Bible Secrets Revealed on History Channel

[cnk12]

Subject program was on television recently, and the episode covered among the reliability, or lack of, in Bible scripture. They alleged the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed a great many contradictions, gave an example about David and Goliath (I can elaborate on this if anyone wants to know, but it didn’t seem significant, and this post is long enough as it is), and then they went after the New Testament Gospels. Every commentator they showed was associated with a university and is some type of ancient history or biblical scholar.

All the scholars said no one knows who the Bible writers were, both Old and NT. They assert that every translation is tainted by political, social, and religious biases and goals.

They alleged the NT gospels writers were completely anonymous (that some were possibly among Roman political leaders), that none of them were eyewitnesses and Mark’s Gospel couldn’t have been written until at least 70AD. They said they are inherently erroneous, have contradictions, even straight out lies, and have been amended and added to through the years to fit the writer’s “agenda” at that time. Many of their allegations I recognized, and I’ve become familiar with the counter arguments. But I can’t help but wonder how so many “scholars and experts” can all look at the same material and circumstances and reach completely different conclusions. Does one side or the other have an agenda? Or, like in so many situations where there are two completely different versions of things does the truth lie somewhere in between?

Another allegation was the confusion caused by translation. The example they gave was that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the NT was written in Greek. Then they stated (sorry if I don’t get this exact, my memory is shot and I’m assuming members will be familiar with the assertion) the term “Son of Man” is an English translation for a word that simply means “man” or “human” Their implication was obviously a challenge to Jesus’ divinity.

Thanks for reading, and I look forward to your comments.

[1over137]

...to fit the writer’s “agenda” at that time...

What their agenda could be? What do you think?


Well, 'guys' were very succesful since now Christianity is the largest religion.

[B. W.]

Subject program was on television recently, and the episode covered among the reliability, or lack of, in Bible scripture. They alleged the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed a great many contradictions, gave an example about David and Goliath (I can elaborate on this if anyone wants to know, but it didn’t seem significant, and this post is long enough as it is), and then they went after the New Testament Gospels. Every commentator they showed was associated with a university and is some type of ancient history or biblical scholar.

All the scholars said no one knows who the Bible writers were, both Old and NT. They assert that every translation is tainted by political, social, and religious biases and goals.

They alleged the NT gospels writers were completely anonymous (that some were possibly among Roman political leaders), that none of them were eyewitnesses and Mark’s Gospel couldn’t have been written until at least 70AD. They said they are inherently erroneous, have contradictions, even straight out lies, and have been amended and added to through the years to fit the writer’s “agenda” at that time. Many of their allegations I recognized, and I’ve become familiar with the counter arguments. But I can’t help but wonder how so many “scholars and experts” can all look at the same material and circumstances and reach completely different conclusions. Does one side or the other have an agenda? Or, like in so many situations where there are two completely different versions of things does the truth lie somewhere in between?

Another allegation was the confusion caused by translation. The example they gave was that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the NT was written in Greek. Then they stated (sorry if I don’t get this exact, my memory is shot and I’m assuming members will be familiar with the assertion) the term “Son of Man” is an English translation for a word that simply means “man” or “human” Their implication was obviously a challenge to Jesus’ divinity.

Thanks for reading, and I look forward to your comments.

Been there, heard that, nothing new. Most likely another attempt by so called professional scholarly critics... to cast doubt in order to further some political agenda to recruit more low information voters.


-
-
-

[PeteSinCA]

Is this the same History Channel whose bio of Churchill, in its segment on Gallipoli, had some vintage film purporting to show British battleships supporting that abortive invasion? "British" battleships that had a design feature that was only used on American (and a couple of American-built) battleships? Is this the same History Channel whose series on wartime blunders condemned the usage of wood decks on WW2 American carriers because wood decks didn't protect against bombs? And cited the USS Lexington (CV-2), sunk at the Battle of the Coral Sea, as an example? Despite the Lexington having been sunk by a torpedo?

There are all sorts of "experts" out there, with all sorts of varying and contradictory opinions. They are their own authority, and their "evidence" that the writers of the Gospels could not have been disciples (Matthew and John) and early Christians (Mark and Luke), could not have been eye witnesses or consulted eyewitnesses, and had to have been late First Century rather than contemporaries of Jesus, is that they cannot believe they could have been who and what Christians have said and believe they were. And how can you blame them? If the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses and interviewed eyewitnesses, that broaches barrels filled with worms! Jesus really did perform miracles, really did claim to be God, really did rise from the dead, and more besides! If God really exists, really did design and create the universe, humans included, really did speak to humans, really did reveal Himself by living among us, all that negates and renders foolish humans' (sin-based) desire to be and pride in "being" their own autonomous god.

