Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Bibles' buried secrets
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by jamesbrux (U14820991) on Tuesday, 22nd March 2011
Is the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ now going to produce a spoof programme in which an archeologist, preferably with an Israeli name, wanders round the streets of Athens looking for some material vestige or inscription that refers to Socrates ? Finding none, he concludes that Socrates did not exist and, indeed, perhaps Plato didn't either.
They were inventions of Aristotle or, more likely, those of so-called Neo-Platonicians who used this litterary device to add weight to their writings !
Who is this Dr Stavrakopoulou anyway ? -
Message 2
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
Here she is and with quite impressive qualifications. Haven't seen the programme but from what you say her conclusions seem rather far fetched.
-
Message 3
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
I've seen both the programmes so far and what she is proposing is broadly something that most would agree with; that the bible, as a piece of literature, is open to critical analysis and comparison with the archaeological record. Her conclusions on the validity of the David story in its geopolitical account being not borne out and his existence unproven and the apparent polytheism of the early Israelites are well, but not universally, accepted. She does, however, tend to put this over in a bit of an 'Oh wow!' manner and can be rather strident, it might be better if she just laid out her case and stopped saying things like 'This shakes the foundations of belief to the core', it makes it sound a bit like Ambridge.(aside for Archers listeners)
As to the analogy in the op, she'a a biblical scholar, not an archaeologist, so it should be a classicist or a philosopher wandering round Athens. -
Message 4
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Wednesday, 23rd March 2011
I didn't see the first programme, but I saw the second one about polytheism in Israel prior to the Babylonian conquest, and she presents a very good argument....
But yes, the 'shaking the foundations to the core' statement is a bit over the top, because we all know that those who are religious pay little attention to the discoveries of scientists, historians and archaeologists. -
Message 5
Posted by Squiddly Diddly (U14691904) on Friday, 25th March 2011
the 'shaking the foundations to the core' statement is a bit over the top, because we all know that those who are religious pay little attention to the discoveries of scientists, historians and archaeologists.Β
Over on the POV thread, some posters are finding her arguments either blindingly obvious or somewhat contradictory. It's one thing to argue that the Bible is 'ancient literature with a religious agenda' but she then spends half an hour attempting to supplant an anthropomorphic God in favour of Yarweh and Asherah.
And there's a LOT of talk about pubic triangles.
In the second programme, Dr S claims that the evidence she has presented (concerning the polytheistic origins of Canaanite religion) will rock "the foundations of modern monotheism, and for some that may have a severe impact".
I've been in a state of severe shock ever since. -
Message 6
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Friday, 25th March 2011
Aye, it is a tad over-dramatised, but then very little TV isn't. (why they get so excited on Hollyoaks is beyond me!)
Those who do not believe knew most of it anyway, and those who do believe will go on doing believing, even if she produces a gold tablet in God's own handwriting saying it was all a joke! -
Message 7
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 27th March 2011
There was a history series many years ago with two presenters who did not agree with each other but each presented their own views on it and evidence for it and then the viewer could decide between the 2. I think that this would have been a good series for such an approach.
Although the presenter did interview in each programme a person who did not agree with her she could edit the programme to her own view.
In the second programme she presented a case that the ancient Israelites were polytheistic but the the Hebrew bible covered this up. I would actaully case that if one reads the biblical record in both history books such as Kings and in the prophetic books then it is quite clear that the Israelites were polytheistic. For example is one takes 2 Kings 23, Josiah's reforms then one can read how he removed from the Temple items concerned with the worship of Asherah and Baal; he destroyed the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes; got rid of pagan priests and destroyed shrines to other gods etc. This was in the late 7th C BC and towards the end of the period covered by the Hebrew bible. It hardly seems like a cover up to me.
Tim -
Message 8
Posted by Squiddly Diddly (U14691904) on Sunday, 27th March 2011
There was a history series many years ago with two presenters who did not agree with each other but each presented their own views on it and evidence for it and then the viewer could decide between the 2. I think that this would have been a good series for such an approach. Β
Tim, was it this marvellous series that you had in mind?
I'm puzzled as to why an accomplished biblical scholar would want to make a programme that appears to puff-up her contribution to the field while ignoring those who trod the path before her.
I'm assuming that it's intended as a rhetorical device for the mass market, as she claims a lot of credit in the programme, but then goes on to interview 'experts'. It feels like the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is trying to create a new role model, instead of making a serious exploration of the subject of biblical archaeology. -
Message 9
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Monday, 28th March 2011
Okay, I've watched the first episode on iplayer....
