They're always so confident.

"If we take seriously the nativity accounts in the gospels..." full stop.

I saw Jesus on my toast the other day !

Delivering a critical and informed analysis while wearing Cyborg Superman... this is why you've quickly become one of my favorite KZfaqrs.

The confidence of the misinformed/uninformed is a myatery to me.

Although Palestine wasn't an official name of a kingdom or a Roman province until Syria-Palaestine almost 100 years after Jesus's death, the region was sometimes referred to as Palestine. Herodotus used the term hundreds of years earlier in his histories. Deriving it from the Philistines and even from the much earlier Egyptian reference to the Peleset.

So, he wasn’t part of the Judean People’s Front?

Man you are a good man! And an awesome teacher and advocate! Thanks for enriching our knowledge

Thanks Dan!!!

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. This desperately ill conceived attempt to define Palestinians out of history shows the lengths these folk will go to in their propagandised defence of utterly despicable actions.

I'm so glad Justin haf you on his show!!! I'm loving your videos!

How far do we think Dan is going to get on this walk??

Facts are really inconvenient for religious apologists. It's probably why they misrepresent or ignore them so easily.

Because what have the Romans ever done for us?

I wish we could still depose our leaders for rank incompetence.

When you go on your walks, make sure you have some form of hydration.

So Judea wasn't the Roman name for all of Israel? Interesting. I guess the People's Front of Judea and the Judean Popular Front have some explaining to do!

Jesus is ONLY in you mind and no where else.

King Herod the great had a Nabatean arab mother. Nabatea was a kingdom that lasted until 106 CE best known for building Petra. It was a kingdom that covered portions of the Negev and modern day Jordan. Herod's father was of Edomite convert heritage. Part of Herod's goal with refurbishing the 2nd temple was to establish his legitimacy and put away questions about the legitimacy of his Jewish heritage. As Dan points out in the video, Herod Antipas ruled the Galilee and Perea, (this term meaning "land beyond," ) representing part of the Transjordan. Herod Archelaus got Judea, but after 6 CE he was deposed and the Roman province of Judea was administered by the Roman province of Syria. So when we think about the actual data, Jewish people have a historical claim to the land of Israel that is true, but so do various groups of non Jewish Arab peoples who were likewise living there at the same time alongside Jews. There is a shared history with a lot of overlap. To me things like modern DNA evidence demonstrate conclusively that there are Jews and Arabs who have had their DNA tested who can both say legitimately that 50+ percent of their DNA comes from this area of the Levant. People today think in terms of political borders and geopolitical nation state identities, a very modern conception when in ancient times you had kingdoms and empires of varying size and influence having to cooperate with each other. And the truth is, for a poor person actually living in the land, the kingdoms will come and go, but you're likely to be where your ancestors were because mobility wasn't easy back then.

6 CE is nine, not ten, years after 4 BCE ;-) I love catching these things, forgive me. I love your videos, Dan.

Where are you walking, Dan

Jesus lived, and still lives, with his husband in Grand Rapids. I went to college with him and he bakes a heck of a peach cobbler, because his mom is from Georgia. I have no idea why the bible got it so wrong.

Not to mention the fact that while "Palestine" specifically is a newer name, it derives from much older words for the area, including an... Assyrian, I want to say?... reference to "Palishtu," if I'm not butchering that.

There was never a united kingdom of Judah and Israel? Now that piques my interest

This man is simply giving information that could be useful to theists and atheists alike. His correction of biblical interpretation to give better understanding is something I see, as an orthodox Christian, to be very helpful to other Christians if they want to get an accurate understanding of the scripture. To see so many people in the comments take actual pleasure in people being incorrect while Dan just wants to help them out is seriously insulting to Dan’s work. He’s just a good man, and to see 60% of his fans act like pompous sadists who love seeing people get “corrected”, is seriously demeaning to the effort Dan puts into his work. This idolization of Dan is dangerous because he just wants to allow criticism, not blatant breeding of taking pleasure in others’ inaccuracies. People need to accept Dan is a well educated man, an intelligent person, but also prone to error. Goodness, I’m tired of reading all these unhelpful comments that are like “Oh, they’re always so confident”, or “They just hate the truth.” Dan, I have huge respect for your toleration of this. Keep doing what you do.

