Well, it's not a surprise... the programme stirred some controversy.
The first thing that is important to point out I think is that almost all of what Francesca says isn't new, but on the contrary has been more or less boradly accepted in academic circles for some years at least now. Therefore, she's not talking about her findings, but about the findings of many specialists, and to that she adds here and there her own opinion and hypotheses.
I thought the programme well-done, with a dynamic directing avoiding the monotonous close-ups on some scholar's face that you can find in other documentaries. It's also well written: the information delivered is clear, and specifically accessible for newcomers on the subject.
However, if I agree with most of the interpretations made, I'm not exactly convinced by Francesca's own theories. But if there's something I really appreciate, it's the fact that she lets people with different interpretations express their views, and that she never tries to impose her hypotheses as facts. She repeatedly and carefully uses the words "I think", "my opinion is that", "it would seem", etc.
Reading some of the comments of viewers on the BBC page dedicated to the programme, it's clear that many people have been outraged by the vision of the Old Testament given by Francesca, but also assimilated the use of "I think that" etc. to arrogance and a lack of proof, which of course is a misinterpretation. Examples:
"Then she is so bold as to say "but I say" constantly without evidence to back up what she says."
"In the programme Dr. Stavrakapoulou's uses the terms "i think", " It would suggest" , " It would appear" quite a lot. This suggests that there is no clear evidence and she is just presenting an ideology rather than any scientific research."
Accusations from viewers of debunking the Bible without proofs at all go on and on. For instance:
"I spent the last 20 mins convinced that she was just making it up as she went along."
"BBC - I'm very disapointed, no buried secrets here, this lady doesn't have clue what she talking about."
"This was a very disappointing programme that twisted historical evidence and showed no understanding of the text. I thought it was more like a work of fiction like the Da Vinci code than a factual account."
"Yet again we see a non-Christian invited by the BBC to make absurd statements about the bible as if they were facts."
"The Did God Have a Wife? episode is based solely on the fact that God in the bible refers to himself at one point as El (which is clearly pointed out by the presenter that El can be a generic term for God) and then examining an entirely different religion. The presenter quotes the bible saying "Who is like Yahweh among the gods?" and not only misinterprets the quote but presents it as fact."
This is funny in the way the evidence for a syncretism between the Ugaritic El and a storm god (Yhwh) is much stronger than this, but of course Francesca has no time in just one hour of a mass appeal documentary to explain them. If people want to know more, they'd just have to make some research themselves, instead of attacking the programme without having all the cards in hand.
Some viewers are even angrier, and blame the show for attacking faith and being anti-religion:
"WHEN WILL THE BRITISH MEDIA DARE DISCREDIT ISLAM OR OTHER FAITHS??? We as CHRISTIANS ARE ATTACKED BY ATTACKING OUR GOD"
However, I understand when a jewish viewer states: "And it made me sad also, from a purely personal perspective, to hear my religion being talked about with so little respect."
I don't think she meant any of her theories to be disrespectful (contrary to some writers like Michel Onfray or Richard Dawkins), but for someone who isn't familiar with historical and critic study of the Bible, indeed the programme can come as agressive (even if actually it's not).
I think people should realize that proposing an argumented critical study of the texts, leading sometimes to the undermining of their traditional understanding, is in no way attacking faith or monotheism. Saying that the God described in the OT is mainly a syncretism between several gods cannot change the fact that one day judaism began imagining God as a non-anthropomorphic spiritual being very different from all the previous pagan gods. True, it can be argued (and I would do so) that this particular conception of God came partly from the contact with Persian zoroastrianism during the Exile (6th century BC). But it doesn't mean judaism couldn't have been "divinely inspired" at some point, and the The Bible's Buried Secrets is certainly not trying to prove the contrary (as anyway only poor quality work would try to bluntly promote atheism or that a religion is "false"). However on this point Francesca is not helping since she states that her findings can "rock the foundation of modern monotheism", which is gratuitous provocation.
This being said, I'd like to quickly come back on each of the 3 episodes of the programme.
Episode 1 deals with the historicity of David's kingdom, as well as of himself.
