posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 10:45 AM
Of course, I think the stone film was put out there in order to take the attention off of a lot of evidence that would be taken seriously by a
reasonable person. But hey, maybe I just don't like Oliver S.
I feel compelled to add that I have, on several occasions noted severe factual mistakes on TDC's programming; particularly in the paleontology
programs and the middle-eastern archaeology.
There is one special they air every Christmas about the birth of Jesus--they say that the Historian Josephus never mentions Jesus. As a matter of
fact, a description of Jesus does occur in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews." (Book 18, chapter 3). Mind you, the majority of scholars
think that part of the passage has been embellished, and a minority think the whole passage is spurious.
But obviously, it is untrue to say that "Josephus never mentioned Jesus." Why not tell viewers actual, uhm, facts; then let people decide for
There is also a documentary on Egypt, where they talk about how Egyptian religion influenced the Greeks. Which totally begs the question, since
practically everything we know about Egyptian beliefs come to us via Greek (post-christian) writers. Indeed, the names we use for the Egyptian
Gods are actually the Greek words. Egyptian doesn't seem to have ended nouns with fricatives or hard unvoiced consonants. So Isis is really Esse,
Osiris was Oshiri, Seth was Seti, and Anubis was perhaps something like Anuvi.
The point is, modern scholars are beginning to wonder whether the post-christian Greeks consciously worked to make the Egyptian gods fit into
"prototypes" of Christian principles, in order to show that even the "old religion" proclaimed spiritual truth.
This is a very real possibility, and a number of Egyptologists are persuing this question with gusto; especially since Mohammad seemed to specifically
be concerned that no one connect pre-muslim gods with HIS holy book . . .
now, THAT would make for an interesting panel discussion. But instead, TDC presents a very bland viewpoint, filled with generalizations and little
real info about how Egyptian practice evolved over time (it certainly did, especially as Egyptian culture changed.)
So, why not present the more interesting (if complex) truth, instead of sloppy half-truths? Is TDC incapable of presenting us with quality
information? Maybe their budget is too focused on "dramatic re-enactment" and too little on interviewing top of the line scholars.
That said, I will confess that they did a first-rate job on the debate over Mousterian versus Clovis flint tools in North America. They interviewed
the peope who have generated the most controversy (and genuine research) in that field. A couple of them were professors I worked with in college(!).