You Can't Out-Bible the Pope

Pope Leo XIV called the death penalty "inadmissible," and the internet promptly told him to go read his Bible—the one that prescribes execution for everything from kidnapping to picking up sticks on the Sabbath. But the Pope is making the same image-of-God argument from Genesis 1:27 that abolitionists used to argue their way past the Bible's acceptance of slavery, and the Gospel of Matthew can't seem to decide whether Jesus overturned "eye for an eye" or still invoked the death penalty. Then, in Thicker Than Water, we finally tackle animal sacrifice: why Israel's temple offerings look so much like the meals people left for their dead, and Jacob Milgrom's theory that sacrificial blood was a ritual detergent for the sanctuary, not the sinner. Thanks for supporting Data Over Dogma! Explore every episode, searchable transcripts, and our book recommendations on the Data Over Dogma website: https://www.dataoverdogmapod.com Support Data Over Dogma and get every episode early and ad-free, plus exclusive bonus content — become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/DataOverDogma Get your Data Over Dogma merch at our online store: https://data-over-dogma-shop.fourthwall.com/ Watch every episode on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@dataoverdogma Follow us: Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/dataoverdogmapod TikTok — https://www.tiktok.com/@data.over.dogma.pod Threads — https://www.threads.com/@dataoverdogmapod X — https://x.com/data_over_dogma Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/DataOverDogmaPod Get Dan McClellan's New York Times bestselling book, The Bible Says So: https://static.macmillan.com/static/smp/bible-says-so-9781250347466/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Hey everybody, shop.com is giving away $1 million in shop cash.

• 0:05Speaker 01

  A lot of you are familiar with Shopify, which hosts a lot of cool entrepreneurs websites. Now shop.com is combining them all together. It has all the stores that you love and lets you track every order in one spot. So now 1,000 shoppers are each gonna win $1,000 in shop cash just in time for the holidays.

• 0:26Speaker 00

  Get gifts for everyone on your list, or maybe get yourself something a little merry and bright.

• 0:31Speaker 01

  Woo hoo.

• 0:32Speaker 00

  Find exactly what you're looking for at shop.com.

• 0:35Speaker 01

  Yeah, man, stocking stuffers, cookware, toys, everything you're gonna need for the holidays, you're gonna find on shop.com.

• 0:44Speaker 00

  From cult favorites to the world's biggest brands, score sweet deals and check out fast. All at shop.com.

• 0:51Speaker 01

  Enter to win the $1 million shop cash giveaway from now until November 1st. Just go to shop.com. There are so many ways to win. That's shop.com, shopping designed around you. No purchase necessary. Restrictions apply. Official rules available at shop.com.

• 1:09Speaker 02

  Hey, it's Micah Sargent. This week on Windows Weekly, we've got a great show for you. Paul talks about his time with the RTX Spark hardware, three different RTX computers, and the frustrations therein. We also talk about Xbox's Project Helix, and we get a special cocktail, the Theranos Cocktail. If you'd like to check out this episode of Windows Weekly, just look for Windows Weekly wherever you get your podcasts, or head to twit.tv slash W W.

• 1:39Speaker 00

  The part where he said, now, I'm only gonna say this once, this is only about civil law, not criminal law, that that got left out.

• 1:48Speaker 01

  Yeah, he forgot. Well, it was hard to hear. He was on a mount.

• 1:52Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 1:52Speaker 01

  You remember the life of Brian.

• 2:01Speaker 00

  Hey, everybody, I'm Dan McClellan.

• 2:02Speaker 01

  And I'm Dan Beecher.

• 2:04Speaker 00

  This is Data Over Dogma, where we increase public access to the academic study of the Bible and religion, and we combat the spread of misinformation about the same. How are things today, Dan?

• 2:15Speaker 01

  Things are good. Things are good. It's, it's fall is upon us. The sun is creeping southwise, and, and that's always a thing. I don't know. So.

• 2:28Speaker 00

  It's always, it's always wet outside now.

• 2:30Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 2:31Speaker 00

  We got construction going on in my backyard, so every time I let the dogs out, they're like, in the muddy, and they don't wanna go get their paws muddy.

• 2:38Speaker 01

  Well, it's, it's always wet now because we had a hurricane come here.

• 2:42Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 2:43Speaker 01

  That, that is, uh, boy, the Nino is really getting us right now. Anyway, we got a fun show coming up that we should probably get to. And we're, we got some topical stuff. We're gonna get topical and talk about a very controversial subject. The Pope decided to chime in about, about capital punishment. And so we're gonna.

• 3:09Speaker 00

  Who does he think he is?

• 3:11Speaker 01

  Honestly, right? And then we're gonna do a segment that we're calling Thicker Than Water about sacrifice. I almost sang a song, and we, we don't do that here because of copyright issues.

• 3:26Speaker 00

  Yes.

• 3:27Speaker 01

  There you go.

• 3:28Speaker 00

  Which is, is no sacrifice.

• 3:29Speaker 01

  It is, it is no, just a single word, a simple word. I don't know how that song goes. Anywho, why don't we just dive in with Get Topical?

• 3:45Speaker 01

  So, the Pope comes roaring in. I'll read a quote.

• 3:51Speaker 00

  Off the top rope, yeah.

• 3:52Speaker 01

  From the Pope, who said, "The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be a safeguard, and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment. Effective systems of detention have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption." Who are guilty, those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption, right?

• 4:31Speaker 01

  That's a, that, that's an interesting thing for him to say, especially at this moment in, in our history, in US history, where we have the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hassan, who, as of very recently for us, you're listening and watching in the future. But for us, it was very recent that Trump decided to call off the livestream of his firing squad shooting.

• 5:02Speaker 00

  Yes, cuz that's what, that's what Hagseth decided was, was, you know, at one point, he's like, you know, it'd be cool.

• 5:08Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 5:09Speaker 00

  We should livestream this, man.

• 5:10Speaker 01

  Good.

• 5:11Speaker 00

  And.

• 5:11Speaker 01

  God.

• 5:12Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 5:13Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 5:14Speaker 00

  Cuz that's, it says that in Isaiah, doesn't it?

• 5:17Speaker 01

  Well, we'll get to that.

• 5:18Speaker 00

  Here I am, let me watch the, the execution of this criminal.

• 5:22Speaker 01

  Right, yeah, exactly. And then, and then also in the news was, was, oh, what's her name? Krista Pike, who was set to be executed and was, they attempted to do so twice.

