Radcliffe Emerson

Has anyone seen this on the History Channel? I saw it last night, and am watching it again this morning. It covers different archaeologists, including Finkelstein and his book,along with comments from Devers.
I think the program adds weight to the evidence generally not supporting several Old Testament events.

gsx1138

I passed over it but thanks for bringing it up. I'll have to watch it now. I'm a History, TLC, Discovery channel junkie. However, I have noticed a disturbing trend on those channels. When they do a special on christianity they never refer to it as christian mythology. They'll talk about Greek and Roman Mythology but seem to infer that Christianity is fact.

Kosh

I watched it last night. Thought it was fairly balanced on showing both sides. Did love that one guy though, when presented with the evidence that David's extent had been exagerated "Size doesn't matter, Dr. Ruth tells us that!". He only cares that David still exists. Of course, the question is that if David was exagerated, what else was?

Sojourner553

I saw a portion of it last night. Seemed to me that it never presented Finklestein's view -- it just had clips of him saying that everyone had a different view -- very general stuff.


They never asked him to critique the other sides views in SPECIFIC detail.

Actually, I suspect they did ask him, but "edited" that part out.

Sojourner

Viti

I miss the good stuff on THC because 9 times out of 10 I flip to channel 43 and it's about WWII. I have gotten a bit pissed and ignored the channel lately.

Kosh

THC = The Hitler Channel

Marduk

On Discover tonight they do Moses, 8pm EDT, then King Tut at 9

Dark Jedi

Their target demographic is the 80+ generation and baby boomers. It interests them, so they focus on it.

Myself, I don't mind as I am a WWII buff. I can see how it would irritate those who are not, though.

Peter Kirby

In the show on the History Channel about Caesarea Maritima and Herod the Great, there was a part where they treated the massacre of the innocents as a factual event without so much as a mention of the fact that Josephus is silent about it, although Josephus figured in the program, or for that matter that it is not found outside of Matthew (and dependents)--or, for that matter, that it is based on Matthew at all, giving the impression that this was some sort of established fact whose source need not be cited. You can guess that I was talking at the TV at that point.

best,
Peter Kirby

Amos

Good point Peter but where does this stop?

Personally I object to Moses depicted as a good guy in "The Ten Commandments" because it was wrong to part the waters and lead the children of Israel into the promised land where they died nonetheless. To enter to the promised land we must learn to walk on water and Jesus showed us how . . . lest we raise the serpent on the other side and remain subject to the malice of her former tooth (which was their problem).