼
Love it! So happy you guys are doing this. I want the T-Shirt 👕
Brilliant
Excellent content!
Hello Dan and friends. I’m going to watch every one of these and hope to learn so much.
This is so great!
Interesting, thank you. Xxx
exmormon here and very interested lately about the true origin of the stories we were taught in jesus related religions to be factually historical including the concept of a demigod named Jesus. fascinating and excited. So many billions of people have been born into or converted into some form of man made religion (all of them are man made) and believe so strongly that they’re willing to die or kill for their beliefs. it’s so sad when you think these atrocities have happened for false narratives sold to them from snake oil salesmen and con artists bent on power control and/or money.
this lines up so much with what i’ve been pondering on lately since leaving religion and opening my mind to the possibility that all this is made up over the centuries. 🤯🤯 thank you for this amazing first episode. I’m gonna keep listening for sure. love how you point out that the culture merged the two gods and later we can see how the NG writers took this jesus character and made him into a demigod and tied him to the Jehovah of the OT - which was a very vengeful god as mentioned. this alone has caused so many to be confused how jesus/jehovah could be so vengeful and dealing out death in the OT and preach peace and love etc in the NT. Spoiler: it’s all stories made up by men.
I find the scholarly consensus regarding the Raiders to be the most impactful data. 😅
omg this helped me so much to understand. thank you.
Dan McClellan, I had a Jewish Rabi tell me at one point that the Jewish oral law gives some insight into this garden of Eden story in that God told Adam not to partake, but then when Adam gave the commandment to even he added to the command not to touch the tree, just to keep her away from it. When the serpent came, it pushed eve into the tree and when she did not die, she questioned the command. Just interesting to me. Love your info.
Thank you for such a great listen! I can't wait for next week!
Dan, I’ve been a fan of yours for some time, back in the days of the debates on some not to be named Christian apologetic forums. And I love your podcast here. Very informative.
I would like to add additional perspective of Genesis 1, especially with regards to verses 26,27.. and the creation of man.
When we read Gen 1, we see it has two voices. The voice of the narrator and the voice of Elohim. The narrator telling us what Elohim does. His focus is on Elohim, not anyone one else in the narrative.
In verse 1-25, the narrator tells us Elohim speaks, it’s done, and it’s good. The narrative carries on as if Elohim is a solo act. If anyone else is involved in the fulfilments, it’s not mentioned. Then in verse 26 there’s a shift. , the narrator tells us that Elohim said
“Let US make humans in OUR image, according to OUR likeness, and let THEM have dominion …"
This appears as Elohim is appealing to others, others who would seem share image, likeness, and creative abilities with Elohim. Note what it doesn’t’ say...
It doesn’t say, “Let ME create man in MY image and MY likeness.”.
Nor does it say, “Let US create man in MY image and MY likeness.”
Nor does it say, “Let ME create man in OUR image and OUR likeness.”
It says, “Let US create man in OUR image and OUR likeness, and let THEM have dominion… “
Now Dan you point this to be the ‘Divine council’ which I can agree with to a point, but I think there is an additional nuance here. In verse 27, the narrator picks up once again and tells us what Elohim did.
So God created humans in his image,
in the image of God he created THEM;
MALE and FEMALE he created THEM.
See the nuance, verse 27 gives us more details as to the THEM, which verse 26 tells us is in the image and likeness of the US. Thus, it stands to reason that the “US” is MALE and FEMALE, and if we consider God (Elohim) to be male, then he’s appealing to at least one Female counter part when it comes to making humans. Something that is not needed in any of the creation verses 1-25.
Therefore, it more reinforces the point that we as humans, both male and female are representative of deity. And if one sees God (Elohim) as a "Heavenly Father", then there is likely a “Heavenly Mother” even if the narrator doesn’t talk about her.
👍
Love the concept of data over dogma
This conversation was amazing. Thank you for such awesome content. Incredibly refreshing compared to what you tend to get from Evangelical or Atheist creators.