• 5:37Speaker 00

  Yes.

• 5:37Speaker 01

  With lethal injections.

• 5:39Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 5:39Speaker 01

  And they, they didn't get her. She survived, which is horrifying.

• 5:46Speaker 00

  Horrifying, yeah. There, I saw the headline of one of the reports, like, she's conscious again and confused. And it's like, well, I would, yeah.

• 5:55Speaker 01

  I feel like we're all a little confused by, at this point. So there are legal implications and moral implications to all of that, but what we need to dive into are the biblical implications of all of this. So, so the Pope says, no, gives it a big thumbs down. But the immediate thought of many people, including myself, is I'm pretty sure that I have read in the Bible itself, a number of infractions, and even sort of what seemed to me to be minor misdemeanors, which are all, which.

• 6:39Speaker 00

  Even, even peccadilloes.

• 6:41Speaker 01

  Yeah, your various and sundry, small little things that all carry, at, at least at one point or another in the Bible, a death sentence.

• 6:51Speaker 00

  Yes.

• 6:52Speaker 01

  I'm talking, yes, murder, but also kidnapping in Exodus, striking or cursing one's parents.

• 7:01Speaker 00

  Being a bad, a rebellious teenager.

• 7:03Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 7:03Speaker 00

  Will, will get you dragged out into the town square and, and stoned.

• 7:09Speaker 01

  Adultery?

• 7:10Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 7:11Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 7:11Speaker 00

  Adultery, not being a virgin on your wedding night, but only if you're a woman.

• 7:17Speaker 01

  Right, yes, yeah. I mean, you can't kill a man for that. Come on.

• 7:21Speaker 00

  Pick, picking up sticks on the Sabbath. You know, we've got.

• 7:28Speaker 01

  It's, you know, those stick people, someone needed to do something. I'm glad that that's, that someone's, someone's got something to take care of there.

• 7:36Speaker 00

  Oh, man, yeah, there, there are a lot of, the, the, there are parts of, of the Bible where God gets a little killy when.

• 7:47Speaker 01

  Or at very least, the law does. I mean, I guess it is, like, it is sort of purported to be from God. We're talking about, like, covenant code in Exodus, and we're talking about Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

• 8:01Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 8:01Speaker 01

  All the places where, like, those really nasty laws exist.

• 8:07Speaker 01

  So.

• 8:07Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 8:08Speaker 01

  So, yeah.

• 8:09Speaker 00

  And so, everybody, everybody just threw a conniption on, on, on Twitter.

• 8:14Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 8:15Speaker 00

  And everybody was like, you've never read the Bible.

• 8:19Speaker 01

  To the Pope?

• 8:20Speaker 00

  Yeah, to the Pope, yeah, but, you know.

• 8:24Speaker 01

  I mean, I don't know if he's read the Bible. I have no evidence that he's read it.

• 8:28Speaker 00

  I don't, I think he has, I think he has advanced degrees in.

• 8:31Speaker 01

  It seems like he has a.

• 8:33Speaker 00

  Studies.

• 8:33Speaker 01

  He would have to have a working knowledge to get where he is, but, you know.

• 8:38Speaker 00

  But, but if you've got 83.4,000 followers on Twitter, and Christ is the first thing in your, in your bio, you know, nobody can talk to you about the Bible. You have, you can say anything you want to the Pope. But there's a, and, and I was immediately kind of baffled by this because I recognized as soon as the, the first sentence, "The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." And this struck me as very, very familiar rhetoric. And, and I wanna get into some of the death penalty stuff, particularly as it pertains to the New Testament, but I wanna, I wanna maybe lead into it by talking about why this

• 9:22Speaker 00

  rhetoric sounded very familiar to me, because I've been doing a lot of research in recent years related to how exactly we decided that the God of the Bible was against slavery. And it was precisely this idea of the dignity of the person that is at the foundation of that rhetorical soft shoe that we ran on the enslavers back in the 19th century.

• 9:48Speaker 01

  Right, because we, because Christians who, who were enslavers were in a problem, or, or rather, we're, rather abolitionists were in a bit of a pickle when it came to the Bible, cuz slavery is just all through it. So it's just, it's all slavery, all the time. So like, so, so how, when you are my ancestor, Henry Ward Beecher, leading your congregation in Brooklyn, and you're trying to, and you're trying to preach that slavery is an abomination,

• 10:25Speaker 01

  how do you justify it?

• 10:26Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 10:27Speaker 01

  You go, you go for the, for the dignity and inviolability of the, of the person.

• 10:34Speaker 00

  Yeah, and this is, this is a long-term kind of rhetorical campaign where they actually, people had to convince themselves that, hey, it's. It's not just the literal surface sense of the text. We're actually going to negotiate with the text a little bit more transparently, a little bit more openly. And the idea was, we're going to take these principles that we find here that we consider to be foundational, and we're going to use them as the interpretive lens to reconsider some of the other things. And so Genesis 127 about man being created in the image of God became that foundation. And that is precisely what the Pope is talking about when he talks about the dignity of the person. And I recalled that in his recent encyclical about AI, do you recall this?

• 11:18Speaker 01

  No.

• 11:19Speaker 00

  There was a papal encyclical earlier this year about artificial intelligence and humanity and all this.

• 11:28Speaker 01

  Don't you mean superior intelligence or supreme, whatever SI is meant to stand for?

• 11:36Speaker 00

  No, I don't. And so one of the paragraphs says, "At the heart of the Christian understanding of the human person lies the great biblical affirmation that men and women are created in the image and likeness of the triune God, created for a relationship. Every human person is planned and willed by God to enter into communion with Him, with others, and with creation. Human dignity does not depend on a person's abilities, wealth, or position in life, nor on the right or wrong choices made. Instead, it is a gift that precedes and transcends each person endowed by God as an expression of His unfailing love." And this is what the Pope is appealing to. So basically, what the Pope is saying is that,

• 12:17Speaker 00

  hey, if we take this seriously, this argument that is the reason we abandoned slavery, or at least this was the key that unlocked abolitionism, that Genesis 127, every human is created in the image of God, therefore has dignity, therefore has worth in the eyes of God, and we apply it to the death penalty, we similarly are going to come away from that negotiation, deciding precisely what the Pope decides, that this is inadmissible. And so I was baffled by all the people who, if you bring up slavery, we'll talk about human dignity, we'll talk about Genesis 127, we'll talk about made in the image of God, we'll talk about your

• 12:58Speaker 00

  neighbor, we'll talk about all these things. But when the Pope applies the exact same line of reasoning to the death penalty, suddenly there is braying in the streets about how the Pope doesn't read the Bible. And the hypocrisy is so bad. Oh, I'm gonna make a video about that. We've talked about Josh Howerton on the show before, right?

