Sephiroth
2006-04-23, 23:56
Honestly, I terribly dislike the vast majority of these types of documentaries. They disingenuously claim to be neutral with regard to the substance of the religious content they discuss, but actively seek in almost every instance to put forward radical reinterpretations of religious doctrine, I would argue, for sheer shock value. The most notable example of this is in the "was Jesus married?" idea. I'm not Christian, but I don't think these people have any right to try to disprove Christian beliefs about who Jesus really was, whether he was married, whether Judas was really a traitor, or whether his crucifixion and resurrection could be scientifically explained, nor do they have any real standing to do so.
The reason why this is not a valid vein of scientific research is because these "scholars" (read agenda driven secularists) will pick and choose the scriptures which they wish to touch on. Dealing with any religious scriptures in a scientifically investigative fashion requires the complete acceptance, or rejection, of a priori assumptions with regard to voracity and Divine Inspiration which necessarily give a bias in attempting to subject events depicted within to testing. Because let's face it: parting seas, calling down fire, raising the dead, and flying winged horses (Moses, Elijah, Jesus, and Mohammad respectively) are things that pretty much sap any story of the ability to subject it to scientific testing with regard to historicity right up front. Either you say "the New Testament or Old is just mythic fiction, and its scriptures are inconsistent and don't reflect Divine Inspiration and I'll prove this by discrediting the text," or "The New Testament or Old is God's word, and I can prove this by showing its divine inspiration so that you will have faith in it."
It's a case of theological polemics, not historical research. These people instead posit that, in the case of the NT, Jesus existed, lived and preached what he is said to have preached and when, but then go on to reject the rest of the subject matter by providing cultural or scientific explanation that they believe would make the story better fit the picture of what they think were the facts of the time in which it is set.
Therefore they say things like "well it would have been almost unheard of for a Jewish Rabbi of his age to have been unmarried, therefore, since the Magdalene is the best candidate, he was married to her and had sex, and sinned, and did all those other human things." It's ridiculous. As if the story doesn't describe Jesus as being a unique person to begin with...how can you look at a text purporting to describe the acts of God on Earth, and accept some of its basic premises, gloss over the parts you can't verify or disprove through science (alleged miracles), and focus instead on trying to disprove or suggest alternate views of the relatively mundane!? They say sure, he might have raised the dead, he might have healed the sick, we can't tackle that with science, but abstaining from marriage? IMPOSSIBLE! Such conjecture is ridiculous and has nothing to do with serious historical study.
If the Torah/NT/Qur'an is the Word of God, it's the Word of God and therefore is True. If it's not the word of God, it suffers such a serious blow to credibility that there can be no serious investigation into the particulars of the story. In that case, it'd be like examining the Lord of the Rings and saying "I think Frodo and Sam are secret gay lovers, because social scientists will attest that their behaviour towards eachother comports with larger social patterns exhibited in the early stages of a homosexual romance."
I feel I must also add how I would propose they go about making documentaries like these, because there's obviously a market for them. I feel the only fair way to go about them is to attempt to make the stories of the different texts real to people. Portray a Moses, or Jesus, or Mohammad, who does the things He is described as doing in those respective texts, and then give us the sociological and historical subtext. Give us theories about what the social significance of the words and actions of these people would have had at the time, give us the stuff that we wouldn't be able to get just by reading the texts without fancy degrees. Don't bother trying to disprove miracles and make insinuations in an attempt to make the religious figures conform to cultural and historical norms: that's just useless speculation and turns everyone off.
Show them as they are portrayed, just fill in the backdrop of history, and let US decide what we think of them: make our own conclusions. Most everyone is smart enough to make some of the ham-handed proposals put forth for scientific explanations of miracles and to come up with our own insinuations about how "history" might have deviated from the text if it isn't the Word of God. Their inclusion is just a pathetic and condescending attempt on the part of secularists to relate to people they don't understand, all the while engaging in self-indulgent intellectual masturbation by generating these alternate theories.
[This message has been edited by Sephiroth (edited 04-24-2006).]
The reason why this is not a valid vein of scientific research is because these "scholars" (read agenda driven secularists) will pick and choose the scriptures which they wish to touch on. Dealing with any religious scriptures in a scientifically investigative fashion requires the complete acceptance, or rejection, of a priori assumptions with regard to voracity and Divine Inspiration which necessarily give a bias in attempting to subject events depicted within to testing. Because let's face it: parting seas, calling down fire, raising the dead, and flying winged horses (Moses, Elijah, Jesus, and Mohammad respectively) are things that pretty much sap any story of the ability to subject it to scientific testing with regard to historicity right up front. Either you say "the New Testament or Old is just mythic fiction, and its scriptures are inconsistent and don't reflect Divine Inspiration and I'll prove this by discrediting the text," or "The New Testament or Old is God's word, and I can prove this by showing its divine inspiration so that you will have faith in it."
It's a case of theological polemics, not historical research. These people instead posit that, in the case of the NT, Jesus existed, lived and preached what he is said to have preached and when, but then go on to reject the rest of the subject matter by providing cultural or scientific explanation that they believe would make the story better fit the picture of what they think were the facts of the time in which it is set.
Therefore they say things like "well it would have been almost unheard of for a Jewish Rabbi of his age to have been unmarried, therefore, since the Magdalene is the best candidate, he was married to her and had sex, and sinned, and did all those other human things." It's ridiculous. As if the story doesn't describe Jesus as being a unique person to begin with...how can you look at a text purporting to describe the acts of God on Earth, and accept some of its basic premises, gloss over the parts you can't verify or disprove through science (alleged miracles), and focus instead on trying to disprove or suggest alternate views of the relatively mundane!? They say sure, he might have raised the dead, he might have healed the sick, we can't tackle that with science, but abstaining from marriage? IMPOSSIBLE! Such conjecture is ridiculous and has nothing to do with serious historical study.
If the Torah/NT/Qur'an is the Word of God, it's the Word of God and therefore is True. If it's not the word of God, it suffers such a serious blow to credibility that there can be no serious investigation into the particulars of the story. In that case, it'd be like examining the Lord of the Rings and saying "I think Frodo and Sam are secret gay lovers, because social scientists will attest that their behaviour towards eachother comports with larger social patterns exhibited in the early stages of a homosexual romance."
I feel I must also add how I would propose they go about making documentaries like these, because there's obviously a market for them. I feel the only fair way to go about them is to attempt to make the stories of the different texts real to people. Portray a Moses, or Jesus, or Mohammad, who does the things He is described as doing in those respective texts, and then give us the sociological and historical subtext. Give us theories about what the social significance of the words and actions of these people would have had at the time, give us the stuff that we wouldn't be able to get just by reading the texts without fancy degrees. Don't bother trying to disprove miracles and make insinuations in an attempt to make the religious figures conform to cultural and historical norms: that's just useless speculation and turns everyone off.
Show them as they are portrayed, just fill in the backdrop of history, and let US decide what we think of them: make our own conclusions. Most everyone is smart enough to make some of the ham-handed proposals put forth for scientific explanations of miracles and to come up with our own insinuations about how "history" might have deviated from the text if it isn't the Word of God. Their inclusion is just a pathetic and condescending attempt on the part of secularists to relate to people they don't understand, all the while engaging in self-indulgent intellectual masturbation by generating these alternate theories.
[This message has been edited by Sephiroth (edited 04-24-2006).]