Oh my goodness, The Never-ending Story reference!! I say this to my husband all the time of the sentinels standing guard!
Amazing podcast! Looking forward to more.
Great format.
What!! the snake is not the devil!!! I can't believe it. I really appreciate learning this.
Keep ‘em coming!
I have some thoughts about your claim on “in the beginning”. While the word בראשית is always a construct state, the word ראשית without the ב is sometimes not in a construct state, examples of that you can see Leviticus 2:12, Deuteronomy 33:21, Isaiah 46:10, Nehemiah 12:44.
The translation of the first verse not being a construct clause avoids the problem of the second part of the construct missing etc., and it also fits better with the ו at the beginning of verse 2 והארץ.
Been waiting for this!
Great video! Learned so much wow
Fantastic Podcast!
Subbed!
This is great!!
I'm actually curious about the distinction between a cherubim and a sphinx in these contexts. Because those descriptions seem rather similar. At least in the contemporary way we know them today.
1:03:00 the Raiders' commentary was just too funny!!!!!
I Hope Dr. McClellan accepts to come and talk on our podcast!! That'll be an honour!!
This was a fascinating discussion. I did not want this to end. Thank you for this. It clarified some issues in the Scriptures for me. Also, then could the Gnostics have been correct?
I have the same Captain America poster hanging on my wall right now, lol. Big Premier Issue!
Why would god not want us to have knowledge or be godly? Were we really merely made to be gardeners without knowledge? To only garden, not think, then die?
When God moved over the face of the water, would the ancient conception have been that there was already an air pocket of some sort? That some solid mass floated in the cosmic ocean, maybe with some air nearby? And then God put in the firmament to protect the air and keep the land mass dry and stable?
the "bronze serpent" was NOT a serpent - it was a "burning worm" that burrows into the flesh. You wrap the exposed part around a twig/stick and pull it out.
Even the traditional Jewish interpretation is that Genesis was not contemporaneous with creation, at best it was attributed to Moses, and that was not always consistent.
edit: Monotheism is not biblical, one can argue it maybe henotheistic.
So it seems that Tiamat-> Lothan-> Leviathan
So maybe Marduk-> Baal -> Adonai?
Absolute Monotheism is not Biblical!
The Israelites of the Two Powers in Heaven from where Christianity comes from isn't an Absolute Monotheism.
As Paul states this in 1 Corinthians 8:5,6.
Wait, a lion with a human face that guards a gate? That sound a lot like a sphinx…
HENOTHEISM! Acknowledgement of a multitude of gods, but selective worship of only 1 of those gods.
Isn't that Mololatry rather than Henotheism?
Is there a difference between the two?
@@TheRegimentalscot it probably just comes down to how much people revere/respect the gods they aren't worshipping. Making a case strongly for either is likely to be very challenging.
@Vishanti so if I understand correctly, the difference is the intensity of the worship?
To use a (bad? slightly incorrect?) example, something like Henotheism would be a Hindu exclusively worshiping, say Shiva while accepting Brahma, Vishnu et. al. As being Co-Equals but "not your thing"?
Whereas Monolatry would be something like "The Caananite and Egyptian God's exist, but only Jehovah has the power to save and grant eternal life, and that's why we only worship and acknowledge him?"
Is my understanding of those differences (as badly as I described them) close?
@@TheRegimentalscot probably more like "monolatry thinks other nations worship their gods but those gods are garbage and worthless" - the Henotheism thing seems pretty spot-on tho
@Vishanti ahhh gotcha! Thanks for the Clarification that makes much more sense
There are different ways to slice the apple. Regardless of whatever, it wasn't the beginning of the entity who was the creator of whatever.
It would be safe to assume, there was something other than whatever was created or whatever was used to create with.
The major failure in all the dogma is having nothing to do with whatever was other than what was being worked.
It's not thought out but what we generally have is a creator confined to this universe. Practically operating within universal law.
It would help if people who believed in an all-powerful creator would consider what was before whatever beginning they are believing in.
