The Bible's Buried Secrets - only reveals the BBC's anti-Christian and anti-Israeli bias

I watched the The Bible's Buried Secrets on BBC 2 last Tuesday evening. It is a new series, presented by Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou, which claims to debunk commonly held Biblical assumptions - through the application of very dated Biblical scholarship. In fact, Stavrakopoulou - à la Richard Dawkins - seems to think that presenting people with dumbed-down versions of 18th century Biblical scholarship will somehow shock or, as she says, prove to be "uncomfortable" for the modern viewer. Unfortunately, though, the only shocking things about The Bible's Buried Secrets were the presenter's vapidity and the programme's very anti-Jewish and anti-Christian bias. What was not so shocking, though, was that the BBC had commissioned this diatribe against the state of Israel - the Beeb seems obsessed with vilifying the Middle East's only democracy.

Needless to say, Stavrakopoulou was under the impression that most British viewers had an in depth understanding of the Books of Kings and the Books of Samuel. Either that, or she was knowingly relying on the fact that the vast majority of her audience had never picked up a copy of the Bible in their lives. It's much easier to dupe the unsuspecting and unknowing, especially if they probably assume - as do so many modern Britons - that all Christians and Jews blindly accept Scripture as some sort of infallible historical or scientific document. The atheist Francesca Stavrakopoulou definitely seemed to have this prejudiced view of Christians and Jews. She also appeared to have an unwavering admiration for Muslims. Some might wonder whether this had anything to do with the fact that Stavrakopoulou lectures at the University of Exeter, which is now known for its pro-Islamic links, for its European Centre for Palestinian Studies, Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies (funded by the Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal) and European Muslim Research Centre (funded by the Muslim Brotherhood)!

The premise of last Tuesday's The Bible's Buried Secrets was that King David probably didn't exist. If this was the case, argued Stavrakopoulou, then the modern state of Israel could be severely undermined! She suggested that the founding fathers of Israel used the story of King David merely to justify their re-settlement of Palestine, and therefore any archaeological evidence for the existence of David which had been discovered by Jewish archaeologists was questionable. At one point she even said that Jewish or Christian archaeologists dig "with a trowel in one hand and a Bible in the other"! Stavrakopoulou never for a moment thought that Muslim or atheist scholars might have ulterior motives or agendas - apparently, in BBC-land, these two groups are above any suspicion!

Francesca, who seemed more like an undergraduate coming across the works of Graf and Wellhousen for the first time than a serious academic, massively overstated the role of King David in the Biblical narratives. She kept referring to the "Davidic Empire", which according to her imagination resembled some sort of post-industrial mass-urbanised civilisation. But the society of King David's time that we find in the Hebrew Bible doesn't conform to this stereo-type of "empire" at all. Neither do the Biblical authors, or the sources they relied on, paint the united kingdom under David as some form of imperialist state - it was only the size of Wales for goodness' sake! In fact, my reading of the Books of Samuel point to an early Iron Age kingdom ruled over by tribal interests, containing a religiously motivated and mainly agrarian people who only wanted to have a king "to be like other nations". Dr Stavrakopoulou, though, reads the Biblical texts in such a way that she expects 10th century BCE Israel and Judah to somehow reflect the expansionist and city-state type empires of later civilizations - such as the Babylonians or Romans. The fact that she couldn't find the remains of many large or industrialised cities from 10th century Kingdom of Judah is not surprising - but for Francesca, this pointed to the non-eistence of King David and the utter unreliability of findings by Jewish or Christian archaeologists!

She also seemed highly dismissive of any archaeological evidence that pointed to the existence of King David from later periods, such as the 9th century BCE. Needless to say, Stavrakopoulou forgot to mention that there still remains a certain amount of confusion over Biblical dates, or that some scholars argue that some findings from the 10th and 9th centuries BCE could have co-existed. It is also important to point out that there only remains a day between one century and the next in some instances - for example, I am a person of both the 20th and 21st centuries, not one or the other. When we're dating remains and finds from the late Bronze and early Iron Ages, which - in places like Jerusalem - have been contaminated by other periods, then it is sometimes wise to err on the side of caution. We cannot be too specific in our dating, and more often than not one century cannot be divided from another along clearly defined lines.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou, in the manner of an 1890's source critic, was keen to assert that the Bible should not be treated as a text of any historical value - unless, of course, its historicity can be attested to by archaeology or independent historical documents from the same era. Of course, people of faith accept that Biblical writers weren't historians in the modern sense. It's well-known that they often wrote in order to highlight the theological implications found within their own oral or written historical sources. This doesn't mean, though, that the whole of Scripture is historically tainted or unreliable. In fact, most of the Hebrew Scriptures deal with the history of particular human societies that produced no other corroborating historical texts. Often, passages from the Bible are the only documents that cover the history of certain people from certain periods. Historical sources for the Roman caesars remain dubious enough, but they're sometimes the only pieces of evidence we have - and as useful as archaeology can be, it, too, has its severe limitations and is open to widely different interpretations. Stavrakopoulou, though, seemed to idolise archaeology, even placing it within that infallible modern category - "science".

