Thank you for your hard work!

In general, this podcast overlooks the radical discontinuity between the historical Jesus and the character of Jesus portrayed on the pages of the gospels - see March 18 episode. There is very little evidence (or data, if you will) which helps us objectively verify what the historical Jesus actually did and said. This has been the overwhelming consensus of mainstream historians for the last 150 years. Even self-professed Christians like Dale Allison, Jr. and Helen Bond who’ve been on the podcast openly and repeatedly maintain we can know exceedingly little about the actual deeds and words of the historical Jesus. Secular biblical and classical scholars are even more suspicious regarding efforts to reconstruct the historical Jesus because they understand any reliance on various methodological criteria is ad hoc and overly dependent on hypothetical written sources (Q, M, L, etc.) and unrecoverable oral traditions. I imagine Dan McClellan knows this but chooses not share these unsettling facts on the podcast in an effort to advocate for an intellectually respectable version of Christianity as a refuge for the thousands and thousands of believers who are fleeing conservative churches (including his own Mormon church). I am quite sympathetic to this podcast’s mission, and I appreciate the hosts’ desire to combat the spread of religious misinformation. However, Dan McClellan has a blind spot when it comes to his beliefs about the historical Jesus. He seems unwilling to align with mainstream scholars regarding the quest of the historical Jesus and instead displays a need for the Jesus of the gospels to be very nearly identical to the Jesus of history. As podcast guest Dale Allison wrote in his 1998 book, ‘Jesus of Nazareth’: “Appeals to shared criteria may, we can pray, assist us in being self-critical, but when all is said and done we look for the historical Jesus with our imaginations - and there, too, is where we find him, if we find him at all.” The historical Jesus has been forever lost to us, and all that remains are the unverifiable and unfalsifiable claims of his later followers. That is the true state of affairs when data has the final word over dogma.

I’m loving this podcast! It’s as educational as it is entertaining! Thank you!!

I have tried reading the Bible from cover to cover more than once, and always got bogged down in things that seemed confusing or that I just didn’t understand. Dan M does a superb job of explaining the language and the history, and Dan B helps put this in layman’s terms. Thank you both for making the Bible make sense.

I rarely miss an episode of this podcast. I love how frank they are and their intention to not sugar coat or beat around the bush. Dan M is doing amazing work in his field. Dan B does a great job of helping break it into digestible pieces so it’s easier to understand. He oftentimes asks the question that I’m thinking in my own mind and wishing I could ask! I love that he admits to being less knowledgeable about certain topics and will ask for further clarification. We all appreciate that! Really loved Franscesca’s episode, as well as the episodes with Jennifer Bird and Niel Van Luuwen. So good. Keep up the great work!!