• 13:25Speaker 01

  Maybe. I don't remember the name, but sure. It may be if I saw his face.

• 13:31Speaker 00

  He even decided to weigh in on this. And it was so funny, because he said that, you know, the death penalty has got, he said, "The Pope's not popin' very well right now." And he went into this screed about how the death penalty needs to be there for people who are taking innocent life, and that it is okay to, the death penalty is okay, because these are not innocent people, these are guilty people. And I was baffled by this, because I recall very, very vividly Josh Howerton excusing genocide in the Bible by arguing that there are no innocent people.

• 14:10Speaker 01

  Right.

• 14:11Speaker 00

  That there's only been one innocent man who ever lived. And so I've got both those clips. And, yes, I am licking my chops to make that video where I point out the rank hypocrisy. But anyway.

• 14:27Speaker 01

  Well, I mean, it is, it's interesting, because that points out sort of what's going on in his mind and in minds like his, which is that what's really happening is, I want to justify all the things that I already ascribe to. My brain is already on board with capital punishment. I've already gotten there. You know, maybe it's part of my, you know, my conservative mindset, you know, I identify myself with conservatism, and right now conservatism identifies itself with capital punishment. And ipso facto, I, you know,

• 15:10Speaker 01

  it's part of my identity to believe that capital punishment is a moral good. So how dare the Pope come at me and say it's not a moral good, it's a moral bad? So I gotta justify that. And also, the Bible has genocide in it, but that's okay, because it's the Bible. So I gotta figure out how to justify that.

• 15:32Speaker 00

  Right. And I think it's very helpful to point out that the root of all, not all, but the overwhelming majority of our reactions to this kind of stuff is our feelings.

• 15:46Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 15:46Speaker 00

  And specifically, our feelings based on our understanding of our own identities, and who's part of our group, and what we're supposed to think about these things. And so we have this intuitive impulse to agree with or disagree with anything that might come up. And then what we do is we set to work trying to rationalize our intuitive impulse.

• 16:09Speaker 01

  I mean, everybody else does that. All of my choices are about logic and reason.

• 16:15Speaker 00

  Yeah. And that's one of the, that's kind of an intuitive kind of failsafe. It's an intuitive defense mechanism that we can recognize when other people are biased, but we can't recognize when we're biased. And we're all biased.

• 16:30Speaker 01

  Yeah. And we all, like, our brains fail us, especially when it's a high stakes emotional thing. Like, you feel like your religion or your political identity is under attack. And suddenly, it's like, defend at all costs, even if it's, you know, it doesn't matter how reasonable and logical the attack is, the defense mode kicks in pretty hardcore. You have to train yourself really well to sort of back off of that stuff.

• 17:04Speaker 00

  And it's situationally emergent. We do not keep actively online in our minds every argument we've made ever about stuff. And so it is situationally emergent, and we're going to react however we're going to react without the luxury of being able to go back and be like, well, am I being consistent with this? So with Josh, I think it's such, such a juicy kind of example of how that works, where in one situation, you're like, nobody's innocent. There were no innocent people. Like, even the infants who were being killed, they're not innocent either, according to Josh Howerton. And then he turns around and in another place, it's like, but they're all innocent. And that's the point. The Bible

• 17:49Speaker 00

  treats them as, and so, oh, it's, it's so, so funny. But getting back to the biblical stuff, there are an awful lot of people who will point to the New Testament and to Jesus as an indication, either that the death penalty is okay, or that the death penalty is not okay. Because you had a bunch of people who were immediately like, Jesus accepted the death penalty. It's like, Jesus was executed. And it was...

• 18:18Speaker 01

  In point of fact, he accepted his own execution. So point for them. Checkmate.

• 18:27Speaker 00

  And then there are other people who will point to a number of other things. Jesus said, you know, the one who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

• 18:37Speaker 01

  Right.

• 18:37Speaker 00

  Which is, basically, he's obstructing the imposition of the death penalty. Now, they didn't really have the authority. I think that scholars are still in pretty widespread agreement that, at least for adultery, Jewish authorities did not have the ability to just impose the death penalty. But there are a couple of other passages that come up.

• 19:02Speaker 01

  Also, a minor point of order. That story was interpolated into the book, so we don't even know.

• 19:09Speaker 00

  That's exactly right.

• 19:10Speaker 01

  Ha! I know a thing. I know things sometimes.

• 19:20Speaker 03

  In January of 1915, Ernest Shackleton's ship, Endurance, became encased in the ice in the Weddell Sea. And with that, his attempt to cross Antarctica would turn into a desperate struggle for survival that would last for nearly two years. Through determination, grit, and savvy, Shackleton would lead his men through a brutal winter, then over hundreds of miles of Antarctic ice, followed by 800 miles in a small boat across some of the roughest waters in the world. It is one of the most extraordinary and inspirational journeys in the history of exploration. If you want to learn about Shackleton's remarkable voyage and the details of his colorful life, check out our 10-part series on The Man. That is nine and a half hours of detailed material, perfect for anyone who loves stories

• 20:03Speaker 03

  of adventure, exploration, and survival. Find this story and many others at the Explorers Podcast, available wherever you get your podcasts, or at ExplorersPodcast.com.

• 20:17Speaker 00

  But there are other people who will, who will point out that justice is retributive in the Bible, and that's the way it's supposed to be. And some people will go to-

• 20:26Speaker 01

  By that, do you mean sort of eye for an eye?

• 20:28Speaker 00

  Exactly, eye for an eye. And so, some people will go to the Sermon on the Mount, and a section of the Sermon on the Mount that's called the Antitheses. And the Antitheses are Jesus's kind of one-upmanship. This is where, "You have heard that it was said, 'Don't do this.' Well, I say to you, you know, we're going to ratchet it up."

• 20:48Speaker 01

  Do it twice!

• 20:51Speaker 00

  And in verse, Matthew 5, verse 38, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,'" retributive justice.

• 20:58Speaker 01

  Right.

• 20:59Speaker 00

  "But I say to you, 'Do not resist an evil doer; but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, give your coat as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile; give to the one who has of you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.'" And so, is Jesus here overruling eye for an eye? Is Jesus saying, "Retributive justice is now null and void?"

