This was so good and very much needed especially during the times that we are living in.

Thank you Netgalley for sending me a copy for my honest review!

Well-researched, in-depth look at what the Bible actually says. Super interesting to look at the text from the Bible through the lens of the time period from which it was written. It points out that people read whatever they want from the Bible currently - you can twist the words to say whatever you want, but that does not make it true. A historical look at the Bible is more interesting and more accurate.

I first found Dan McClellan on TikTok and immediately became a follower. He is a master craftsman of breaking down information and helping the public understand academic break downs on topics that most seem far too scholarly for the masses to understand. With ‘The Bible Says So,’ McClellan takes his time to really explore topics that many misconstrue from the Bible, as well as other holy texts. There were some moments that I felt it was too academic in understanding, which caused me to have to re-read portions multiple times, but I learned an incredible amount.

I have to preface this by stating that I am not a social media follower of Dan, but happy to hear that he does have such a great following in such a controversial topic. As a fellow Christian, I am happy to see it. I read this book with fresh eyes, open to ideas that everyone has all different opinions of how they interpret history. I appreciated that Dan really took a step back and tried to bridge each of these topics with a breadth of knowledge and acknowledgement of those individual thoughts. I didn't agree with some of what was said based on my personal beliefs and can't stand behind a lot of what was shared, but it was an interesting read and viewpoint to look upon. In regards to the writing itself: It often felt more like listening to a passionate but misinformed relative at a family gathering than reading a thoughtful analysis. I just wasn't a huge fan.

Out today!

I've followed Dan on social media for a few years and have always appreciated his well-researched, and no-nonsense (say it with me, everyone: "Data over dogma!") approach to Biblical topics. Not one to be pigeon-holed into claims that his faith heritage informs his discussions--something Dan addresses head-on in the lengthy (and appreciated) introduction to this book--Dan is an excellent communicator for what could otherwise be tedious (and often/always contentious) subject matter. While I'll probably always prefer his videos, I'm extremely appreciative to now have a hard copy to refer back to and dig deeper into the topics.

My thanks to NetGalley and St. Martin's Press for the opportunity to preview this title in exchange for my honest review.

One of the most interesting and enlightening approaches to biblical study ever created. The text covers commonly held (knowingly or not) misconceptions about what the Bible meant, what it means, and what it might mean in the future. McClellan uses his scholarly education to help the reader more easily understand the construction of the bible, including how the original language would have been interpreted, as well as how the books of the Bible "came to be" over the centuries before and after Jesus' death. With an understanding of the construction of the Bible, it's easier to see how certain groups have skewed its meaning to organize and centralize power structures around their believed moral imperatives and superiority.

In 2025, The Bible Says So feels like required reading for believers and non-believers alike.

This book was a very hard read. I may not be the target audience for this, but due to the introduction and the pop culture references, I just assumed it would be a more down-to-earth reference about the Bible and instead it was more of a scholarly book and I never understood what his point was for any of the chapters. There were “conclusion” sections but no actual conclusion.

You know when someone swears their book is based on “unbiased” and “purely critical scholarship,” but the second you crack it open, you realize it’s basically an opinion piece wrapped in academic name-dropping? Yeah. Welcome to The Bible Says So by Dan McClellan, a man who is apparently extremely proud to remind us every three pages that he’s a biblical scholar (and we’re all just drooling peasants in comparison).

First off, McClellan loves to tell us what the Bible really says. Because obviously, 2,000+ years of scholarship, tradition, and debate have just been sitting around waiting for Dan from TikTok to show up and set us straight with a bunch of condescending explanations about ancient Hebrew grammar. Spoiler alert: it’s mostly a lot of, “Well technically that’s a mistranslation,” sprinkled liberally with pop culture references so cringe-worthy that even a youth pastor would wince. Basically, it’s like if a Reddit thread and a peer-reviewed article had a baby, and that baby grew up to be insufferable. Cool story, bro.