There is a fair amount of unsubstantiated speculation and borderline misinformation going on in the episode with Helen Bond. She’s an intelligent and respected scholar, and a good deal of what she said in this episode lines up with the broad consensus in the field of Christian origins - namely that the canonical gospels are not, one the whole, historically accurate biographies of the life of the historical Jesus. There are exceedingly few evidential reasons to believe the character of Jesus portrayed in the four gospel accounts bears much resemblance to the first century Jewish man upon whom the later legends developed. Bond said as much, though she tried to soften the blow on a number of occasions by saying the gospels get the ‘gist’ of Jesus’ life correct, even if the details are almost all fictional. Nevertheless, Bond slipped over into apologetical territory several times. For example, she seems to give uncritical weight to the writings of Josephus as evidence for the historical Jesus. In this case, the current scholarly consensus is overwhelmingly against Bond. No serious, mainstream biblical scholar or classical historian thinks the Testimonium Flavianum is authentic to Josephus, whether in whole or in part. See the work of Drs. G.J. Goldberg (1995), Ken Olson (1999; 2013), Richard Carrier (2012; 2014), Paul Hooper (2014), and Alice Wheatley (2016). Even the conservative evangelical scholar Chris Hansen (2021) completely discounts the authenticity of the Testimonium. He also rightly concludes that even if the Josephus material is authentic, there’s no way to establish its independence from Christian sources. (The same is true for the references to Jesus in Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. We cannot know if they have independent knowledge of Jesus or if they are simply repeating Christian claims about him, making them useless as independent witnesses.) I realize Bond doesn’t build her case for the existence of Jesus solely on Josephus, but it’s extremely misleading and almost disingenuous to allude to Josephus in an authoritative way without acknowledging that the scholarly consensus does not rely on his work. Then came the discussion on possible sources for the gospel according to Mark. Bond brazenly says she is absolutely certain the author of Mark had access to written and oral sources when he sat down to compose his gospel. The problem is the anonymous gospel writer never once cites any sources or even claims to have relied on any sources! Bond fails to give a single shred of evidence to support her conclusion. She just states it as a fact. We simply cannot know with certainty if the author of Mark had access to any kinds of sources. Is it possible he did? Yes. Is it possible he simply made up most of what he wrote? Yes. Both scenarios are equally possible and even equally likely! We know for a fact that both canonical and non-canonical gospel writers of the 1st and 2nd centuries CE made up a huge amount of their material, so it’s no stretch to say the very first writers were simply making up things out of whole cloth. See the work of Drs. Richard C. Miller, Robyn Faith Walsh, Dennis MacDonald, M. David Litwa, Erin Roberts, Dale Allison, John Dominic Crossan, Bart Herman, Marcus Borg, and many others. Bond also fails to reckon with the obvious: even if the author of Mark had sources, we cannot verify the historical accuracy of these sources. If Mark’s sources were largely fictional and based on unreliable 3rd- or 4th-hand rumor, we’d still be grasping in the dark in our effort to find the historical Jesus. The truth is, we cannot corroborate the historical accuracy of any of the stories deeds, and sayings in Mark. Odds are, at worst, it’s all creative fiction or an indistinguishable blend of hazy memory and wholesale fiction; at best, we cannot prove that it isn’t all fiction or some alternative amalgam. (This is a point many people fail to grasp when it comes to the New Testament!) There’s no getting around this fact. If subsequent gospel narratives relied on Mark (as the scholarly consensus confirms), and if ‘Q’ turns out to be pure speculation (as Bond seems to agree with), the criterion of multiple attestation crumbles to pieces, and the historical Jesus fades further and further from our view. I know the two co-hosts have little patience for dogma and unverifiable religious claims, but they seemed uninterested in asking Bond any tough questions or pressing her to substantiate her bold claims.

I love this podcast. I first started listening to Dan McClellan’s TikToks (as reels on Instagram, because I’m a boring millennial) around the time I left organized religion. Among the many reasons for my split was the fact that the doctrinal “truths” that were taught didn’t match the evidence and judgments I was reading in actual archaeological and historical research. After I left, though, I found that the conversations happening on the other side of the religious spectrum had many of the same problems. It’s refreshing to have a place that calls a spade a spade and brings the receipts to back it up. Keep up the great work gentlemen.

Clearly biased and not really data based as much as it is dripping with disdain for Scripture and Christianity.

If you want to learn more about the Bible and it contexts this is the podcast for you. I have learned more listening to this podcast than all the years I spent going to church. Thank you so much for clarity on insight.

Not impressed with people who talk about the scriptures and yet make fun of and mock others beliefs.

This week, the Dans had a break with a History podcast in their place. Hope you create a new Bible centric episode soon. We do listen, and appreciate the episodes! Thanks for the great content!

Than you so much for the principled, yet accessible approach to difficult issues

Love it

As a recovering evangelical Christian/current atheist I’ve wanted SOMEONE to please explain to me what the Bible actually says from original translations, provide historical context, and tell me what we actually KNOW (not believe) about Christianity. These guys are fantastic.

It’s so nice to listen to an actual biblical scholar. It’s frustrating when doctrines are created in religions from men who “love the scriptures” but really have no clue. Congregations have been manipulated by men who claim to have a direct link to God yet clearly don’t understand the scriptures. It’s nice to finally get more informed answers. Thank you for being so kind to the fringe “less than” people. I love all your guests and all their brilliant insights. Thanks for sharing your knowledge! I love both the Dans!

