## Link
https://youtu.be/9s3fRIFBhdM?si=4zw85f2R7IISZTzg
## Clips
### The priestly source doesn't mention dreams or angels or God appearing to people, the only way to talk to God in the priestly thread is by giving a sacrifice to a priest
start = 0:00
end = 10:00
### Sitcom husbands are disproportionately in advertising, a nod to Eat Mor Chi-kin, and mentioning wanting to make a commercial for the Bible, and you'd have to bring sex into it somewhere
start = 10:00
end = 11:47
### The change from biblical judaism to rabbinic judaism
start = 13:16
end = 17:14
### The best source of evidence for the threads is linguistic evidence of how the hebrew language changed over time, and the majority of bible scholars refuse to discuss the linguistic evictions
start = 17:14
end = 18:46
### It started with a Harvard dissertation by Robert Polzin in the 1970s
start = 18:46
end = 24:32
### Didn't want to get into the motives of the scholars in Who Wrote the Bible because the European scholars are trying to date everything as late and made up
start = 24:32
end = 25:45
### Willing to admit that he's been wrong in print before, people often reluctant to admit they were wrong, Einstein and Hubble
start = 25:45
end = 28:34
### Wellhausen switched from being a major Old Testament scholar to a major New Testament scholar to a major Quran scholar
start = 29:44
end = 30:50
### Wellhausen's preconceptions about all these laws and the priestly source, and Friedman's first time expressing something like a religious belief during a Star Wars reference
start = 30:50
end = 33:30
### If the greatest team of Shakespeare fakes could get together and fake a sonnet, you couldn't fool the Shakespeare scholars, it's extremely hard to fool them
start = 34:09
end = 35:47
### We know certain things could not have been faked by modern charlatans because they're written in Old Hebrew, and no human on Earth even knew Old Hebrew anymore when these things were excavated
start = 35:29
end = 36:26
### It turns out that Deuteronomy is not a work in its own right, it's part of a collection that includes Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings
start = 36:56
end = 37:25
### Deuteronomy is very strange, it's different from the other four books, it's supposed to be Moses in first person looking back and making a speech, in which he refers to things in the story, but when he refers back to them it's very weird, he never refers to anything in P, he only refers to stuff in J and E
start = 37:25
end = 38:20
### In Deuteronomy, Aaron is only mentioned twice, once to say he died, and once to say he made the golden calf
start = 38:05
end = 38:18
### So I associate this Deuteronomic material with the same guys who gave you E, the Mushite priests, the ones who don't like Aaron and the Aaronids
start = 38:18
end = 38:35
### Friedman says his style is entirely copied from Kurt Vonnegut, thus proving that he's the perfect kind of guy for the role we need him for
start = 41:02
end = 41:50
### The playful non-serious numerology of 11-11
start = 41:50
end = 42:45
### There's not just Deuteronomy, there's a Deuteronomistic history that runs Deuteronomy through second Kings
start = 42:50
end = 43:52
### Explaining Deuteronomy by analogy with how modern historians work from sources, and are forced to, because they usually weren't there when the things they want to talk about actually happened
start = 48:45
end = 51:47
### Example showing that Friedman thinks even more like a proper scientist than most scientists in academia, he has no particular agenda to push, he's just a curious irreverent nerd
start = 51:47
end = 52:54
### Prophets are the most opposite people in the world from Historians
start = 52:44
end = 52:55