I’ve enjoyed listening to Data Over Dogma for its deep dive into biblical scholarship and for bringing a well-informed, critical lens to scriptural interpretations. Hosts Daniel McClellan, a Bible scholar, and Dan Beecher, an atheist podcaster, provide engaging insights that challenge traditional readings and make complex topics more accessible to listeners. Their segments exploring biblical language, history, and context are particularly valuable for those wanting a non-traditional but rigorous approach to understanding scripture. However, I feel that the podcast often brings a pronounced political perspective that could detract from its appeal to those seeking a more neutral take on theology. This bias might sometimes overshadow the educational content, which is otherwise top-notch. Overall, I recommend it for listeners who appreciate a mix of scholarship and modern critique, though it may not resonate with those looking for a fully apolitical discussion of religious topics.

There some interesting stuff but there is just too much nonsense in between.

This show is fascinating! Thought you’d like to know my husband and I call your show “Bible Dan.” 😂

I enjoy the scholarly approach more than the one-star review from the guy who thought his religion had not been sufficiently debunked. I always thought about going to seminary and its good to hear some educated thought that is smart, respectful, and well considers the source material that we all draw on (if we know it or not).

This podcast makes it so easy to understand the book I’ve grown up with. More than any preacher I’ve listened to, and he said Bible, I’ve read, and easier and less overwhelming than searching through article after article online. thanks guys for doing this!! My only gripe is that I wish there were more because now I’ve binged them all and I’m sad. 😂

Love listening to their podcast. I learn something new every time I listen. It’s oftentimes the last thing I listen to at night when I can concentrate on what’s being discussed.

The worst thing about listening to podcasts is how much time is wasted at beginning on forced humor, corny jokes, over/talking each other, and countless rabbits being chased—with no end insight. D&D ate the worst at this

For such an intellectual approach to the Bible, it just seemed that it was very closed off. Kept repeating himself when he says ( this only existed because western civilizations made it up) kind of very noticeably biased but definitely not in an educative way.

Please talk about biblical manhood. Why do Christians love men sooo much and is it really in the Bible. Please address this.

BTW! Dan Beecher, did you play President James Madison in the documentary The War of 1812?? If so, you looked great! John Bradshaw

Thank you Dan and Dan!

I was drawn to some aspects of thinking differently, and do like some of the context Dan speaks of on other topics. I started listening to the rapture episode. I have to say that I felt it was a COMPLETE waste of my time. There was no reason or logic as to why Rapture thinking is wrong, other than the circular ambiguity (huge emphasis) about it just being a western concept. I can’t count how many times they beat the dead horse of “there is no support of this, it’s a western concept, many denominations have left this because it was only introduced later.” No reason was ever given. Furthermore, no sources of where he gets ANY of his information is ever given. I’m just looking to learn, and if I can’t even research myself about points he is making, there is absolutely no point. Now I can’t even bring myself to listen to the rest of them. A warning for those who care about their time as much as I do.

I don’t always think these guys are spot on, but it’s still a really good podcast. I like that both guys are able to not be offended by each other’s ideology and perspective. And they're able to laugh and joke within the topics discussed, but still be serious about discussing theology as well. Explaining the history of how ideas are texts evolved and came to be very seriously, but also being able to be lighthearted within the podcast is nice

Love the show but would be super interesting to hear them dissect the Book of Mormon in the same way.

I love this podcast for the simple reason than it tells me what it is. No bias. No agenda and it allows me to make my own mind about things. Both Dans are the perfect hosts. Such a great podcast to listen to.

Dan and Dan are reaching people who would likely have no interest in the Bible. I am fascinated by the Bible from an historical perspective and they offer plenty. I have great love for this show and it's one of the few I subscribe to.

It’s my absolute favorite podcast. I love the dynamic between the two Dans. I’ve learned a lot from listening. Knowledge that has been useful in deconstructing errant dogma, healing religious trauma and (believe it or not) deepening my faith. Thank you Dans! Keep doing this thing. Always looking forward to what comes next.

Academic and entertaining, great having the perspectives of both hosts.

I was surprised to hear Dan McClellan speak with apparent certainty regarding hypothetical written sources for the canonical gospels in the recent ‘Easter and the Undead’ episode. In a matter of seconds, McClellan rattled off a list of hypothetical gospel sources in the manner of a fundamentalist preacher or apologist, but I’m not sure sure what data Dan relies on to support such claims. It’s obvious the anonymous authors of Matthew and Luke copied much of the gospel of Mark nearly word-for-word. This is called the triple tradition material: the material nearly identical in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Then there is the material that Matthew and Luke have in common which is not found in Mark. This is called the double-tradition. Some scholars speculate that Matthew and Luke must have been using another source, referred to by the letter ‘Q’, as a way of explaining this material they have in common (not found in Mark). The problem is we don’t have any copies of ‘Q’ and have we have no material evidence/data to indicate that it ever existed. It’s a purely hypothetical source! A considerable number of current mainstream scholars have abandoned the ‘Q’ hypothesis because it’s just as likely that Luke, writing later than Matthew, copied the double-tradition material straight from Matthew; such a theory eliminates the need to speculate about hypothetical sources. Nevertheless, Dan McClellan spoke about ‘Q’ as if it is settled scholarship founded on solid data, as opposed to rigorously contested scholarship without a shred of material evidence. It got worse when McClellan went on to claim that whoever Matthew and Luke each had their own unique (hypothetical) sources called ‘M’ and ‘L’. Some scholars posit the existence of ‘M’ to explain the material in Matthew unique to Matthew (such as the visitation of the Magi after Jesus’ birth), and they posit the existence of ‘L’ to explain the material unique to Luke (such as the parable of the prodigal son). Again, the problem is obvious: we don’t have any copies of ‘M’ or ‘L’, even if they ever existed. It’s just as likely - perhaps even more likely - that the anonymous authors of Matthew and Luke simply made up the material that is unique to their document. Did Matthew really have exclusive access to a document containing the story of the Magi, or was this just a creative invention added to his fictional birth narrative for theological reasons? Did Luke really have his own secret document containing the parable of the prodigal son? Why postulate all of these unnecessary, hypothetical sources? Serious scholars don’t waste their time dreaming up imaginary sources for the non-canonical gospels; they simply admit that whoever wrote those documents created most of the material. Why not admit the same is true for the four canonical gospels? Why does Dan McClellan treat the canonical gospels with kid gloves and insist there must be written sources to account for all of their material? I realize Dan McClellan is not a fundamentalist or an apologist (thank you!), but he seems so steeped in those traditions (at least in the Mormon context) that he appears unable to jettison the kinds of faith-based, dogma-induced arguments that lead to the source-o-mania that plagues the study of Christian origins. There is no data for ‘Q’, ‘M’, and ‘L’, or the oft-referenced ‘oral tradition’. I’m not sure why Dan McClellan can’t see this - or why he sees this but chooses not to be transparent on his podcast. I hope he will follow the data and abandon this reliance on hypothetical sources.

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!