Seriously she brought so much to the show!

This podcast is so full of great insight. Dan M brings clarity to what the text of the Bible is (or is mostly thought to be) according to biblical scholars and points out where dogma drives interpretation. Dan B brings skepticism and curiosity to the discussion, with a not-so-small amount of smart-assery.

As a questioning exvangelical and new Quaker, I truly enjoy the history lessons and analysis provided in the podcast.

I love hearing Dan Maklelan’s clear and digestible presentation of biblical scholarship. I could listen to it all day every day. His co-host, however, is so trying a listen for me that I likely won’t be back to this podcast and will stick to Maklelan’s solo instagram content.

As a biblical scholar and teacher, I listen to every episode and have used several in courses I teach.

As a recalcitrant / lapsed Catholic, I adore the subject matter of this podcast and how knowledgeable and entertaining the Dans are. I am knocking off one star for Dan Mc’s many many mispronunciations (scythe being the most memorable to date).

My favorite new podcast! Thanks

Great podcast guys. Just got introduced and three podcast in. The Tommy Boy reference really made me laugh.

Excellent textual scholarship and fun discussions. Have recommended this podcast to anyone who will listen. Team Dan!

Their pairing of humor and biblical scholarship is masterful and delightfully enjoyable.

Amazing podcast. Very important and informative!

Really appreciate this podcast. Always love deep dives into the actual text and history of the scriptures. It's pretty funny too!

I especially appreciate how Dan reiterates how there are no biblical literalists, only people using some parts and ignoring others for their own purposes, usually to access power.

I have found this to be a reasonably interesting podcast, however I really wonder if Dan M. has bothered to actually listen to what he has said in the cast. He is, for whatever reason, a Christian apologist. Meanwhile, he goes through a truly mind-boggling set of twists and turns to, somehow, try and show the validity of the Christian religion. He admits that the "New testament", as we know it, is a revised, re-revised, and re-re-revised commentary and, yet, still seems to want to buy into it as a valid document. He does not even try and provide a view of the "Old Testament" (Tanach, which he mispronounces) as being at least somewhat more authentic than the new, in that most of the biblical research is done on documents closer in both language and time to the original (whether you buy it, or not). He also doesn't go into the concept that virtually all of the "new ideas" in the New Testament are derived from existing ideas in the Tanach (whether original in Tanach or derived from older traditions). Dan B does his job adequately in that, like others, his role is more of a presenter and querier (if there is such a word) and seems to have a reasonable grasp of the subject, while admitting to his lack of true expertise. Yes, this is an iteresting Podcast, but really brings very little new to the table and has a definite bias that Dan M. doesn't admit to.

I love these guys. They are so informative and I always learn so much. My only critique to them, if they happen to see this review… sometimes Dan speaks in such an academic way I struggle to follow him. I’m a beginner in the study of the Bible and some clarification or explanation of academic terms it would be so helpful. I need a vocabulary lesson before each episode… or maybe an episode on the academic vocabulary of biblical study would be helpful.

I really enjoy listening to Dan M. approach the Bible (and/or modern American concepts about the Bible) from a purely academic, non-theological perceptive. A lot of people critique him for supposed bias, and acknowledging bias is something all scholars — from medicine to literature — should do. But Dan’s not making dogmatic assertions or telling people how they must understand their faith. He just points listeners to the academic consensus about any given topic, and occasionally challenges listeners to consider the social/relational impact of popular dogmas. Dan Beecher adds some nice levity, and sometimes helps make the conversation more accessible by asking questions. I do often find myself wishing I could interject questions of my own, because I feel like a lot of common questions/assumptions get missed — but I rarely listen to podcasts at a time when I can also take notes and post them to the Patreon discussion. Idk, maybe that’s something I need to change. Speaking of Patreon, I haven’t really been impressed with the subscriber benefits. The “bonus” episodes are just two guys rambling, often off topic. I quit on the Angels & Demons follow up because they literally weren’t having a relevant conversation. They just kept recording themselves talking. Between that and the fact that they don’t seem to spend a lot of time focused on answering the questions of their Patrons, I’m not really sure what the point of the Patreon is. If the remaining bonus episodes in October remain as unfocused, I plan to cancel my membership. That said, don’t let this discourage you from listening to the main podcast. It’s eye opening and thought provoking!