Let's put aside the 'wows', and the 'shake to the foundation' statements, which, let's face it, are not directed at us. They're directed at those non-historians among us, who watch Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ2. But that aside, I learnt quite a lot from the two programmes that I didn't know before:
1) There is little archaeological evidence to support the existence of David, outside of the Bible, which was written several centuries after he was supposed to have lived. It seems likely that what we know of David is probably similar to what we know of King Arthur and Robin Hood.
2) It is an interesting suggestion that maybe Judah and Israel were never united under one king. Until archaeological evidence shows otherwise, it's a hypothesis worth considering.
3) It is curious the way the Bible downplayed the existence of Omri, especially when you consider that there's more archaeological evidence supporting the power of his kingdom in Samaria/Israel, than there is supporting David in Jerusalem/Judah.
4) I didn't know that Israelites were probably polytheistic before the Babylonian conquest. Maybe I'm thick, but I feel wiser for that revelation now!
5) I knew that a lot of the Bible was apocryphal, but I didn't realise how late in the day it was written (Babylonian times). It does lead one to question the authenticity of anything recorded to have happened before the Maccabees. Maybe the Apocrypha is the only authentic historical record in the Bible.... -
Message 10
Posted by Squiddly Diddly (U14691904) on Monday, 28th March 2011
Perhaps I expected too much from this series?
I'd already seen Robert Beckford's 'Who Wrote the Bible?' as well as John McCarthy's 'It Ain't Necessarily So, and Channel Five's 'Secret of the Old Testament', so the ground-breaking 'secrets' revealed in this series came as no great surprise. -
Message 11
Posted by Squiddly Diddly (U14691904) on Tuesday, 29th March 2011
I noticed in last Wednesday's Telegraph that Michael Deacon described last week's effort as 'trying hard to shock', that'the information in the documentary "is already available", and that faith is not likely to be weakened by historical evidence to the contrary. He also notes Dr Francesca's assumption that monotheism disempowered women (without providing any supporting evidence).
Might I draw your attention to a review by 'Church Mouse' at the bottom of the article:
'Unfortunately there were no new discoveries in this documentary. Most of the 'evidence' came from ... the Bible! Hardly 'hidden' then. Mouse also notes that the Asherah debate is well covered in Wikipedia, so we have two trusted sources of information to turn to.' -
Message 12
Posted by Miggyanne (U14827871) on Wednesday, 30th March 2011
Is the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ now going to produce a spoof programme in which an archeologist, preferably with an Israeli name, wanders round the streets of Athens looking for some material vestige or inscription that refers to Socrates ? Finding none, he concludes that Socrates did not exist and, indeed, perhaps Plato didn't either.
They were inventions of Aristotle or, more likely, those of so-called Neo-Platonicians who used this litterary device to add weight to their writings !
Who is this Dr Stavrakopoulou anyway ?Β Quite so! Recent discoveries have verified that Moses did write the 1st 5 books of the Bible as stated.. Not only that but a stone was found between the feet of the sphinx stating that the elder son had died under mysterious circumstances so the younger became the Pharaoh - the eldest son of all the Egyptions were struck dead in the last 'plague' of Egypt.
Writing had been invented long before then. More and more evidence is appearing to back up everything the Bible states as history. -
Message 13
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 30th March 2011
Hi Miggyanne, always good to see a first time poster. Could you supply authoritative references please for your statements?
-
Message 14
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
That's a pretty strong statement to make, Miggyanne....
Are you saying that the plagues that were allegedly brought down on the Egyptians by Moses actually occurred? I'm not so sure that I agree....
I'm not so sure that Moses actually existed, much less wrote the first five books of the Bible. There seems to be little evidence to suggest that they were written any time before the Babylonian conquest of Judah and Jerusalem. As a result, quite a bit of imagination seems to have gone into the writing of these books. The final programme suggests that the story of Adam and Eve, and the garden of Eden, was actually a later story about this conquest by Babylon, rather than the creation of the world, as it was later adapted to be. I find that story plausible, even if the programme evoked certain 'so what?' sentiments as I watched it.
However, having said that, when I read your post, maybe the programmes of Dr Stavrakopolou are directed at people like you, who take the Bible more literally than the rest of us....
For you, I guess these discoveries do threaten to 'shake Christianity to the core'. But then again, for those who follow the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), when has facts ever held sway over blind faith? -
Message 15
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
`Who is this Dr Stavrakopoulou anyway ?'