The main fact here is that no archeological evidence can back up the existence of such a kingdom, as it is described in the OT. Francesca interviews archeologist Israel Finkelstein, who, back in 2001, argued in his book The Bible Unearthed that 10th century BC Israel was more an assembly of villages than a kingdom. Since 2001 this has been debated, but the claim is based on serious facts. Nothing new there then for anyone who has tried for the last decade to follow the confrontation of the OT to history.
Then, on the historicity of David, Francesca is among those alleging he never existed. To be fair, she debates the point with ancient history professor Baruch Halpern. In the end she doesn't change her mind but doesn't insist since it's just her opinion. Personally, like Halpern, I think that someone inventing a legendary and glorious founding father in order to create a magnificent past for the nation, would definitely not attribute to this character negative traits such as David's. These traits are also quite embarassing because in complete opposition with God's law (David indeed commits adultery with the wife of one of his best soldiers, and then gives the order to let him be killed on the battlefield in order to hide it). The author of the text writes in 2 Samuel 11, 27 (English Standard Version): "but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord". I think this is a very strange account to attribute a fictional mighty King, and psychologically speaking I'm not sure it'd make much sense for an author to invent such a flawed founding father. I'd rather think the biblical David, though mythified on some points, holds the memory of - maybe not a king - but an important chief, perhaps one who first assembled the villages of Israel into a semblance of realm. The later tradition would have then traced back to him the birth of the country.
Episode 2 deals with the origins of the god of the OT as well as the possible worship of a goddess seen by ancient Israelites as his wife.
As I mentioned above, Francesca has no time in just one hour to expose all the indications leading to the solid theory the god described in the OT is the result of a syncretism. More precisely, that the ancient Israelites first worshipped El, the Father God of the Ugaritic Pantheon (they indeed share common attributes). What Francesca doesn't mention in the episode, is the hypothesis that Yahweh is at first a storm god/war god from around the region of Madian, and that the main syncretism would then have been between the benevolent El and the vindicative Yahweh... which totally corresponds to the two conflicting visions of God found in the OT.
On the subject of Asherah (a famous goddess of the Levant), it seems by simply reading the Bible that indeed she was worshipped alongside Yahweh by ancient Israelites. Francesca mentions a little clay figurine of a goddess, from the 8th century BC, found in the remnants of a house in Israel. Viewers who commented on the BBC page thought this was very little and that it could have been the worship of just a few Israelites. But you just have to read 2 Kings 23 to realize that Asherah was worshipped in the temple of Yahweh, it was part of the official cult, not just some idolatrous worship made by a few people. In this passage, king Josiah purges the temple from the worship of Baal and Asherah:
"The king ordered (...) to remove from the temple of the LORD all the articles made for Baal and Asherah and all the starry hosts. He burned them outside Jerusalem." (2 Kings 23, 4)
"He took the Asherah pole from the temple of the LORD to the Kidron Valley outside Jerusalem and burned it there." (2 Kings 23, 6)
"He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes that were in the temple of the LORD, the quarters where women did weaving for Asherah" (2 Kings 23, 7)
This is from the New International Version 2011. The King James Version has the word "grove" instead of Asherah. As I have no knowledge of hebrew, I can't comment on the choice of translation. However, even with the word "grove", it seems clear to me that this is a symbol for something. A grove inside the Temple wouldn't be there just to look nice I guess. Since Josiah is purging the temple from idols of Baal, and the starry hosts, it is not very far-fetched to link this grove to a stylized representation of Asherah - or any other goddess. A goddess indeed since we are told about women weaving for her. And a goddess worshipped alongside Yahweh in his temple would logically be his consort.
The only thing with which I don't agree in this episode, is the conclusion made by Francesca, that the disappearance of the cult of Asherah is what provoked the development of misogyny because "monotheism disempowered women". First, I think it is a cliché to blame monotheism for misogyny, only because God is male. Secondly, my opinion is that if a religion indeed possesses some misogynistic elements, it is ALWAYS the reflection of the society and culture in which the religion was born and developed, and not the contrary. It is in no way because the religion states there's only one God and he's male that the society would turn anti-women. Thirdly, it seems that after the disappearance of Asherah, some syncretism happened again and that Yahweh was given some feminine attributes (but I've not looked further into the matter).