Dan is my go-to for Bible literacy!

A very important topic, however I heard nothing helpful in addressing the polemics seemingly expressed by Paul. In contrast, I have been reading the Jewish Annotated New Testament, which is very helpful for understanding this problem!

I’m loving this podcast. I learn a lot and am entertained in every episode! The presentation style and the theme music bring some fun and lightness to topics that might otherwise feel heavy or overly cerebral.

The legitimate review: I’m not a Biblical scholar or any scholar for that matter, however I enjoy these sorts of intellectual conversations about scholarly or academic topics, particularly those relevant to religion and philosophy (which essentially means almost anything). This show offers a unique perspective on topics relevant to Biblical studies in an entertaining and digestible way that is often used by some with certainly less credentials. However, even with those who tend to come with more credentials in the conservative Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox Christian world (of which I am most familiar - although I know what counts as “conservative” varies across these traditions as well), this certainly offers a more modern and - what the personalities I am familiar with would say - liberal take on Biblical studies. It’s refreshing. Yet given my lack of education on these things it is inevitable that I cannot confirm or deny the validity of much of what is said, from either this show or any other of a similar but different nature. But such is the nature of listening to education content online period; particularly when it pertains to topics that are mostly disciplinary and should never be equated with hard science. Non-review/commentary: I would like to hear an episode (not sure if it’s been done already so please forgive me) that attempts to address the framing of the show “Data over Dogma.” What is dogma? Is it ubiquitously bad? Is it ever reasonable to be dogmatic? If so when is it reasonable to drop dogma and replace it? Data may not lie, but isn’t data likewise - particularly in relation to these sorts of scholarly, non scientific material - subject to interpretation? Data has to be situated in its proper context to be understood and it’s that “context” that often forms the subject of debate. How do we go about interpreting it if we can even speak of a “right” way? Especially when the data is so ambiguous and minimal that there can be a potential limitless way of interpreting it? I think it seems fairly self evident that dogma develops over time - whether it’s an essential or tertiary change is subject for debate it seems - so perhaps viewing dogma literally as some immovable force is simply factually incoherent. Perhaps the fundamentalist interpretation of dogma is the wrong one, but is there an understanding of it that is more digestible? I would personally like to see an episode that attempts to honestly address the opposite scholarship which does not see the Bible in the kind of dogmatic way the Dans are clearly opposed to here. Not all “conservative,” claims are dogmatic fundamentalist ones. One side note: if both the authors of this show and those on “The Lord of Spirits,” from Ancient Faith Radio, could speak to each other, I think I would just have to become a patreon member… Regarding the meekness episode, I also am not entirely convinced meekness is a ubiquitous good, regardless of whether the Bible says so given how many “spiritual leaders” I have seen use meekness as a means for manipulation and control. Being wholly sheepish sounds like a terrible idea, but a good recipe for cult like behavior, so if that is solely what Jesus meant and that is what the Dan’s advocate for here, I will have to say I disagree with this Jesus emphatically. If I didn’t I would still be a fundamentalist to this day. However I do not believe that the Dan’s truly believe that we should be completely harmless as I believe that they think pursuing justice for the oppressed is more important which seems - to me at least - to require a lack of meekness to some extent and a little bit of disagreeableness to be truly effective.

I started out watching Dan M.’s YouTube shorts. Just recently started listening to the podcast, and I love it! I always learn so much!

i love the podcast. both Dans, the mission, all of it. But, I think some episodes are harder to parse than others, obviously there is going to be some of this. I love the content, i think just sometimes it could be structured or paced or organized in a better way, i’ve been loosing the thread more often on episodes that don’t have a guest. maybe my brain is just full of holes

I am not a Christian or a particularly spiritual person, but I have a real interest in the historical Bible and learning more about what the bible really says vs various people’s interpretations or misinterpretations of it (often to suit their own purposes). The Dans have a mountain of expertise and they make it loads of fun for the listener. I highly recommend this podcast!