A little thought on the matter, and that creator gets very, very big....very very fast. The creation gets very, very small...very, very fast.
All of a sudden, the God of the Bible (defined by their interpretations of the texts) becomes very, very small. The interactions within the Bible become minute.
I think it's one of the easiest ways to break free from dogma. The God of most of the religions is more like the Wizard of Oz. A guy behind a curtain, pulling on levers.
As a Christian I do believe that El and Adonai are the same and that God revealed his name in an effort to strengthen the relationship.
Incorrect.
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts.
"When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"."
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"*
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), which appears to be a later addition, Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"*
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
✌️
These guys make me into a Danite.
I would love to hear a podcast about the omnipotence of Yahweh. What specifically does the bible say/not say?
It never struct me before but does the phrase "dragon with 7 heads" caught me. I was wondering if this has parallels with earlier incarnations of the Hercules legend, as this parallels Herakles and the hydra, being the son of the lord of heaven/storm god of Zeus. Wondering if you think the two may be derivations of earlier indoeuropean mythology they have in common.
Thank you for the riveting show! I think it’s pretty obvious that the older creation story in Genesis 2-3 was developed after the Israelites settled in Canaan, because nothing in it captures what you would expect a nomadic raider tribe worshipping a flash flood-storm god of Arava to come up with; it is instead very agrarian, from the very beginning of the story. Question: the older creation story seems to have some Babylonian influence, with the garden tended by people who were allowed to eat the fruits of the garden except from specific trees reserved for the gods; is that a correct parallel? If so, could it mean the story is younger than 8th-7th century BCE and more aligned with the Babylonian exile? If it is pre-exile, what influenced the garden and forbidden tree motif?
I've had a look on Spotify but dont see you there yet. Will there be an announcement?
Should be there now.
Hey Dan When's that conference your doing that u mentioned on gt can I find it on UA-cam? Or Is it closed club type of thing?
Wasn't Tiamat a feminine diety? Conquered by the masculine Marduk?
El, El-Shadai, Elohim -- can you parse these out a little bit. I got the impression that El is the name of the chief god of the pantheon (short for El-Shadai?) and Elohim is maybe more of a title or position, i.e. Deity. Are El and Elohim related etymologically? Am I understanding any of this correctly?
Hi, I'm not Dan, but i wanted to see if I could help a little, so El is the chief God in the Ugaritic pantheon, and it's not short for El - Shadday but shadday is instead an epithet of El, and shadday most likely probably means almighty so when combined with El makes the name God almighty, Elohim is the pluralized form of El or Eloah (The singular word for God in hebrew) and while this name is plural it can be used as a singular when paired with a singular verb as within Gen 1:1. The Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible says this when it comes to the name elohim, they say it is "The most frequent generic name for God in the OT; possibly a plural of Eloah,
itself an expansion of El, “god.”" Hope this helped a little.
It seems to me that Dan is implying Elohim is more of a title than a name. Like any member of the Divine Council could use, and sometimes means the entire Council. El-Shadai seems to be a way of distinguishing El the individual as opposed to the generic concept.
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts.
"When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"."
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"*
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), which appears to be a later addition, Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"*
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
Why isn't this on the Google Podcasts app?
It should be there now.
1:01:30 Elohim said he would send an angel before the children of Israel. Maybe this Angel came to be known as YHWH. He would have started showing up at the time of the Exodus.
yall should do an episode on the witch craze and how men like you are contributing to the next one
Dan Beecher hold onto them coattails all the way into heaven.
ITS NOT PAINFUL CHILDBIRTH. its difficultly conceiving
The refusing to say Yahveh makes things kind of wrong and confusing. Yahveh doesn't present himself to Moses as Adonai, but as YHWH, right?
Ok so what’s this guys view on biblical accuracy and truth? Believer or not?
Dan(squared)
I love the podcast but the music…. It’s not necessary but if you want to still have music as transition from topic to topic… maybe find some music that doesn’t sound like a 90’s talking sports theme? Please