• 21:25Speaker 01

  Maybe.

• 21:26Speaker 00

  Maybe. Yeah, that's the thing. We don't know for sure, but that is certainly, that's not out of bounds, that interpretation of what's going on here. And there will be people who say, "Well, this is about interpersonal relationships. This is not about state."

• 21:40Speaker 01

  There are some amazing, we should probably do some of the apologetics about Jesus saying, "Turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile," because that's, people have some amazing apologetics about that.

• 21:56Speaker 00

  Well, and there are even, there are progressive folks who are trying to say that it is, it is subversive, and that it is actually about trying to undermine attempts to leverage systemic power. But, and that all comes from a single source, really. It builds on a single source, and I don't think it has much going for it. But, I've, people who argue, "Oh, well, this is about interpersonal relationships." Well, yeah, the whole New Testament is, because it was written by people who had no access to systemic power.

• 22:29Speaker 01

  Right.

• 22:30Speaker 00

  None of these people had any, these were not the court prophets, these were not the scribes of the king, these were not people who had any authority to say anything at all about how the government was run. These were people who are under the boot of the Roman Empire.

• 22:43Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 22:43Speaker 00

  So, of course, they're going to be having Jesus talk about, "Well, this is how we're going to do things on our level," because they had no authority to talk about any other level. Does that mean that when Jesus says, "Oh, well, here's what this law, which was written by the scribes of the king, here's what this law is actually saying," does that mean, "But only on the interpersonal level? On the social-political level, the whole law of Moses continues to be in force in the exact same way it always was?" That's kind of a dumb argument. Jesus was like, "I'm going to separate the law of Moses into the personal and the political, and I don't have the authority to touch the political.

• 23:26Speaker 00

  I'm sorry, I can't do anything about the political. But I will take those laws on the personal level, and I will entirely, I will fiddle with them, and, you know, we'll change all those around." I don't think that makes much sense either.

• 23:40Speaker 01

  I think, I think he was talking about civil lawsuits, civil law and then not criminal law. That's, I think that's the distinction.

• 23:50Speaker 00

  That's the distinction, yeah. And, and the part where he said, "Now, I'm only going to say this once, this is only about civil law, not criminal law." That, that got left out, unfortunately.

• 24:02Speaker 01

  Well, it was hard to hear. He was on a mount.

• 24:05Speaker 00

  Yeah. That's why we have that famous, well, I was about to say, there's the famous manuscript that has something about cheesemakers.

• 24:12Speaker 01

  That's right.

• 24:13Speaker 00

  Yes. But there's, there's another passage that is in the Gospel of Matthew, that, that the folks who are pro-death penalty, and, and I cannot listen to arguments about the death penalty without hearing Sideshow Bob in my head going, "I secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king."

• 24:35Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 24:36Speaker 00

  I mean, that's, that's prophetic words from, from Sideshow Bob.

• 24:40Speaker 01

  Well, Sideshow Bob was a, he was a prophet. I think we can all agree.

• 24:44Speaker 00

  Yeah, I think that's, that's, that's hard to dispute. But, we go 10 chapters down the road to Matthew 15, and we get something that a lot of the pro-death penalty folks will appeal to. "The Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 'Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders, for they do not wash their hands before they eat?'" He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and your mother; and whoso speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.' But you say that whoever tells father or mother whatever support you might have had from me is given to God, then that person need not honor the father. So for the sake of your tradition, you nullify the

• 25:27Speaker 00

  word of God.'" And here, it kind of sounds like Jesus is saying, "Hey, that's supposed to be the death penalty. Come on, guys, that's still, that's still in force." And what do we do with that? Is Jesus in, out of one side of his mouth, saying, "Hey, no more eye for an eye, we're not doing that anymore," and then out of the other side of his mouth, going, "Hey, you're supposed to kill your, you know, you're, you're not supposed to do that, because that's the death penalty?" And, and scholars will point out that, that this is actually taken from the Gospel of Mark, whereas the, the Antitheses seem to be more uniquely Methaean, so they seem to be what Matt, the author of the Gospel of Matthew, might have come up with themselves, or at least wanted to focus on and center

• 26:12Speaker 00

  themselves.

• 26:13Speaker 01

  Dan, it's, it's almost as if you're saying that there is, that the Bible isn't clear on this, on these points.

• 26:22Speaker 00

  Why would I say that?

• 26:23Speaker 01

  It's almost like they're saying that we don't actually know Jesus's position, because there are contradictory accounts of Jesus's position. I don't know how that's possible.

• 26:34Speaker 00

  Within the same book. And it's not, it's not between Matthew and Luke, it's not between Revelation and Romans. It is within the Gospel of Matthew, where you have Jesus who rhetorically appeals to the death penalty in one situation, and then in another seems to rhetorically undercut the entire logic of the death penalty.

• 26:55Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 26:56Speaker 00

  And so, yeah, the, if you, you can't look at the Bible and say, "Oh, it's definitely this one way." There are, we've, we've talked many times, but you could probably, you only need one hand to count the number of things that are in the Bible that are unilateral, where it's just not really debated. And one of them's slavery!

• 27:16Speaker 00

  Which we got rid of, based on, based on the dignity of the human person, based on Genesis 1:27, what the Pope appealed to. So, yeah, just saying, "Well, I mean, it's in the Bible." That doesn't mean anything. The Bible contradicts itself in so many ways. We, we can't appeal to the Bible for, for just this, and, oh, the, what's the passage that, Genesis 9:6 is the one that everybody came up with. That was the one that, that everybody was like, "Look, that's the fundamental thing." And that's where God says, "Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed," or, "In his own image, God made humans." So, it's kind of funny that we're like-

• 27:59Speaker 01

  It's got both.

• 28:00Speaker 00

  Yeah. When, when it comes to, when it comes to slavery, we're going to take the in-God's-image side of things. When it comes to the death penalty, we're going to take the shed-man's-blood side of things.

• 28:10Speaker 01

  Yeah. But, and I think that the, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Go ahead. Well, I was just gonna, I was, I was, I was just gonna say that, like, it's something that you and I, that we on this channel come back to over and over again. And that is that, like, you, you don't get to say that the Bible is the foundation of your morality, because the Bible has all of the moralities. You, and you have chosen which ones you ascribe to. So, that's, that's another, this is just another example of where, you know, I-

• 28:45Speaker 00

  It's a choose-your-own-adventure.