Let’s talk about the “God lies” bit. According to McClellan, Adam ate the fruit and didn’t keel over instantly — therefore, God = liar? Instead of exploring the deep, layered meanings, he just flattens everything into a smug “gotcha” against Christians. Maybe Adam had a Matrix-style “red-pill” awakening? Ever think of that, Dan?

Also, who exactly was the intended audience for this book? Because it’s definitely not for the average reader unless you love feeling like you’re being lectured at a family reunion by the one cousin who just finished their first semester at Liberal Arts U. McClellan’s “data over dogma” shtick quickly turns into “my politics over yours,” with thinly veiled jabs at conservatives that would make even MSNBC producers go, “Tone it down, buddy.”
And for the record: I may not have a biblical studies degree, but I do have three master’s degrees, 21 years of teaching AP English, Media Specialist certification, and former Mensa membership (still smart, just allergic to annual dues). So yes, Dan, I know how to read a text. And I can also tell when someone is weaponizing “critical scholarship” to push a one-sided agenda while pretending they’re the only adult in the room.

The Bible, for all its contradictions, was never meant to be a one-note instruction manual. It’s a messy, beautiful anthology reflecting multiple viewpoints across centuries. Yes, it says war is good. Also, that peace is better. It’s complicated. Like life.

The Bible is a complex, messy, beautiful anthology with contradictions, tensions, and multiple viewpoints — that’s its richness, not a flaw to be smugly “fixed” by Mr. I-Know-What-Hebrew-Really-Means.

Final verdict? The Bible Says So is less “invaluable resource” and more “doorstop with a superiority complex.” Save yourself the time. Go read literally anything else.

This was an interesting read on a scholarly review of the Bible. As someone who grew up Catholic I felt I was quite familiar with the Bible and scripture, but this book challenged me to think of it in a different way. I appreciated his scholarly approach to the Bible, and his interpretation of what many parts of it mean. I enjoyed how he organized his book into chapters on many topics that are at the forefront of political and religious discussions today. He spends a lot of time discussing dogma and data, and sharing his religion and how his bias might come through in his work. This was a thought provoking read that is so culturally relevant and needed in today’s world. I received an ARC, and this is my honest review.

The Bible Says So is an interesting book without a defined readership.
The author identifies himself up front as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (AKA Mormons) but he aims this book at a wider audience. Dan McClellan is a Bible scholar with the academic credentials to prove it and he uses his considerable erudition to prove that the book known as the Bible is not the unified Word of God cherished as divinely inspired by millions of fundamentalist Christians. It is actually a varied collection of many different books written by different authors at different times in different places and in several different languages, none of which were English. A detailed analysis of the biblical words for "inspired" and a comprehensive history of the formation of the modern canon(s) of scripture destroys the idea of the Bible as the unchanging guidebook for all Christianity.
In different chapters, the author demolishes contemporary ideas of the Bible as a source of revealed truth about slavery, homosexuality, female modesty, and numerous other topics, including the actual nature of God.
The problem with this book is that readers dedicated to a conservative "King James only" viewpoint will be horrified and condemn it as blasphemy. Everyone else already agrees with a more liberal interpretation and probably doesn't need such a detailed reminder.
The first few times I read an endnote "apologizing" to a pop music group for adapting one of their song titles to a chapter heading, I thought it was cute, but after awhile, I stopped bothering with the notes.
While I did learn a bit about the Bible, I began skimming towards the end as I really didn't need convincing. Perhaps a recent refugee from a fundamentalist background would find it more helpful.
I would like to thank NetGalley and St. Martin's Essentials for giving me access to a free advance copy of this book in exchange for my honest opinion.

This will be an intriguing read for theologians but was not quite what I expected from the description. While there is interesting context and contrasts provided, it seemed more definitive than thought-provoking.

I thought this would be interesting and educated arguments about the Bible,and it was in part. Unfortunately it was also way too many examples, kind of a slog to get through, and made the author sound more pretentious than simply well sourced. Not enjoyable

This is a well written, well researched, biased and I think sometimes wrongheaded study of some controversial passages in the Bible. (I'm a Bible reader too; more quibbles will in time appear on my blog.) Briefly, I think there's too much willingness to assume that extrabiblical texts are more accurate than biblical texts are.