Episode 3 deals with the garden of Eden and what it could really have been.
I thought this episode was the most original and challenging, because I must say I had never come across the theory that Eden was actually the temple of Jerusalem, and that the expelling from it represents the Exile in Babylon and the disgrace of Israel.
I think Francesca's theory is really interesting, although I'm not entirely convinced by it. I had already read a theory (unfortunately I don't remember where and by whom it was made) stating the story of the fall of Adam and Eve had been written during the Exile, because Israelites had to find an explanation to why their God had abandoned them, had let their nation be conquered, their temple be destroyed and let them be taken into captivity in a foreign land. I think this makes absolute sense.
But it's important not to forget that the various accounts of how bad were some kings, how their idolatry displeased God, are also there to explain the fall of both the kingdoms of Israel and Juda. Therefore, the story of the expelling from Eden may also serve another purpose that just justifying the end of the kingdoms.
The documentary hypothesis supposes Genesis is the combination of at least 2 different stories, sources. I think a part of the story of the expelling may refer to the destruction of the temple and the Exile, BUT that another part is derived from an old cosmogony trying to explain how the Earth, life and man appeared. This cosmogony could have derived from very old oral tradition, and could have been influenced by surrounding Levant and Mesopotamian cosmogonies. The Assyriologist Jean Bottero mentions it in his book "The Birth of God". The Hebrew professor Alan Millard even boldly suggested an almost primitive memory of a time when men lived as hunters gatherers.
It is clear to me that there is more to this story than just the original sin explaining Israel and Juda's fall. The story visibly aims at showing the specificity of man, the difference between man and other animals. It is said Adam and Eve lived in nature, naked, peacefully, until they were tempted by knowledge: they ate the fruit of knowledge because they wanted to be as God. But by doing so, they acquired the knowledge of good and evil.
And indeed, this is the very thing man has not in common with the rest of the animal kingdom: the notions of good and evil. It is also true that man has always wanted more and always wanted to be close to the gods, another specificity. After they ate the fruit, they realized they were naked and covered themselves: this aims at explaining the appearance of taboos, which too do not exist among the animal kingdom. When God punishes them by condemning them to hard work, illness, and death, this accounts for more than the fall of the kingdoms. This is a way to explain the harshness of life.
I agree with Francesca: the original sin in iself seems more like a justification for Israel and Juda's fall, but an indirect one though (the direct one would be the mention of the idolatrous kings preceding the Exile). Yet I think this could have been added to/reworked from an older text, already mentioning the origin of man. Or, if there's no trace there of an older cosmogony and if all was invented during the Exile, it seems obvious to me that the author did MORE than just justifying the end of his kingdom, he tried to give an explanation to philosophical questions about the first man, the specificity of man, the origin of evil... and he came up with a very interesting insight.
So I think Francesca's theory has some truth in it, but is taking one side of the matter for the whole.
However, I think she may be perfectly right when she says the negative representation of the snake in the Fall story aimed at undermining the serpent cults, common around the Mesopotamian region.
Another little thing I have to say about this last episode, is the fact that Francesca is wrong when she mentions (several times) that monotheisms consider man inherently flawed. According to monotheisms, man was made by God and therefore cannot be inherently bad. The sin came after the creation and from his own fault, because of his free choice to eat the fruit. So it would be more correct to say that monotheisms consider that men have a tendency to sin, or to act badly (which is quite true if you look at the history of mankind).
To conclude, even if I didn't agree on everything, I really enjoyed those 3 episodes, which were interesting, challenging, varied, and which possess a modern and enjoyable directing. I think this is pretty good TV! :)
I think people should realize that proposing an argumented critical study of the texts, leading sometimes to the undermining of their traditional understanding, is in no way attacking faith or monotheism. Saying that the God described in the OT is mainly a syncretism between several gods cannot change the fact that one day judaism began imagining God as a non-anthropomorphic spiritual being very different from all the previous pagan gods. True, it can be argued (and I would do so) that this particular conception of God came partly from the contact with Persian zoroastrianism during the Exile (6th century BC). But it doesn't mean judaism couldn't have been "divinely inspired" at some point, and the The Bible's Buried Secrets is certainly not trying to prove the contrary (as anyway only poor quality work would try to bluntly promote atheism or that a religion is "false"). However on this point Francesca is not helping since she states that her findings can "rock the foundation of modern monotheism", which is gratuitous provocation.