• 28:46Speaker 01

  And, and I, and a valid argument can be made on either side of this thing, both biblically and perhaps morally. I, you know, I, I feel, I, I don't like the death penalty. It's not something that I'm into. I, I, I vote it down. It's a no-for-me dog. But, but I can see that, like, I can see valid moral arguments being made for it. So, it's just, so I, I think that's where we're at, is we've got another contentious issue that, that the Bible says all the things about, and you get to, and, and you're, and so, yes,

• 29:30Speaker 01

  your Bible, your biblical interpretation of the morality of capital punishment may go up against the biblical morality of someone else's opinion.

• 29:44Speaker 00

  And, and against the, the biblical morality of just a few verses earlier in the Bible as well. Because, because one of, what I note about this, and they're like, "Look, that's the Noah Hyde laws. That's like pre-Israel. That is the inviolable stuff." But, just a few verses earlier, it says, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you, and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is its blood."

• 30:16Speaker 00

  So just a few verses earlier, it says, "You cannot eat blood," which is a message that got lost in transmission early on in the history of Christianity. Cause even the book of Acts reaffirms that. Acts, chapter 15, after the Jerusalem council, they said, "Okay, when it comes to Gentiles, you got four rules." And one of them is, "You don't consume blood." And then Paul was like, "I don't really care about that." And so Christians don't care about that today. And it's like, okay, so like, if you're saying the Bible says so, you reject two verses earlier, what the Bible says there. Nobody cares about

• 30:57Speaker 00

  that. You're picking and choosing, but, and you're ignoring the parts of the Bible that suggests maybe the death penalty is not the greatest thing. And so I think you just cannot, if you want to disagree with the Pope on ethical grounds, the Bible is off the table. You cannot say that the Bible shows the Pope is wrong.

• 31:23Speaker 01

  Right.

• 31:23Speaker 00

  Because unless you want to just acknowledge, yeah, there, we can't really prohibit slavery, because the Bible's pretty clear about that, too.

• 31:33Speaker 01

  Yeah. I mean, I think, I think the Bible does say the Pope is wrong, and the Bible says the Pope is right. And you get, and it's a choose your own adventure. And that's just one of the fascinating things about this book. Well, there you have it. Wacky doodle stuff. And you know, since you brought up blood, I think we're just going to dive right back in to our thicker than water.

• 32:07Speaker 01

  All right. It's something that I'm, you know, it's funny, you and I were talking yesterday, and I was, we were asking, talking about various things, and we, this, the idea of animal sacrifice came up. And I, and I scanned my brain, and I was like, have we, have we never talked about this on the show? This is crazy.

• 32:31Speaker 00

  We've talked, we've talked about different aspects of it. But yeah, we haven't really talked directly about what was going on with animal sacrifice.

• 32:39Speaker 01

  Right.

• 32:40Speaker 00

  In the Hebrew Bible.

• 32:41Speaker 01

  Animal sacrifice, it's a weird thing. It's something that I have always been a little mystified about. There's a lot of, a lot of explanations that I've heard over the years as to why it might have happened, or what it was doing. And I still, I still don't get it. So let's, let's start with just sort of, do we have a sense of where it came from, why it started?

• 33:12Speaker 00

  Well, in my, in my doctoral dissertation, I talked a little bit about, I was talking about conceptualizations of deity. And one of the, one of the observations from the cognitive science of religion, and from the study of, of the Bible and ancient West Asia, is that the way that people treated their dead was remarkably parallel to the way that they treated gods. And yeah, so there's a sense in which the different rituals that are associated with the care and feeding of the dead are, are parallel to the care and feeding of, of the gods. And there's a theory that's, that the dead also can become gods. So ancestor

• 33:55Speaker 00

  worship becomes God worship. Ancestors can become gods. And I think that there's actually a case to make. I think I would, I would like to see a lot more research going on on this, that, that the God of Israel may have originated as an ancestral deity, which would, which would be absolutely fascinating. But when you look, when you look at the temple, what go, what do they provide God in the temple? Well, they have a lamp stand, they're providing light, they're providing bread, they're providing meat, they're providing the same things that they provide to deceased people, lamps for light, bread, water, food.

• 34:39Speaker 00

  And so, one of the things that, that I talk about in my doctoral dissertation is that fundamentally, this almost certainly derives from the perception that these unseen agents needed these things.

• 34:55Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 34:56Speaker 00

  Cause for the dead, it's like, oh, they're, they're buried, they're underground, the underworld where they exist now is murky, is dark. They don't have the things that make life more comfortable. Let's provision those things for the unseen agents, which is why you have grave offerings. You have things like lamps, and water, and food. In fact, we might've talked a little bit about the, the mortuary stele of Katsumua. Does that sound familiar?

• 35:28Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 35:29Speaker 00

  So, so it's, it's this mortuary stele that was discovered in southeast Turkey,

• 35:37Speaker 00

  that depicts in Ba relief, a guy sitting on a throne, holding up some, a bowl and some something. And he's got an offering table in front of him. And there's like a duck, and some bread, and things like that on the offering table. And then there's an inscription that says, "Hi, my name's Katsumua. This is my stele. My soul is in this stele." And then says, "I need these things offered to me on, you know, at these intervals."

• 36:11Speaker 01

  Wow.

• 36:11Speaker 00

  And it's like, one of the most explicit demonstrations that we have of, of what was expected for the care and the feeding of, of the dead. And you know,

• 36:24Speaker 01

  That dude's family, the whole family had ADHD. They just needed to write it all out. And like, every time you go back, oh, right, the duck. I forgot the duck.