However, even lifelong students of the Bible are likely to find new word studies and historical data here, and when the author's not trying to ignore the bits he doesn't like--ignoring Paul's postsexuality, e.g., and the multitude of postsexual Christians, with a haughty "Paul was wrong"--those of his facts that I was able to check seem to check out. I enjoyed this book. If I'd been editing it I would have asked McClellan to rewrite some chapters, but I enjoyed reading them.

Would’ve DNFed if it wasn’t for getting an advanced copy from Net Galley (thank you!). I just had a hard time staying interested.

In some areas, there is a bit of projection and psychologizing that seems unnecessary to the work and contra the “data over dogma” mantra. This becomes a main feature on the chapter on homosexuality when the author speculates about both Paul and conservatively religious people and he stereotypes these people in a way that is probably rather off putting to the very people I imagine he wants to convert. Combine that with statements like “Paul was just wrong. (Again.)” and I don’t think he’s going to win over anyone from the conservative side, but instead, will foster paternalistic attitudes towards them that may reinforce the cultural divisions he wants to end.

My other biggest complaint is rather minor but many of the subtitles throughout the book are just random pop references/ quotes with a “With apologies to …” endnote. If you are into that cool, but I’m not.

Having said all that, there’s some important and interesting information in this book. I wish the chapter on Jesus (not?) being God was longer and the author expounded on the theory/ theology of the divine name and how Israel was commanded to bear God’s name in a worthy matter. Furthermore, I would’ve liked the author (if he believes meaning is created by the readers) to clarify what type of hermeneutic should be applied to the Bible that forcefully sticks to “data over dogma” for those who find it to be an authoritative account of God’s word.

I’d give this book a lower star score if I could. It’s heretical. Many of the things the author says the Bible says simply aren’t true if you read these sections within the context of the entire Bible. I knew he was in trouble when he first attacked the inspiration of the Bible. It was downhill from there.

I do not have any background with the author, I understand that he has an online presence, and this book might lend itself to that audience. For starters, I did find myself biased going into the book, after reading that the author is a member of the LDS church. The author did not shy away from controversial topics. However, some of the questions were not ones anyone in my crowd is asking. There were a lot of sources cited and passages quoted. I found it to not be very user friendly.

The problem with historical-textual criticism is that it's not an actual science, even though it tries to present itself as such. It is, at its foundation, a series of assumptions, none of which are compatible with the biblical story as it is told. It then attempts to reinterpret the story to make its assumptions valid, but anyone with half a brain is able to look right through the large, gaping holes that it leaves in its wake.

The foundational assumption of historical-textual criticism is that the bible is a book that should be interpreted through human contexts. That man has created God in our own image and that if we simply look through the lens, we can see how the ways that we have created him are invalid. It assumes that the biblical testimony starts with men and ends with God, and this leads the critic to believe that it is therefore fundamentally no different than any other story that man has ever created and should be evaluated on the same terms. In fact, one of the key features of historical-textual criticism is its propensity to use culture to interpret the Bible and not the other way around.

Not only that, but even in the examples given here by McClellan, historical-textual critics love to tell you that a certain passage of scripture cannot possibly be authoritative because it is wrong or inconsistent with some other assumption they have already made. In order to prove this point to you, they will point to other passages of scripture and claim that THESE are the ones that are authoritative. So in the same breath they tell you that you can't take the Bible as authoritative, they try to use it to explain to you why you can't...and those two statements, and the circular reasoning that follows, are simply incompatible.

I have a Master of Divinity degree. I have taken the classes. I have written the papers. I have read the theses. I have been thrown into the world of historical-textual criticism and told that it is "enlightening" and that it "gives us the most authentic Bible we could possibly have," but that's simply not true. It doesn't take much to see the assumptions that these "academics" rest on it, nor does it take much to see that anyone who takes seriously the ideas of historical-textual criticism either never was a believer in the Lord or is no longer a believer in the Lord because they have so torn apart the Word that they don't even have a God left in it, except the one they have formed out of their own imaginations, which, I have to say, is not a god worth worshiping.