[PeteSinCA]

Then they stated (sorry if I don’t get this exact, my memory is shot and I’m assuming members will be familiar with the assertion) the term “Son of Man” is an English translation for a word that simply means “man” or “human” Their implication was obviously a challenge to Jesus’ divinity.

Ucky-duck ... I did a search on "son of man" in the Gospels using BibleStudyTools.com. Looking just in Matthew - the search returned 84 verses as the results - 8:20, 9:6, 10:23, and 11:19 (in an interlinear New Testament) all have the phrase "uios tou anthropou" for "Son of Man", not a single word whose meaning is simply "man" or "human". If your memory of their claim is correct, I have to wonder whether the "expert(s)" who made this claim have ever looked at the Greek text of the New Testament; I doubt the production people who chose these "experts" have.

[PeteSinCA]

The example they gave was that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the NT was written in Greek.

So what! This might have been news to me when I was 8 or 10 years old; whenever I learned it, it was at church, and from the pastor or a Sunday School teacher. Greek was the near-universal language of the Roman Empire, so the Gospel writers (and NT writers, generally) wrote in the language the vast majority of people would understand. Why is that an issue, or even remarkable?

[DRDS]

Here is a good review of this presentation and it clearly points out many of it's obvious discrepancies.

http://boldlionblog.wordpress.com/2013/ ... -revealed/

[PeteSinCA]

Thanks for the link, DRDS! Some points from the review:

The episode began with a brief mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with a sweeping accusation that there are “thousands” of discrepancies between them and the previously oldest surviving manuscripts that we have, the Masoretic texts. While many Christians will deny this claim completely, I do think it is fair to acknowledge that there are quite a few differences between the texts. But both parties must accurately represent the nature of these differences: The vast majority of textual variants are spelling and punctuation errors

IIRC, Josh McDowell went into this in his original - i.e. first edition, published in 1972 by Campus Crusade - Evidence That Demands a Verdict, that there are numerous differences, and that the vast majority of those differences are the hand-written equivalent of typos. Evidence being what it was at the time - tidied up lecture notes - McDowell was repeating (with sources footnoted) what was then well-known among scholars who had worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls. IOW, there was no excuse for the the History Channel's "experts" to bring up this "objection" without noting that the differences were almost entirely superficial. Either the "experts" lied, or were ignorant; as for the History Channel, their business is infotainment, so absent proof they knew their program misrepresented the Dead Sea Scrolls, I'm satisfied with ignorance as a sufficient explanation for that misrepresentation (I'm a generous fellow).

As is to be expected with this type of documentary, Bible Secrets Revealed does not spend much time on each topic, nor does it offer evidence for its claims. It simply whisks the viewer on to the next topic before he or she has time to reflect on what has been stated.

There are two sides to this coin. It lets the program cover lots of topics in a relatively brief time; it precludes depth in covering any topic, it imposes limits on POVs given on topics, and it hinders viewers from thinking on any topic (thinking that could show holes in theories presented or notice one-sidedness). On one hand, as I noted above, infotainment is the History Channel's business. OTOH, I have a hard time believing that, in choosing "experts" for the program, the History Channel's producers were utterly ignorant of corresponding, theologically conservative and Biblically faithful "experts". So I think the History Channel's producers were both making the most of limited time and were aware of what they were doing (maybe a 70%-30% mix).

Dr. Robert Mullins, for example, opens up by challenging the Genesis narrative.

“Adam,” he says, “Is a common noun meaning the entire human race, not a single individual.”

The comment is then backed up by a graphic of the Genesis text being altered to read “Human Race” instead of “Adam.”

All the best lies are mixed with a little truth. While the name Adam does mean “man,” it is abundantly clear from the Genesis text that the name refers to an individual. Let’s use the replacement trick on other verses that feature Adam:

The review devastates this "objection", but I won't spoil it by posting part of it. The author of the review amply shows how absurd this "objection" is.

... we hear Rabbi David Wolpe say, “Whatever part of God is in there, some human being is in there, too.”

Yes, and the Bible wouldn’t deny this fact. 1 Peter 1:21 says that “men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” Jews have always referred to the Pentateuch as the “Books of Moses.” Most of the New Testament writers signed their names and often discussed their personal lives. Despite what many in the history of Bible interpretation might argue, the Bible does not come close to setting itself up as a magical book that descended straight from heaven without any human involvement.

Whatever the context of Rabbi Wolpe's comment, as used (evidently) by the History Channel, this "objection" is a straw man argument. Even after the homogenization almost inevitable in the process of translation, different writers' styles are obvious, and as the review points out, the Bible text often explicitly includes (and uses, in Paul's case) references to the individual writers and their lives.