• 36:35Speaker 00

  Yeah. Because they're gonna do like, like what I did today, when I went to put something in the microwave, and the instructions had more to them. And I went and threw the thing in the recycling, and then took the recycling out to the, the outside recycling, came back in, and went, "Damn it." And went back outside, and had to rifle through the recycling to get the instructions, so I could read again. But, so yeah, if it's written in stone, right there, you know, literally, yeah. So, and this sounds remarkably like what goes on in a temple. And so I think the, the, the impulse to offer meat and food

• 37:15Speaker 00

  to a deity is probably rooted in the perception that they need it. Whether this is a deity that developed from ancestors that were worshiped, the dead kin, or, or developed in some other way. I think fundamentally, that's where it begins. This deity needs this. And, and this is the fascinating thing about, about ritual, is that ritual primarily serves social functions. So the, the origins and the rationale for a ritual really don't matter. Because what they're really there to do is serve certain social functions. And basically, it's an opportunity for people to perform their piety, to do the costly signals,

• 37:59Speaker 00

  to do the credibility enhancing displays, the things that we've talked about many times. But

• 38:04Speaker 01

  Yeah, because there has to be, like, the thing, the, the very pragmatic part of me, which I don't connect what, much to ritual, but the pragmatic part of me thinks about, you, you kill an animal, and you put it on this stone altar, or whatever, for the God, or for your ancestor, for whatever. You gotta notice, it's still there when you come back. You know what I mean? It's not like the dude ate it, and you come back, and it's like, you know, Santa's cookies, or something like that. You come back, and it's still there. So somehow, it has to serve more than just, "I know I'm feeding my ancestor," because

• 38:50Speaker 01

  some part of you has to know you're not. You know what I mean? Like, some part of you has to look at that thing not going away, and go, it's gotta mean something bigger. It's gotta be something more.

• 39:04Speaker 00

  It depends. Because if you've got an underground mortuary chapel, and once a year, you go bring a plate full of food, what are you finding from the previous year's offering?

• 39:15Speaker 01

  Hmm.

• 39:17Speaker 00

  Not much of anything is, is gonna be left. So, so I think there's, I think you're, you're mostly right. Because certainly, you know, the, it's not, it's like, no one's ever done it more frequently than once a year. Like, obviously, people know that the food doesn't get consumed by the stele.

• 39:37Speaker 01

  Right.

• 39:38Speaker 00

  But they, they have ways to rationalize that a way. You know, it deteriorates, it's biodegrades, whatever. And they're like, that is, that is symbolically the, the soul eating it. Or, and there are a lot of ways that people engage with the dead symbolically. You know, the Jericho skulls, where they use seashells to put in the eye sockets, and they use clay to recreate skin. And then they would, you know, those, those would be a part of your activities. You would, you know, dine with this skull, maybe at the table, maybe on the shelf, maybe you would pass it around. And this would be a way

• 40:19Speaker 01

  They weekend Bernie's people?

• 40:20Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. But the idea is very similar to a child playing with a doll. It's like, let's think about this as our deceased loved one. And, and now we can, we can simulate interaction with the deceased loved one. And this is a way that we show that this person is still meaningful to us. And this is the way we pass on our, our understanding of our connection to the ancestors, to our children. There are a lot of different ways it works that is mostly symbolic, but there's also something intuitive going on there, where they, they feel like this is, there's something to it that is just behind, just out of reach, just to, you know, in the periphery of their, their

• 41:04Speaker 00

  experience. So, so I think it's both. I think there's a degree to which it's both. And, but, once the, once the ritual becomes conventionalized and socialized, and once this is now what we do to interact with the deity, the rationale is, is meaningless. And, and that's what happens, is, is the rationale goes away. You do it because that's what we do.

• 41:31Speaker 01

  Right.

• 41:31Speaker 00

  And then you come up with whatever explanation is useful for you.

• 41:39Speaker 01

  Well, and, and that, that's a good place to sort of jive in with sort of what the purposes, sort of the, the explanations for what we're doing or what we're achieving with sacrifice. Because I think in different parts of the Bible, it talks about sacrifice for different reasons or to, to different ends. And, and, and, you know, what part of the sacrifice does what? And that sort of stuff. So can we get into like, are we, you know, you sent me a, a video that was a guy talking about sacrifice. And he was

• 42:16Speaker 01

  talking about, you know, did blood, did the blood of the animals wash sins away? And he was like, no, only one, one kind of blood can wash sin away. And that's Jesus. And so obviously, these other sacrifices couldn't have been that. So, uh, so, so talk to me.

• 42:38Speaker 00

  Yeah. I, I thought that was a, that was a funny video, because it was like a question and answer show. And it was like, what, why did, what were they thinking about with, with animal sacrifices in the Old Testament? And he was like, and then basically said what you just said, only Jesus. So, and, and that's just reading Christianity into ancient Israel, which is anachronistic and supersessionist and asinine. They did not think, well, we know this is meaningless, because this guy's gonna come in a, in a few centuries.

• 43:10Speaker 01

  I'm pretty sure there's gonna be a guy in, in, in 500 years.

• 43:15Speaker 00

  Yeah. This is all just typological. I mean, come on, use, use your, use your head. So, so I thought that was a, a kind of smarmy way to answer the question by, by saying that's stupid. It's all about Jesus. But yeah, you've got a bunch of different rationales for, for sacrifice. When you get to the point where these are, are state sponsored and state prescribed sacrifices, at that point, it's developed, it's been rationalized over and over and over again. And so you've got, well, this animal is for this particular sin. And this one over here is when you do it on a, on a day that ends in Y. And this is like, you know, you've got a bunch of different things going on. And you, and some of them

• 43:58Speaker 00

  are for sins, some of them are for some kind of relationship that is, that has gone wrong or something like that. But I, I find that there's a, the idea of blood as a kind of ritual detergent has always fascinated me. And that's what I mentioned when we were, we were talking about doing a segment on this. There's, because in Leviticus, you have, it's very, very regimented, it's very, very specific, but it's, we haven't really come up with like a grand unifying theory of what the hell they were thinking about.

• 44:35Speaker 01

  Right. I'll, I'll, let me just read a little Leviticus, just to, to prime the pump a little bit. This is Leviticus four, where it says, "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, speak to the Israelites, saying," I love that the Lord says, yeah, anyway, the Lord says, saying, and then speak to the Israelites, "when anyone sins unintentionally in any of the Lord's commandments about things, about things not to be done, and does any one of them, if it's the point," and then it goes into like, "if it's the appoint, if it's the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, he shall offer for the sin that he has committed of a bull of the herd as a purification offering to the Lord.

• 45:20Speaker 01

  He shall bring the bull to the entrance of the tent." It gets very granular about what's, it gets to like, you gotta burn this part, but the skin of the bull and all its flesh, as well as its head, its legs, its entrails, and its dung. The dung. Wow. Really? "All the rest of the bull shall, he shall carry out to a clean place outside the camp to the ash heap, and shall burn it on a wood fire. At the ash heap, it shall be burned." Yeah. It's, it's.

• 45:50Speaker 00

  And, and you know what I have to say in response to that?

• 45:54Speaker 00

  It's gotta be, it's gotta be your bull.

