"The Bible's Buried Secrets": rant

[lethargic_man]

curious_reader recently posted about this week's episode of The Bible's Buried Secrets. The programme narked me somewhat, and I used curious_reader's response to it to have a ( rant ).

Comments

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you saw the previous week's, which I thought was much weaker.

Firstly I thought the conclusion it reached (that there was no historical David) was presented much too firmly given that the support offered within the program was basically the absence of evidence. A local chief exaggerated by later authors into a powerful king would be a reasonable alternative explanation.

Secondly much was made of the archeological evidence (in particular for major fortifications) being at the wrong date for David (and Solomon), but absolutely zero justification was given for the assumed date of David! So even the argument that evidence was actually absent was (as presented) weak.

(Do you know what the textual justification for a C10th David is, if any?)

Justification for a tenth-century David

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

I'm not an expert, but I suspect the evidence (apart from just internal chronology in the Bible) is that by eighty years after the death of Solomon, you start getting external evidence for dating: the Mesha Stele, or the Phoenician record of the three-year drought caused in the Bible by the prophet Elijah, which was preserved by Menander of Ephesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menander_of_Ephesus) and transcribed by Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews (which is sitting on my to-read pile next to Herodotus), and then a little later down the line Assyrian references to Iaua mâr Humri (i.e. Jehu of the house of Omri).

The internal Biblical evidence is clear enough that Jerusalem celebrated the three-thousandth anniversary of its conquest by King David some time in the 1990s.

grrr

[bluepork.livejournal.com]

I watched the polytheism programme as well, because a colleague told me about the first one in the series and said I might find it interesting.

Well, I agree with all the criticism that you and others have levied. I actually got quite angry when watching the programme. I don't know nearly as much about archaeology or biblical history as you do, so I am less able to point out the scholarly weaknesses in her theories, but the point is, I didn't need to.

What was very clear to me was that the presenter (who, by the way, is not Christian; she describes herself as atheist) made a point of describing things which are patently obvious as shockingly new.

She also excelled at making leaps logical inferences based on very weak links and used far too much "I think..." and "I believe..." for a programme billed as science.

She interviewed way too many people who merely validated her existing opinions, instead of investigating the opposing points of view.

Finally, what really annoyed me is the implicit bias against religion built in to the programme. Not one person who backed up her thesis was religious, and all of those who were critical of her thesis were! I found the totally unphased response of the Rabbi she interviewed really amusing. She asked something like "How do you respond to the blatant polytheism in the bible?", obviously hoping to get a rise out of him.

He just batted it off with a response which went something like this: "I can see how one could read the text and come to that conclusion. However, the traditional Jewish and Christian views are not to read the text that way".

There were more examples, but the fact is that in hindsight, the programme was so poor I just can't be bothered to think about it any more!

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

I watched the bit about the reference to Ashdat or Asherah again and looked into my Chumash. Nothing is mentioned there. No idea where whatever it is supposed to be on the side of El. Any idea where these names are mentioned?

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

Deuteronomy 33:2:

Get Backlinks

[(Anonymous)]

I wish everyone the best. Love the community, and all the info. Thanks :) Buy Backlinks (http://www.wheretobuybacklinks.com)

The American version (PBS/Nova)

[(Anonymous)]

I believe that the American version was the original, and it certainly is far different. I watched a bit of the BBC version, and it seemed to be mostly about the presenter, the Nova version mainly presents the evidence with narration (think Planet Earth)

You can see it on Youtube

Original American version (NOVA)

[(Anonymous)]

Ah yes the Nova version was definitely first, it originally aired in 2008.

The BBC version seems to just take the Nova version, totally change the format, and add a massive dose of British snobbery.

Lots of other subtle things, saying something is incorrect, than showing a Jew in a yarmulka looking enraptured.

IDF soldiers and close ups of their guns etc.

It takes the original interesting documentary and gives it a heavy air of British snobbery.

The original

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvg2EZAEw5c

[(Anonymous)]

Actually here is the version I saw, not sure if the content is different or just the ordering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8yGrdyKc1w