Google her and find an impressive scholar who is also easy on the masculine eye. Michael Wood in reverse!
As others have pointed out it has long been known that monotheism had its roots in polytheism. There is also an argument that the divinity Jahweh was originally a female divinity. This is nothing new. Human thought evolves and changes.
The Old Testament is by and large a history of a Middle Eastern people written like most histories would have been in those days some considerable time after the events described. This would inevitably lead to a degree of error and embellishment.
Furthermore archaeology is only as good as what is found and how it is analysed. This is not to disparage an excellent, scientific discipline but as with all human endeavour it has its limitations.
Dr. Stavrakopoulou is entitled to her arguments, we are also entitled to be challenged by them. This is something we can enjoy and appreciate.
Nobody has a monopoly on the truth. In the end it is what you want to believe. I like the Bible as at one level it has many good stories in it and at another it tells me how people thought in times gone by. Even then we have to understand how language was used and the interpretations of words. -
Message 16
Posted by Squiddly Diddly (U14691904) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
Michael Wood in reverse! Β But perhaps not quite as articulate, or as excited by her subject, or as generous in her spirit.
-
Message 17
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
Yes Squiddly it was the Dragon has two tails. I wonder now how marxist historians view history since the apparent failure of Marxism.
regards
Tim -
Message 18
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
Shivfan
"1) There is little archaeological evidence to support the existence of David, outside of the Bible, which was written several centuries after he was supposed to have lived. It seems likely that what we know of David is probably similar to what we know of King Arthur and Robin Hood."
It depends what evidence one is expecting to find. The Tel Dan stele as was mentioned mentions the house of David and it is now claimed that the Mesha stele does as well. The boos of samual portray David originally as a mercenary leader with a following of soldiers. Jerusalem, would at the time have formed an ideal fortress from which to rule over surrounding areas with a picked force of soldiers. The period when it was clainmed David ruled was one in which there was a power vacuum such that a local leader could well have controlled what was, even on the biblical claims, quite a small area. I am not aware of any other surviving documents from say Egypt, Phonecia, the Philistines or Assyrria that provide any relevent details on Canaan at this time.
"2) It is an interesting suggestion that maybe Judah and Israel were never united under one king. Until archaeological evidence shows otherwise, it's a hypothesis worth considering."
I am not sure how archaeology would show or not show this. The only two biblical prophets who preached before the fall of Israel (Amos and Hosea - Hosea was from Israel too) both seem to imply that Israel and Judah had a common heritage and both mention David.
"3) It is curious the way the Bible downplayed the existence of Omri, especially when you consider that there's more archaeological evidence supporting the power of his kingdom in Samaria/Israel, than there is supporting David in Jerusalem/Judah."
The Deuteromic historian was not that interested in Israel other than Ahab and that was mainly because of Elijah and Elisha. He also does not give that much information about the even more successful Jereboam II. He was following the line of the book of Deuteronomy (the precurser of which was 'found' in the temple during the reign of Josiah) that the only place that Yahweh could trully be worshipped was in the temple in Jerusalem. All the kings of Israel were, in his eyes, apostate. Interesting enough the stories about Elijah and Elisha do not reflect that view suggesting that they originated from a separate Israelite source.
"4) I didn't know that Israelites were probably polytheistic before the Babylonian conquest. Maybe I'm thick, but I feel wiser for that revelation now!"
As I said in my earlier post, it is quite clear from the bible itself that the people of Judah operated a comprehensive insurance policy regarding Yahweh, Baal, etc.
"5) I knew that a lot of the Bible was apocryphal, but I didn't realise how late in the day it was written (Babylonian times). It does lead one to question the authenticity of anything recorded to have happened before the Maccabees."
Actually quite a lot in the Hebrew bible can be verified from other sources. For example the Mesha Stele and the Assyrian records. People such as Omri, Ahab and Hezekiah are all recorded in the bible and outside documents confirms their existance at the correct times. The destruction of Samaria and the survival of Jerusalem at the time of the Assyrian empire is both confirmed by archaeology and by Assyrian sources. An Assyrian relief shows the Israleite king, the only such relief of an Israelite king,, who is mentioned in the bible.
It was not asll written after the fall of Jerusalem either. Some of the psalms are clearly earlier and their are a number of prophetic books written before then, even if they were added to later. The books of the law include Israelite sources written before the fall of Samaria.
regards
Tim
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.