• 45:59Speaker 00

  Sorry, sorry. That's, that's from Tommy Boy.

• 46:02Speaker 01

  There you go.

• 46:03Speaker 00

  There you go. Yeah. It's, it's quite detailed. It's quite specific. And it seems like there's a real concern that this be done a certain way. And, and we don't really have access to, to their reasoning. But, but a theory that, that is, has been very influential. And there are a lot of scholars who have qualified it and nuanced it and rejected parts of it. And, and the scholarship has kind of moved past it in some ways. But, but Jacob Milgrom has this phenomenal theory that, that I find fascinating, because it, it kind of resonates with what we do in the cognitive science of religion, and particularly when it comes to purity and contamination. Because his argument is to, to actually reject

• 46:44Speaker 00

  the idea that a lot of these sacrifices, the blood sacrifices, were intended to cleanse the people of Israel. Because the idea is, according to his theory, the, the sins that people commit generate a kind of metaphysical contaminant. But it doesn't contaminate them, it contaminates the temple, the holy precinct, the sacred space. And the blood is kind of the ritual detergent that is sprinkled on altars and the horns of the altar and, and on the priests and all this kind of stuff. And so, because the life of the animal is

• 47:24Speaker 00

  in the blood, and because, you know, animals can be killed, and eaten, consumed, but not with the blood, the blood is special, therefore, the blood can function as, as this kind of ritual detergent that cleans the sacred space, and allows God to dwell in the sacred space, because God is, you know, cannot dwell in uncleanness. And so this has to continually go on to ensure that God's abode is squeaky clean. And so these are the, the, the priests are the, you know, the maids of the, of basically the, the metaphysical cleanliness of, of the temple. And.

• 48:08Speaker 01

  Yeah. Metaphysical, because it's definitely not the literal cleanliness that would, because they're just making it real nasty, with all that blood everywhere.

• 48:17Speaker 00

  But at the same time, you do have to ensure that all the implements and tools and everything are also incredibly clean.

• 48:23Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 48:24Speaker 00

  So at the start of every day, they probably had a lot of clean stuff in those.

• 48:29Speaker 01

  A good wash down. Yeah.

• 48:31Speaker 00

  Very bloody by the end of the day. But, but I think this is, this is fascinating in relation to Leviticus 18 and 20. And we've talked about Leviticus 18 and 20 many times in the past. These are both the catalogs of all the different sexual sins that result, according to chapter 18, all of the different sins, there's just one punishment, they will be cut off. Chapter 20 then itemizes the different punishments for the different sins. But both of them say that this is so, "You do not defile the land, so that it does not vomit you out." And I, I think we have something very closely related to this, where on the,

• 49:13Speaker 00

  the blood sacrifices that are going on with the, the animal offerings and everything, that's the small scale, looking at the temple. But what we have in Leviticus 18 and 20 is kind of larger scale, democratized responsibility for the cleanliness of the land of Israel, which is kind of suggesting that the land of Israel itself is holy space, is a sacred precinct. And the sexual sins are the ways that this metaphysical contaminant can get on the land. And in the temple, if it gets too bad, God just leaves the temple. On the

• 49:53Speaker 00

  land, if it gets too bad, the land is kind of personified and can't tolerate it and vomits the people out. And, and the text suggests, this is what happened to the people who dwelled here before you arrived. And you drove them out, and the land, you know, kicked them out.

• 50:10Speaker 01

  The land sort of helped you drive them out in some way?

• 50:13Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 50:15Speaker 01

  Give that extra push or whatever.

• 50:17Speaker 00

  Yeah. You're the diaphragm. That is.

• 50:22Speaker 01

  It seems to me that there is another layer to this. There's the temple layer, there's a land layer, but it does seem like there's a personal layer to it. When I read things like, a woman who has, who has experienced her period of uncleanness, in order for her to cleanse herself, she's supposed to sacrifice a turtledove, or, you know, three French hens and a, and a, and a pear tree, or whatever it is.

• 50:48Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 50:49Speaker 01

  So, and, so, I mean, that, that, that, that feels like it is like a personal thing. That is, that is about sort of.

• 50:59Speaker 01

  I don't not, obviously not sin, but removing impurity from the self.

• 51:03Speaker 00

  Right. And, and this, and this reflects how I, I, I think this reflects how ritual impurity was conceptualized on, on the individual level as well, because you have a bunch of different things that can result in needing to purify yourself. And it's not because you've done anything wrong, but there are a bunch of different ways that, and, and scholars have tried to figure out exactly what they're, what they're doing with this. And, and I think the best explanation probably has something to do with the, the notion that the body has kind of regular cycles and there are ways that this, they, they, there are ways that they're supposed to function, but then there are these, these side effects, or the, these

• 51:47Speaker 00

  cycles produce substances that are, are symbols of these cycles. And, and when those things come out of the body, that then makes you unclean. And so you have to go through whatever prescribed ritual or time in order to become clean again. And so a nocturnal emission, a wet dream is something that can do that. Sex can do that. A woman's menstrual cycle can do that. Touching a dead body can do that. And so I, there are ways that the kind of,

• 52:24Speaker 00

  the, the material manifestations of and reminders of mortality and life cycles and pathologies and things like that are, are also accounted for in this grand system. And there's no

• 52:39Speaker 01

  And also sticky yucky stuff.

• 52:42Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 52:42Speaker 01

  Anything, any ick also has to be.

• 52:46Speaker 00

  Anything, anything that drains or oozes or weeps.

• 52:49Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 52:51Speaker 00

  But, but not, and spurts. And, you know.

• 52:56Speaker 01

  You got that. You're a.

• 52:57Speaker 00

  Yeah. I, I, there's nothing about zits.

• 53:01Speaker 01

  No, no, those, those, those, you're okay with.

• 53:04Speaker 00

  Yeah. That's a, that's a, that's a kind of spurting that, that does not result.

• 53:08Speaker 01

  Maybe, maybe skin in the Levant was, was pestilence free. Who knows?

• 53:14Speaker 00

  Yeah. I don't know. They, they had a lot of, what is the, the type of acid? Well, they had a lot of nutrients.

• 53:23Speaker 01

  Hyaluronic acid or is that?

• 53:24Speaker 00

  Hyaluronic or yes, salicylic or something.

• 53:28Speaker 01

  Oh, yeah. Yeah. There you go. That was, that's the one.