The most basic fundamental principle of historical-textual criticism, when evaluating any text, but especially as applies to the Bible and to the scraps and fragments and alternate copies and translations and whatever that we have found, is that "the more difficult reading is probably the most authentic." In other words, the foundation of this pseudo-science is, "If you think you understand it, that can't possibly be what it actually says." No wonder it tears down and destroys the very faith it claims it's trying to enlighten. Because the simplest understanding of Scripture is that it is a story given to us by a timeless, eternal God who already foresaw how we would interpret and understand it through our own cultural lens and so gave it to us in such a way that it still says - timelessly and eternally - exactly what it is supposed to say and does not need reinterpreted by our postmodern ideas of what someone in the biblical era must have obviously been thinking through a cultural lens that we can only speculate about and not possibly know based on our preconceived political frameworks and our own personal biases.

On this basis, I found this book to be absolute junk. The author's biases are quite clear. The assumptions on which he is grounding his work are quite clear. There is no actual science involved, no matter how academic he tries to sound.

Tear apart man's Bible as much as you want, I guess, but as for me and my house, we will continue standing on the Word of God.

te author gives a new perspective on the Bible and the stories within it. He looks at what he thinks really happened and what the Hebrew and Greek translation really say. I do not agree with all he writes but it is food for thought. I recommend this book for Bible rreders.

McClellan tackles a lot of controversial topics in this book: only one god; homosexuality; abortion; Jesus is God….and so on. One can appreciate his approach with regard to historical-critical analysis. In reading any of the essays, if approached with prior knowledge of the topic, a reader may wonder if the author is a “confidence man” in that he speaks untruths confidently and thus sounding authoritative. However, McClellan does show where the analysis is ambiguous and the conclusions can’t be certain. Likewise, he concludes the whole book by saying further information and analysis may change any summaries he’s put in this book.

While there are a very few core beliefs being explored here, most are not critical to a person’s critical basis for faith. There are single-digit issues worth dying for; many worth defending and a vast majority fall on the spectrum of discussing extensively to not worth mentioning. Many will find most of the chapters fall on nearer the spectrum point of “let’s talk a bit and then move on” because it doesn’t jeopardize the core beliefs. However, part of the author’s social media oeuvre is being people want to get hot and bothered about some pseudo-controversies (e.g is the logo for a highly caffeinated/energy drink the “mark of the beast”?).

If you find yourself in a lot of discussions around some of these topics—particularly with others of a non-Christian faith tradition—it might be helpful to have this reference around. It’s not comprehensive on all the difficult Hebrew and Greek scripture texts but it covers some topics not found elsewhere.

I’m appreciative of the publisher providing an advanced copy.

I became aware of Dan McClellan from a friend of mine who asked if i had watched his videos or listened to his podcast (which I had done neither). Significantly intrigued I watched several videos and listened to several of his Data over Dogma podcasts. I was immediately hooked, Dan's unique and scholarly perspectives on all things biblical was exactly what I had been searching for. The same old inerrant and literal views of the Bible had grown old and tired and frankly, no longer made any sense to me. I was looking for someone with a new (at keast to me) a different perspective on the Bible that went beyond so much of the everyday "I kearned everything i needed to know in Bible school" Christianity. Or the "Bible says it, I believe it and that's it! " that passes as Christianity.
If you are looking for a new perspective and a somewhat scholarly interpretation of what is actually in the Bible, this book is for you.
I guarantee it will challenge you and cause you to think and re-think all that you thought you knew.
If you are a regular viewer of his videos and a listener to his podcasts there will be no surpises in the book. However, I do find it convenient to finally have his perspective in written form. Does he occasionally get out to deep in the weeds? For me yes, but if you stick with it you find it well worth your time and effort.