The Dans truly do what they say they are going to do! Their discussions open up the world of biblical criticism for me so that I can better understand the text. I still use the Bible as an important source of wisdom, but I feel more confident knowing that it doesn’t have to hold all the answers. This podcast has also piqued my interest in other sacred texts. Well done, gentlemen.

i can’t even put into words how much this podcast has helped me in my deconstruction journey, even in the week+ i’ve been listening and diving into the content on here. every episode my mind gets blown by stuff i was never taught, despite it being vitally important to know. everything is finally making sense and i am falling in love with my faith again because of a lot of the things i have learned from this podcast. it’s educational, and they are so respectful and gentle, which is so refreshing to me as someone who has been beaten over the head with theology. above all else, they encourage you to keep a critical mind and take a look at why you believe what you believe, not just accepting things blindly. thank you, thank you!!

Dan is very talented and incredibly well studied. Somehow, perhaps willfully, he never seems to acknowledge his own obvious bias. He interprets everything through a post modern lens. He reduces all human dynamics down to class warfare and power struggles among different identities. This wouldn’t be a deal breaker if he ever acknowledged this bias but instead he assumes it a priori.

I appreciate this discussion between Dan and Dan and the respectful and honest way they discuss their knowledge. They have a pleasant dynamic that brings so much insight to biblical scholarship and history.

I followed Dan on TikTok and then a friend mentioned this podcast. It scratches all the right areas in my brain. They give answers to questions I knew I had, but couldn’t articulate before. They bring up questions to things I’ve never thought about before. Would especially recommend for those deconstructing. I can’t wait for more episodes!

Love it. Came from tiktok, you guys need to do a q&a episode.

Prior to this, I had not found a Biblical analysis podcast I could listen to for more than a few minutes. The podcasters are deeply and objectively analytical and informed of the actual history of the cultures and societies present when Biblical text was written. Gladly, I cannot discern the denominational perspective of either podcaster. All too often, Biblical podcast are the presenter reading scripture and pulling out of thin air their own opinions about its meaning. This is far from that and truly worthwhile.

I appreciate Dan’s scholarship, especially when he corrects gross misrepresentations of Scripture. However, I have noticed a growing lack of academic humility in his work. He is certainly entitled to his opinion about the univocality of the Bible. However, I don’t see him own his own hermeneutic, much less say in a scholarly way that he has a hermeneutic or philosophy of the Bible, which is decidedly postmodern and deconstructionist. A scholarly argument can be made that the Bible is a book of faith despite the lack of univocality. What is more disturbing to me is the culture he has cultivated in his followers. In a recent video, a follower asked a good question in response to the video. She was attacked and mocked for asking the question. True, Dan can’t control the behavior of his listeners. However, he has attracted people that attack others who have different points of view. It’s a different kind of fundamentalism and it’s not helpful. It would be helpful for him to address this, and concede that there is a wider spectrum of thought that is scholarly and viable. Until then, the trajectory of this podcast seems to create an environment of ridicule rather than scholarly intrigue. It’s ugly, in a world of ugliness.

Love you guys! I’m gaining SO MANY wonderful insights into the Bible and getting many questions answered. How wonderful to be able to benefit from your years of study and research. Thank you for sharing your knowledge so generously🙏🏻

Just found this podcast via Dan B (objectively one of the best podcasters to ever do it) and I’m obsessed. I grew up fundamentalist evangelical so I’ve had more bible than actual education. Please do the workers’ revolution against the gods in Genesis 11 soon! ♥️

I’ve been looking for a show like this for a long time . One of my favorite ever

Dan McClellan is a great scholar with so much insight to share. Unfortunately over the past year or so his channels—and now this podcast—have become increasingly snarky and condescending. It’s become increasingly difficult to engage with his material.