It’s an extreme and shameful leap in logic to say, “None of these authors actually met Jesus,” as Dr. Candida Moss claims on the show.

Not only are the numbers very favorable for the traditional view of authorship, but there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. A bold claim such as that which the History Channel is promoting should be supported by evidence. Yet, the show is strangely silent.

My emphasis. I made a point last evening of saying that bold claims tend to be made on the authority of the "experts" themselves, rather than actual evidence. So the lack of supporting evidence is neither surprising nor strange to me.

Equally as puzzling is Dr. Elaine Pagels’ charge, “We had Christianity for 300 years before we had a New Testament.”

Pagels' claim is semantic rather than substantial. As the review points out, the texts of NT books were written by people who knew Jesus or were Jesus' contemporaries. But the word game Pagels is playing is that she's saying that the canon of the NT was not recognized until the 4th Century. Plus or minus some informal lists in the writings of church fathers, this is true, but Pagels' statement is misleading (intentionally, IMO): it gives less well-informed hearers the impression that the content of the NT was written in the 4th Century. Edit addition: The church council(s) that codified the canon did not create scripture, nor did they capriciously pick and choose the books that formed the canon. One very significant criterion - a criterion that basically contradicts Pagels - for recognizing a book as Scripture was that it had been widely recognized and used as such by churches for centuries. Another criterion that basically contradicts Pagels is that the book must have Apostolic origin - either written by an Apostle, or by one who ministered along side an Apostle (Mark, Luke & Acts, and, possibly, James and Jude) - in other words, a book that had been written and come into use in the First Century. My opinion is that Pagels knows all this, but dishonestly ignores it because it doesn't fit her fantasy image of how things must have been.

Pagels has written a number of things that are historically problematic. One of her contentions - one that she shares with the Historian Gibbons - is that the infamous persecutions of Christians was almost entirely made up, false. Various historic sources falsify her (and Gibbons') claim. The history written by Tacitus (and that of Suetonius, too, IIRC) mention's Nero's horrifically cruel persecution. We have Pliny the Younger's correspondence with the Emperor Trajan. Eusebius was probably in his 30s during Diocletian's persecution of Christian, of which Eusebius wrote in his Ecclesiastical History. Pagels has also claimed that Paul's "Prison Epistles" are pseudonymous, written to respond to gnosticism under the aegis of the Apostle Paul. Interesting theory, unsupported by evidence (as usual), and anachronistic by about a century (gnosticism was a mid-late Second Century movement). That Pagels would be cited as an "expert" rather than as a curious outlier is informative as to the History Channel's selection of "experts".

In the next section, an expert says, “Christians claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. And this claim comes from a prophetic text in the book of Isaiah.”

But the claim isn’t based on the Isaiah text. The claim is based on the gospel text. There is no misunderstanding the story of an angel telling Mary that she will have a child, Mary being confused because she hasn’t slept with Joseph yet, the gospels explaining that the virgin birth was a fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy, and Luke’s specific clarification that Mary and Joseph didn’t have relations until after Jesus was born.

This is a semi-straw man. Yes, Christians, starting with Matthew 1:23, have cited Isaiah 7:14 for about 2000 years. But this Isaiah passage is not the sole source for this Christian teaching, as can be seen in Luke chapter 1. One thing this review could have added is that, while the (original) Hebrew text for Isaiah uses a word whose primary meaning is "young woman", that word can mean virgin, and the Septuagint - translated by Jewish scholars well before the birth of Jesus - uses the Greek word whose meaning is, specifically, "virgin". And again, this is not some new discovery, being a matter of contention from at least the time of the publication of the RSV NT in 1946 (and probably much earlier). That the History Channel producers would be ignorant of this, I can believe, but I cannot bring myself to believe that their "expert" is similarly ignorant.

Following this, the show “reveals” that the gospel of Mark ends at 16:8. This is no secret. Every Bible I own has a footnote, or brackets, or marginal separation here, along with an explanation that the oldest manuscripts do not have the last few verses.

The show attempts to say that this somehow implies that the resurrection story was a later addition (even though the resurrection is brought up before verse 8 and is attested to in great detail in the three other gospels, as well as the earlier-written Biblical books mentioned previously).

[/quote]
The issue of the ending of the Gospel of Mark was news maybe a century and a half ago. Bringing it up as some sort of "objection" to the Resurrection is fatuous: the Resurrection is attested, in some detail, by the other three Gospels; if the the original text of Mark ended with the annunciation of the Resurrection (Mark 16:4-8, whose genuineness is not disputed, and ignoring the TR vs. W & H dispute), this shows that Matthew and Luke were not derivative embellishments (one theory popular in theologically liberal circles) of Mark. The ending of Mark issue being so old, I have a hard time believing the History Channel's producers are so incredibly ignorant as to think it is some sort of new revelation.