This being said, I'd like to quickly come back on each of the 3 episodes of the programme.
Episode 1 deals with the historicity of David's kingdom, as well as of himself.
The main fact here is that no archeological evidence can back up the existence of such a kingdom, as it is described in the OT. Francesca interviews archeologist Israel Finkelstein, who, back in 2001, argued in his book The Bible Unearthed that 10th century BC Israel was more an assembly of villages than a kingdom. Since 2001 this has been debated, but the claim is based on serious facts. Nothing new there then for anyone who has tried for the last decade to follow the confrontation of the OT to history.
Then, on the historicity of David, Francesca is among those alleging he never existed. To be fair, she debates the point with ancient history professor Baruch Halpern. In the end she doesn't change her mind but doesn't insist since it's just her opinion. Personally, like Halpern, I think that someone inventing a legendary and glorious founding father in order to create a magnificent past for the nation, would definitely not attribute to this character negative traits such as David's. These traits are also quite embarassing because in complete opposition with God's law (David indeed commits adultery with the wife of one of his best soldiers, and then gives the order to let him be killed on the battlefield in order to hide it). The author of the text writes in 2 Samuel 11, 27 (English Standard Version): "but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord". I think this is a very strange account to attribute a fictional mighty King, and psychologically speaking I'm not sure it'd make much sense for an author to invent such a flawed founding father. I'd rather think the biblical David, though mythified on some points, holds the memory of - maybe not a king - but an important chief, perhaps one who first assembled the villages of Israel into a semblance of realm. The later tradition would have then traced back to him the birth of the country.
Episode 2 deals with the origins of the god of the OT as well as the possible worship of a goddess seen by ancient Israelites as his wife.
As I mentioned above, Francesca has no time in just one hour to expose all the indications leading to the solid theory the god described in the OT is the result of a syncretism. More precisely, that the ancient Israelites first worshipped El, the Father God of the Ugaritic Pantheon (they indeed share common attributes). What Francesca doesn't mention in the episode, is the hypothesis that Yahweh is at first a storm god/war god from around the region of Madian, and that the main syncretism would then have been between the benevolent El and the vindicative Yahweh... which totally corresponds to the two conflicting visions of God found in the OT.
On the subject of Asherah (a famous goddess of the Levant), it seems by simply reading the Bible that indeed she was worshipped alongside Yahweh by ancient Israelites. Francesca mentions a little clay figurine of a goddess, from the 8th century BC, found in the remnants of a house in Israel. Viewers who commented on the BBC page thought this was very little and that it could have been the worship of just a few Israelites. But you just have to read 2 Kings 23 to realize that Asherah was worshipped in the temple of Yahweh, it was part of the official cult, not just some idolatrous worship made by a few people. In this passage, king Josiah purges the temple from the worship of Baal and Asherah:
"The king ordered (...) to remove from the temple of the LORD all the articles made for Baal and Asherah and all the starry hosts. He burned them outside Jerusalem." (2 Kings 23, 4)
"He took the Asherah pole from the temple of the LORD to the Kidron Valley outside Jerusalem and burned it there." (2 Kings 23, 6)
"He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes that were in the temple of the LORD, the quarters where women did weaving for Asherah" (2 Kings 23, 7)
This is from the New International Version 2011. The King James Version has the word "grove" instead of Asherah. As I have no knowledge of hebrew, I can't comment on the choice of translation. However, even with the word "grove", it seems clear to me that this is a symbol for something. A grove inside the Temple wouldn't be there just to look nice I guess. Since Josiah is purging the temple from idols of Baal, and the starry hosts, it is not very far-fetched to link this grove to a stylized representation of Asherah - or any other goddess. A goddess indeed since we are told about women weaving for her. And a goddess worshipped alongside Yahweh in his temple would logically be his consort.