@00:30 seconds in, you stated that King Herod died in 4 BCE. I've heard that it could be 4 BCE or 1 BCE, and a few other possibilities based on a lunar eclipse described by Josephus. How do we know which date he _actually_ died in? Quirinius' census mentioned in _Luke 2:2_ happened in 6 CE, and this is the year that Luke stated the Messiah was born in. I've seen at least 3 different chronologies on King Herod's family line, so there appears to be a division on when King Herod actually died. How do we know for a fact that he died in 4 BCE? Which data points to this date? If the data comes from a lunar eclipse, then how do we know which lunar eclipse it was? I noticed that Herod Archelaus *(King Herod's son)* was deposed in 6 CE *(the same year as Quirinius' census),* but _Matthew 2:22_ states that Archelaus was reigning in office and that the Messiah was now a child at that time. Either the Messiah was born in 6 CE or was a child in 6 CE, but I'm not sure which one due to the discrepancies with King Herod's history. Which data is more reliable, the data about when King Herod Agrippa I died, or the data on when Quirinius' census took place? I tend to the latter, since the former appears to rely on lunar eclipses, and I don't see how we can identify which lunar eclipse Josephus was actually talking about. Another reason why I tend to favor Luke's account over Matthew's in this regard, is because he had a more complete Genealogy for the Messiah and was more specific about certain events (he may have had more access to historical records, which may be why he provides a more detailed account). Matthew was an Evangelist, but Luke was a Historian, so I tend to Luke's account more, because his account should be less biased as a Historian versus Matthew's account as an Evangelist.

I'd make a comment about that other guy being confidently incorrect. But he's probably too motivated by his presuppositions to even consider what the correct information would be.

you have to trust that anything ancient people wrote was even remotely true.

then there was Philip the Tetrarch in what some called Southern Syria did not get the title of Herod why?

Palestine, rather it’s oldest form, isnt much older than Israel, they’re both earliest attested around 1200 bce loo

Galilee wasn't a part of Judea, was it?

He should go back to picking bees or whatever cosplay gardening he thought he was doing

Jesus lived his entire life in Nazareth? Did Dan mean Galilee?

Isn't the field not so clear cut on the existence or non existence of a united monarchy under David? (of course not under Saul, who has little to no historical attestation). And in terms of the Southern Kingdom appropriating the identity of Israel, I find that fascinating because even in the 2nd Temple period, Judah remains Judah, and they never appropriate the identity of Israel, only doing so when speaking of the restoration of all 12 tribes. I would love to read more about Judah appropriating Israel in the Hebrew Bible era if you have any recommendations!

I don't think it's so obvious that there was never a single state called Israel that included both Judah and the northern tribes. I know many more scholars say we don't have evidence for it and that the Bible is biased, though I wonder if it was something far more modest than the biblical account of Solomon's administration, which according to the text didn't last long anyway. And Saul and David seem more like military champions/warlords than administrative rulers over a "kingdom."

only if Jesus was a real person

But, but but In those days, Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. Joseph, who belonged to the house and line of David, traveled with Mary to Bethlehem for the registration. While they were there, Mary gave birth to her firstborn son. Since there was no guest room available, she wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger. Luke says he was born during the first census after Rome took control of Judea in 6 CE

Morning rounds about useless random snippets about overrated desert tribesmen.

"Roman province of Judea"? Wikipedia claims tha Judaea (sic) was a Roman province from 6ce until the Bar Kokhba revolt. But I can find no contemporary sources for this. First of all, it could not have been called Judea or any such variant as the Latin alphabet has no "j". So if anything, it would have been Iudaea or Iudea. Can you provide a contemporary reference to this name in any official Roman records (i.e. not Josephus or a similar author)?

Umm Jesus is a myth

Bethlehem is in the land of Israel, there is no “modern Palestine”, also saying that Jesus wasn’t from judea just because it was under the province of Syria, does not stand considering the brutal revolt of the judeans against the Romans which encompassed the Galilee, Jesus was a judean. And Nazareth actually didn’t exist in Jesus’s time.

Hey Dan! Love these videos. I agree with your larger point, but I think you should include a few caveats in your explanation around the 2-minute mark. According to the Deuteronomistic history, a United Kingdom of Israel existed under the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. Of course, whether the United Kingdom of Israel actually existed is a matter of ongoing academic debate (the evidence seems to support what you were saying in the video). However, it seems a little unfair to portray the content creator as making things up when he is relying on the biblical account in an area where many historians still argue for its accuracy (as opposed to, say, Noah's Ark, where no serious historian concurs).