The History Channel could have given its viewers an incredible - even compelling - service, by giving a survey of what the various books are about, some balanced introductions to some of the issues relevant to those books, and the history of the Biblical texts and translations. It sounds like they chose, instead, to make the series a sort of pseudo-expose'. I'm not a theologian, and I've barely set foot on the campus of a Christian college, but none of these "issues" are news to me, or troubling. Like B.W., I've heard pretty much (or entirely) all of this before, and long ago. If I've heard it all before ...

[cnk12]

Here is a good review of this presentation and it clearly points out many of it's obvious discrepancies.

http://boldlionblog.wordpress.com/2013/ ... -revealed/User avatar
DRDS

It was enlightening to read the review and I noticed a ring of truth in the article where I felt a certain animosity and negativity coming through from the expert commentators in the TV program. That review is just what I hoped to be directed to. I recently read a book called Cold Case Christianity (which I've seen mentioned here several times) in which the author points out that if one's philosophy is that supernatural events are not possible, they have no basis from which they could begin to accept that a supernatural God is possible. It's a simple enough idea, but something I'd never considered until I read it in that book. That sort of non believer therefore has an "agenda" before they even begin their research. Obviously they'll form their opinions based on that limited world view. That particular agenda was definitely built into the views of the experts I referred to.

[PeteSinCA]

Here is a good review of this presentation and it clearly points out many of it's obvious discrepancies.

http://boldlionblog.wordpress.com/2013/ ... -revealed/User avatar
DRDS

It was enlightening to read the review and I noticed a ring of truth in the article where I felt a certain animosity and negativity coming through from the expert commentators in the TV program. That review is just what I hoped to be directed to. I recently read a book called Cold Case Christianity (which I've seen mentioned here several times) in which the author points out that if one's philosophy is that supernatural events are not possible, they have no basis from which they could begin to accept that a supernatural God is possible. It's a simple enough idea, but something I'd never considered until I read it in that book. That sort of non believer therefore has an "agenda" before they even begin their research. Obviously they'll form their opinions based on that limited world view. That particular agenda was definitely built into the views of the experts I referred to.

I don't think pristine objectivity is possible in these matters. But it would be nice if "experts" like the one used by the History Channel would state their worldview/bias up front, and acknowledge it colors (if not predetermines) their reasoning and conclusions.

[Philip]

it would be nice if "experts" like the one used by the History Channel would state their worldview/bias up front, and acknowledge it colors (if not predetermines) their reasoning and conclusions

The problem with the so-called scholars on such programs is not just their agenda, but that their knowledge of original the languages, culture and context of Bible passages they comment on, are so often insufficient or lacking. Often, they simply aren't qualified to give much more than personal opinion. As Lee Strobel points out in his book, "The Case for the Real Jesus": "Skepticism does not equal scholarship." He says that it is important that qualified Christian scholars speak up to "expose the leaps of logic, special pleading, biased interpretations, and tissue-thin evidence that underlies these outrageous claims about Jesus."

Craig A. Evans is Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University, in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. A past commentator on The History Channel, The Discovery Channel and the BBC, Evans wrote his book, "Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels." He has stated: "What I find particularly troubling is that a lot of nonsense comes from scholars. We expect tabloid pseudo-scholarship from quacks, but not from scholars who teach at respectable institutions of higher learning." He finds many "daring theories that run beyond the evidence" and "hokum history" - all resulting in "the fabrication of an array of pseudo-Jesuses." He says, "Just about every error imaginable has been made. A few writers have made almost all of them."

And so that is what one must expect to encounter on popular TV shows about the Bible and Jesus. They often purport things to be established fact that often anyone with just cursory knowledge of the subject matter knows to be wrong. But it brings in TV ratings.

[PeteSinCA]

FWIW, I corrected my quote tag error in my post above, corrected a couple of typos, and couldn't resist adding a bit more at the end.

They often purport things to be established fact that anyone with just cursory knowledge of the subject matter knows to be wrong.

I won't pretend my knowledge of the topics at hand is cursory, but it's pretty far from extensive. This isn't the first time I've felt this way in such discussions, but my feeling is that if even I see numerous and basic problems in what the History Channel presented, some one who does have a thorough knowledge of the topics would feel responding to it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

[PaulSacramento]

This is how a real and unbiased program works:
It has experts from BOTH sides of the argument and allows for the viewer/listener/reader to decide for THEMSELVES.

Quite obviously the History channel is NOT interested in anything unbias.