• 53:31Speaker 00

  Yeah. Maybe the, the Dead Sea, the, the saltiness of the Dead Sea just helped them to, to keep things, keep things shiny.

• 53:39Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 53:40Speaker 00

  So, but yeah, animal sacrifice in, in all of this, I think is just, begins as something that they perceived as needed, but then gets worked into this larger system of our interaction with the, the material world around us and the, the material reminders of our mortality and life cycles and cycles associated with life and all this kind of stuff. Cause even giving birth results in, in uncleanness and all this kind of stuff. So, so I think that's just how all of these rituals kind of became rationalized and integrated with and entangled with the, you know, the lived experience of, of the community. And yeah, it just reached

• 54:25Speaker 00

  out and touched every corner of, of the way these people lived their lives. And they had to have some kind of write-up of what was going on because they couldn't keep all this in their head.

• 54:33Speaker 01

  Right. It is interesting. Like you think about traditions and you know, these rituals are parts of traditions. They were, you know, they started smaller and were, and presumably it seems likely that they were, that, you know, what you have is you, you got, you're doing it for this thing. And then somebody's like, well, but should we do it for that thing? That seems similar. And then everybody's like, oh, oh yeah, I guess we better do it for that now too. And you just sort of add stuff on. I see that, you know, we see this in our own society. We see traditions build on each other and suddenly like, you know, everybody's got their Christmas traditions and then suddenly there's an elf on the shelf.

• 55:16Speaker 01

  And you're like, I, what? When did that happen? And so it just feels like, it feels like this probably was a thing where it was like, it was a small thing that you did for one type of scenario. And then it just grew and was added to, and it got bigger and it got big. And you had, now you have to do it for the sex stuff. And now you have to do it for all the various things.

• 55:40Speaker 00

  Well, and, and I think, I think what we have in Leviticus is also situationally emergent. This is mostly holiness code stuff. This is post-exilic. And so I, I think that what you're seeing is the result of trying to rationalize why we got exiled and what we can do to ensure that we know that we actually have a place in the land and are not going to get kicked out again.

• 56:01Speaker 01

  Right.

• 56:02Speaker 00

  And so it was kind of like, we want to stay here. Let's generate this, this compendious code of, of laws for how we're going to convince the, the powers that be that we're doing our best to ensure that we're staying clean so that we don't get kicked out of here again.

• 56:23Speaker 01

  Please let's not do that again. The, the one thing that I, it's funny, in my thinking about this, as I was prepping for the show, I, the one thing that I did, that didn't occur to me, which is, which will be shocking to a lot of Christians out there to talk about. And now we're at the end of our segment, but the, the way that Jesus is talked about sort of takes his execution and then turn, flips that into a sacrifice, a blood sacrifice. I mean, I know that that's the thing, but like, I, I actually don't know where that idea came from. It obviously had to have come after his death. Who, is there, is, is

• 57:04Speaker 01

  there a, a sort of chain in the New Testament that, that grabs onto that? Or where does that happen?

• 57:13Speaker 00

  I think you see some of that rationalization taking place in, to some degree, Paul, but also in, in like the letter of the Hebrews and stuff like that. But, but there are a variety of different theories of how Jesus's sacrifice works. These are the atonement theories that we've talked about in, in the past is, and, and so there, there are a variety of, of different ones. And so just like the, the sacrificial systems are rationalizations and elaborations on traditions that have been handed down. The same is, is almost certainly true of, of trying to rationalize Jesus's death on the cross as, as having some kind

• 57:57Speaker 00

  of sacrificial impact. Because, because I, I think there, they're dealing with historical incident. The, their Messiah failed and, and you know, it cost him his life. And, and now they're going back to the drawing board and figuring out, well, certainly we can, we gotta make this work.

• 58:14Speaker 01

  This must've been a positive thing. We gotta, we gotta spin this into, we gotta make sure that this is, I don't want to call it spin. That sounds pretty dismissive. But we, but like, we, this, this must've happened for good reason. And that reason is, you know, we have this sacrifice analogy.

• 58:33Speaker 00

  But people have to come up with different ways to make sense of it.

• 58:36Speaker 01

  Right.

• 58:36Speaker 00

  So you have different models that are developed, some in the New Testaments, most probably after the New Testament. And yeah, nobody, everybody's got a different one that works best for them because of how they have all of these things arranged in their own mind and according to their own tradition that they have received in the community that has transmitted it. So, so yeah, it's, there's nothing new under the sun. It's all, it's all, it's same old, same old. We're just, we're just, you know, doing it in, in slightly different ways, wearing different clothes and, you know, spurting different stuff that makes us unclean. And hopefully those, those things don't change too much, but.

• 59:18Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 59:19Speaker 00

  Yeah. So, so animal sacrifice, I think started out as, as something we rationalized the gods needed, or at least that God over there needed.

• 59:28Speaker 01

  He was a very hungry God, that God. He needed some, some food.

• 59:32Speaker 00

  All kinds of bulls and, and stuff like that. Was really into the bulls. Again, it's gotta be your bull. And, and yeah, it, it becomes a, a social mechanism for, for pro-sociality, for people to, to show that they belong. And then, and we didn't even talk about the fact that you've got those prophets that have God saying, I do not delight in the blood of bulls.

• 59:55Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 59:57Speaker 00

  But we've talked about that before as well, what, what seems to be going on there.

• 1:00:01Speaker 01

  It is, it is a little awkward though. Let's be real. Stop contradicting yourself. All right. Well, friends, if you would like to make a sacrifice unto us, please don't kill an animal about it. Go ahead and head on over to patreon.com/dataoverdogma where you can sign up to, to give us just a little bit of your, your dosh, your, your chunk of change. And, and that way we can keep the show going. And we sure do appreciate all of our donors. You can get early and ad-free access to every episode. You can

• 1:00:38Speaker 01

  get the bonus content that is just for our patrons over there and, and also access to live. We, we, we do lives now. We're, we're hoping to do it at least once a month for, for our patrons over on Patreon, for our members, not, not just our subscribers, but our members on YouTube. So look into that if you want to be one of those. We sure appreciate it. Thanks so much to Sam Holden for being our right-hand man. And thanks to Roger Gowdy for editing the show. And thanks to all of you for tuning in. We'll talk to you again next time.

• 1:01:20Speaker 00

  Bye, everybody.

• 1:01:25Speaker 01

  Data Over Dogma is a member of the Airwave Media Network. It is a production of Data Over Dogma Media LLC. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved.