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.

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.

Dan McClellan, making public scholarship cool again!

I’ve been a fan of Dan’s TikTok work for some time now, so I was obviously excited to dig in to his new book. <i>The Bible Says So</i> is laid out in a way that makes it so you can either read straight though or jump to a chapter according to your interest/question. Definitely plan to read it with a Bible next to you (NRSVue preferred, obviously) to get the most out of it.

While Dan does get fairly technical in most chapters, as is necessary for the subject matter, he continues to make the scholarship as accessible as possible for the lay Bible reader. Really, <i>The Bible Says So</i> serves as a deeper dive into many of the topics he regularly discusses on social media (see especially chapters 13 and 17). Seeing it all written out, with references to the relevant research as well as other historic literature (the footnotes alone are worth the purchase price), makes following his arguments that much easier—and his many fans already know he has a talent for communicating the minutiae of biblical scholarship and its implications for Bible readers.

Dan’s overarching argument is made clear through the book’s introduction and conclusion—that we are all of us negotiating with biblical texts. This will inevitably be hard to read for the most conservative Bible readers; as Dan aptly observes, “The reality is that there’s no such thing as a biblical literalist. Everyone who treats the Bible as an inspired and/or authoritative document negotiates with it. There is no other possible choice.” So, yeah, I don’t know that I would hand this to a literalist, because Dan certainly calls out the logical fallacies of this belief system, and if you know literalists you know they won’t hear it until they’re ready. But for anyone who is ready, and especially for the progressive Christian who wants to reckon with the Bible seriously, chapter 2 is absolutely essential reading for helping you to learn how to grapple with the historical-critical approach to reading. Dan’s tone is delightfully irreverent in the best way (I like it when he says that something is “pure and utter nonsense”—it just makes me feel good), but no argument can be made for his disrespecting the text itself. The Bible is, after all, his life’s work. He simply makes plain what the Bible is: Texts.

It’s important also to note that Dan does not, as some try to say, only write what serves himself. He explains what the Bible actually says, calling out even the most well-meaning but incorrect interpretations. Writing about a particularly disturbing passage, he explains, “I don’t think insisting the authors actually meant something else entirely is a productive way to try to rehabilitate this passage, though. Nor do I think it’s consistent to dismiss the harmful ideology [found in this passage] as the product of the authors’ own time while simultaneously maintaining the inerrancy, inspiration, and authority of the words themselves. The words are simply wrong.” He returns to this idea throughout the book, explaining the ways that we might continue to negotiate with biblical texts while acknowledging, “Sometimes the Bible is the problem.”

In a world where we no longer have Rachel Held Evans to guide us, I like many other progressives am constantly seeking out voices to help me navigate my faith. (I’ve never been one to harbor any desire to meet my heroes, but what I would give to sit down and have a conversation with Dan!) While he may not be positioning himself as a faith leader, Dan McClellan stands out as one of the foremost voices helping us all understand this Book we love and struggle with.

I have been following Dan on TikTok for several years and was excited he was coming out with a book about the Bible for us lay folk. At the same time I was a little apprehensive that it would be more of a scholarly read because let’s face in, Dan has a big brain and uses a lot of words I don’t always understand. Unfortunately my apprehensions (for myself at least) turned out to be true and I ended up DNF’ing at 9 percent. I found the book to be very dry and I think the thing I love most about Dan’s teaching style: his personality and wit, got lost in the pages. I do think this book would be great for Bible scholars and people attending seminary, it just wasn’t for me.

Building on the themes he often addresses on Tiktok & Instagram, Dan McClellan’s new book aims to provide historical context to passages in the Bible that get used to discuss modern-day issues. This book covers topics like the creation of the Bible, slavery, abortion, child sacrifice, and homosexuality. Each chapter dives into what the original audience would have believed and how the issue would have been handled in biblical times.

To me, this book requires a solid understanding of the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible. The majority of the issues discussed are originally discussed in the OT and may or may not be addressed in the New Testament. Understanding the peoples of Israel & Judah, their journey into the promised land, their exile, and their return is key to being able to fully grasp the historical context McClellan is providing.

McClellan’s aim is to put “data over dogma” leaving aside his own beliefs to encourage an historical understanding of the Bible and to prevent the Bible’s weaponization against marginalized people groups. I think he does that well.

Thank you to NetGalley, St. Martin’s Press, and Dan McClellan for the ARC!

A Biblical scholar, whose focus is on the linguistics and translations, takes a look at several topics that are frequently discussed -- slavery, abortion, marriage, homosexuality, and more. Although I did find much of what the author explains very fascinating, this is not a book for the casual reader. His work is obviously very well researched, and that's sometimes the issue. His narrative is sometimes bogged down in the minutiae -- how individual words should be more accurately translated from the Hebrew or Greek, for example, I found myself skimming over much of these details. In any case, I found the topic fascinating and learned a great deal.

I honestly cannot speak highly enough about McClellan’s work. I was first introduced to him through TikTok and once I left the app, I really missed hearing what he had to say. I’m so grateful that he has been given a platform to speak about the Bible in this way because he is truly a scholar. I know for myself as a queer Black woman I have not only found his work to be incredibly informative and important but also reaffirming.

I received an electronic ARC from St. Martin's Press through NetGalley.
McClellan offers his thoughts and researched opinions on what the Bible shares. He does not shy away from controversial topics and offers his interpretation for readers to review. The book allows readers to process their thoughts and choose to debate or accept the information shared. As he says in the Conclusion, his own biases are present. Though he quotes many sources, most fall in line to support his ideas with few references to those who offer different opinions. Others will appreciate this approach and do read other reviews for more thoughts.