The only thing with which I don't agree in this episode, is the conclusion made by Francesca, that the disappearance of the cult of Asherah is what provoked the development of misogyny because "monotheism disempowered women". First, I think it is a cliché to blame monotheism for misogyny, only because God is male. Secondly, my opinion is that if a religion indeed possesses some misogynistic elements, it is ALWAYS the reflection of the society and culture in which the religion was born and developed, and not the contrary. It is in no way because the religion states there's only one God and he's male that the society would turn anti-women. Thirdly, it seems that after the disappearance of Asherah, some syncretism happened again and that Yahweh was given some feminine attributes (but I've not looked further into the matter).
Episode 3 deals with the garden of Eden and what it could really have been.
I thought this episode was the most original and challenging, because I must say I had never come across the theory that Eden was actually the temple of Jerusalem, and that the expelling from it represents the Exile in Babylon and the disgrace of Israel.
I think Francesca's theory is really interesting, although I'm not entirely convinced by it. I had already read a theory (unfortunately I don't remember where and by whom it was made) stating the story of the fall of Adam and Eve had been written during the Exile, because Israelites had to find an explanation to why their God had abandoned them, had let their nation be conquered, their temple be destroyed and let them be taken into captivity in a foreign land. I think this makes absolute sense.
But it's important not to forget that the various accounts of how bad were some kings, how their idolatry displeased God, are also there to explain the fall of both the kingdoms of Israel and Juda. Therefore, the story of the expelling from Eden may also serve another purpose that just justifying the end of the kingdoms.
The documentary hypothesis supposes Genesis is the combination of at least 2 different stories, sources. I think a part of the story of the expelling may refer to the destruction of the temple and the Exile, BUT that another part is derived from an old cosmogony trying to explain how the Earth, life and man appeared. This cosmogony could have derived from very old oral tradition, and could have been influenced by surrounding Levant and Mesopotamian cosmogonies. The Assyriologist Jean Bottero mentions it in his book "The Birth of God". The Hebrew professor Alan Millard even boldly suggested an almost primitive memory of a time when men lived as hunters gatherers.
It is clear to me that there is more to this story than just the original sin explaining Israel and Juda's fall. The story visibly aims at showing the specificity of man, the difference between man and other animals. It is said Adam and Eve lived in nature, naked, peacefully, until they were tempted by knowledge: they ate the fruit of knowledge because they wanted to be as God. But by doing so, they acquired the knowledge of good and evil.
And indeed, this is the very thing man has not in common with the rest of the animal kingdom: the notions of good and evil. It is also true that man has always wanted more and always wanted to be close to the gods, another specificity. After they ate the fruit, they realized they were naked and covered themselves: this aims at explaining the appearance of taboos, which too do not exist among the animal kingdom. When God punishes them by condemning them to hard work, illness, and death, this accounts for more than the fall of the kingdoms. This is a way to explain the harshness of life.
I agree with Francesca: the original sin in iself seems more like a justification for Israel and Juda's fall, but an indirect one though (the direct one would be the mention of the idolatrous kings preceding the Exile). Yet I think this could have been added to/reworked from an older text, already mentioning the origin of man. Or, if there's no trace there of an older cosmogony and if all was invented during the Exile, it seems obvious to me that the author did MORE than just justifying the end of his kingdom, he tried to give an explanation to philosophical questions about the first man, the specificity of man, the origin of evil... and he came up with a very interesting insight.
So I think Francesca's theory has some truth in it, but is taking one side of the matter for the whole.
However, I think she may be perfectly right when she says the negative representation of the snake in the Fall story aimed at undermining the serpent cults, common around the Mesopotamian region.
Another little thing I have to say about this last episode, is the fact that Francesca is wrong when she mentions (several times) that monotheisms consider man inherently flawed. According to monotheisms, man was made by God and therefore cannot be inherently bad. The sin came after the creation and from his own fault, because of his free choice to eat the fruit. So it would be more correct to say that monotheisms consider that men have a tendency to sin, or to act badly (which is quite true if you look at the history of mankind).
To conclude, even if I didn't agree on everything, I really enjoyed those 3 episodes, which were interesting, challenging, varied, and which possess a modern and enjoyable directing. I think this is pretty good TV! :)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire