The Bible's Buried Secrets

[RED DAVE]

This show, on NOVA tonight (November 18, 8 PM EST), is a presentation of the latest archaeological finds as presented by Finkelstein, etc. It comes highly recommended: the Right is already screaming.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/

RED DAVE

[FreezBee]

This show, on NOVA tonight (November 18, 8 PM EST), is a presentation of the latest archaeological finds as presented by Finkelstein, etc. It comes highly recommended: the Right is already screaming.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/

RED DAVE

Looks cool.

- FreezBee

[VoxRat]

... It comes highly recommended: the Right is already screaming...That's a recommendation in its own right*.




* no pun intended.

[stumpjumper]

Looks interesting.

I've never read anything by Finkelstein but I'm a fan of William Dever...

[osmanthus]

Is the content of this show more up to date than "The Bible Unearthed", or is it just a rehashing of that?

[umop apisdn w,I]

Looks interesting.

I've never read anything by Finkelstein but I'm a fan of William Dever...

A few years ago, there was a bit of a professional disagreement between them, but these days they take pretty much the same position.

That position, of course, being that the archaeological evidence shows that pretty much everything from the "United Monarchy" back simply does not agree with history. The big implications of that was no historical Solomonic period (a historical David/Solomon probably existed, but only as local tribal leaders, not as the majestic kings that the Bible portrays them as); no Conquest (there is archaeological continuity between the Canaanites and the Hebrews, and no evidence of either a military conquest or even a peaceful influx of Egyptian-influenced Hebrews); No Exodus; No Egyptian Bondage; No Joseph; No Abraham, and so on.

This shouldn't be that controversial, really. After all, most people (YECs notwithstanding) accept that there was no Adam and Eve and no Noah and no global Flood - and that those stories are metaphorical and/or allegorical.

[stumpjumper]

Yup.

I don't really find it all that controversial either. Most of the Churches I've attended will refer to the Harper Collins or Oxford study Bible in their YA or Adult groups and the notes within say pretty much the same thing...

[Faid]

Found something extremely interesting going through that link:

Who wrote the Flood story? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/flood.html)

The process of identifying the biblical sources took centuries. The process of refining our identifications of these sources has been ongoing, and it continues to the present day. Scholars in recent years have proposed many variations, arguing for different identifications, different dates, and different pictures of the editing of the parts into the final work. This has led some to claim that there is a lack of consensus in the field. But that is misleading. The central fact of these sources and editing remains the dominant model among critical scholars, though not among most fundamentalist or orthodox scholars, who remain committed to traditional beliefs.
And
Some opponents of the Documentary Hypothesis claim nowadays that this hypothesis no longer is the dominant view in the field. Some assert that there is a new consensus. Some even claim that it was disproved long ago and that "no one believes that anymore." In the first place, this claim is just not true. Scholars at nearly all of the major universities and many seminaries in the United States still are persuaded that it is correct, they work in it, and they teach it to their students. The same may be said of most scholars in England, Israel, and other countries. Major commentaries (such as the Anchor Bible), encyclopedias, and introductions treat it. The most common challenges have come from a number of European scholars, but as of this time, they have not responded to the central evidence. Specifically: They have not come to terms with the linguistic evidence, the continuity of the sources, the match of the sources (especially J and E) with history, or the convergence of the lines of evidence.

The Documentary Hypothesis is still the most common view in scholarship, and no other model has a comparable consensus, but in the end the question is not a matter of consensus anyway. It is a matter of evidence. And the evidence for the hypothesis is, in my judgment, now substantial and stronger than ever.

Interesting, innit?

[Zygote]

I love the part in the last chapter (number 13 on the internet version) where they speculate that the god of the Israelites was re-invented around 500 BC after Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonians and the Israelites were carried off into exile.

This New, Improved God hadn't failed them because he was weak, as had usually been concluded by those who were conquered, but because he was ANGRY. The Angry God didn't like the remnants of polytheism that were still being practiced in the Jerusalem of the Davidian kings.

The meme of the angry god is born: if it's good, god did it, if it's bad, it's your fault. And to cement that meme, god comes back as not merely the god of the Israelites, but bigger and better as the god of all creation, of the whole universe. He only let their home be sacked because they were so special to him that he cared enough to teach them a lesson. What a way to guarantee allegiance.

It's a great summary of biblical history and archaeology for those of us who are not already scholars on the subject. Highly recommended.

[FreezBee]

This show, on NOVA tonight (November 18, 8 PM EST), is a presentation of the latest archaeological finds as presented by Finkelstein, etc. It comes highly recommended: the Right is already screaming.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/

RED DAVE

Interesting.

But ... and there ia but.

Part of that but is in this article:


Q: Do you think it has a central theme?

Coogan: That's a difficult question to answer. I think the central message is that there is a God who is deeply and passionately involved in human history, from the scope of empires to the details of an individual's life. Within that larger framework, one of the major themes of the Bible is that of covenant. In Christian tradition, the two parts of the Bible are the Old and New Testaments, and "testament" is just an archaic word for covenant.

Source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/coogan.html)


Ooohhh, that's skating on non-existing ice.

A testament is a will, not a covenant.

The choice of the word testament reflects the position that God has expressed his will though the Bible, it is not something that is up to negitiation, it is not something that humans can sign or not sign.


- FreezBee