Dr Stavrakopoulou also seemed to gloss over the fact that many aspects of the Bible's own narratives corroborate its reliability as a collection of various ancient historical sources. Scripture - in its various historical narratives - often contradicts itself, and the authors or editorial teams (for there were probably many working on various books at various times) that produced certain Biblical texts were more than willing to include conflicting documents or oral traditions next to each other (eg. someone called Elhanan, not David, is credited with the slaying of Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19). In other words, the Bible contains several historical sources, along with their individual interpretations. The Bible, therefore, is not just one historical source - but, often, contains several different traditions. In that sense, it can often corroborate itself with as much validity as if that corroboration had been gained by another, more independent, source.

The Bible also contains lots of information which many would argue runs against its own editorial intent. Biblical authors did not write simplistic stories about goodies and baddies. Often, men like King David were depicted "warts and all". Facts about Solomon's tyrannical rule or David's murder of Uriah the Hittite (after impregnating the poor man's wife) seem to suggest that Biblical authors or editors were not afraid to depict the weaknesses even of their most heroic leaders. Stavrakopoulou, in her attempt to imply that the Bible depicts David as a brilliant Emperor who could do no wrong, failed to mention what the Bible actually says about him. Dr Stavrakopoulou, therefore seemed to be the one building straw men - not the Bible!

In fact, Stavrakopoulou also reinterpreted Scripture for her own ends by claiming that the Biblical authors described the Philistines (whom the Graeco-Romans called Palestines, or Palestinians) as "barbarians" - even though they did nothing of the sort. The First Book of Samuel describes them as technologically superior to the Israelites. They were a people to be feared and envied (eg. for their political systems which the Israelites wished to copy), even if the Biblical authors later questioned the theological validity of Philistine polytheism. In fact, throughout the various power struggles between David and King Saul - during which even the Bible itself isn't sure which one of them was the legitimate king - the former ends up fighting as a mercenary for the highly regarded Philistines! The modern pejorative word "philistine" actually dates from 1689, when a German Lutheran minister chastised his townspeople, calling them Philistines (i.e. "enemies") after they had formed an angry mob and murdered a student.

Although Francesca Stavrakopoulou was correct to point out the dangers of allowing one's research to be dominated by politics (theologically inspired, or not), she seemed unable to accept that others bar Jews and Christians can be motivated by self-interest. Even whilst narrating her documentary, Dr Stavrakopoulou herself seemed to be displaying an enormous amount of bias - especially towards the plight of the Palestinian people, whom she described as "Muslim" (totally ignoring the Christian Palestinians who have lived in the Holy Land for 2,000 years!). One aspect of Stavrakopoulou's lack of objectivity was displayed when she listed the various settlers that have lived in Jerusalem since the time of King David. According to what seemed to be her chronology, Christians settled after Arabs (which seemed to imply that Christians invaded Muslims). Of course, what she didn't say was that Arab Christians were living in Jerusalem 600 years before Muhammad founded his religion.

The Bible's Buried History smacked of a particular anti-Israeli prejudice which seems all too common amongst a certain type of person - often eager to prove their Islamophilia. At one point it really seemed as if Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou actually believed that Biblical authors wrote the Two Books of Samuel to provide modern Israel with historical legitimacy! It was as if she thought the men who had written these historical books of the Bible were really foreseeing a time when the Jewish people would need to prove that the land of Israel and Judea had once been theirs. Seeing that its generally accepted that these Biblical writers wrote their texts during the Babylonian Exile, maybe Stavrakopoulou has a point - even if she's missed the real political reasons behind some parts of the Hebrew Bible. The authors were possibly trying to legitimise their return to post-Exilic Israel after captivity in Babylon - not the creation of some 20th century state!

Of course, those who watched The Bible's Buried History probably noticed that Francesca Stavrakopoulou overplayed the link between the modern state of Israel and Biblical history. Most, if not all, the founding fathers of Israel were known for their socialist and secularist ideals, not their religious observance. It could be argued that they were not overly concerned with trying to legitimise their new state by appealing to Scripture! It was - and is - given that the ancient Hebrew people, nowadays called the Jews, occupied the ancient land of Israel for many, many centuries before and after King David's time. It was Hadrian who first gave the land of Judea the name Palestine - after killing tens of thousands of Jews in one of the world's first acts of relentless genocide. Therefore, whether or not David ruled over a glorious empire the size of Wales has never been an issue for those who wish to ground modern Israel in ancient Hebraic history.

It would be interesting to see whether the BBC will commission a similar deconstruction of the Koran, which might prove that Muslims use their religious book to legitimise enforced colonisation. One imagines that they wouldn't ask a lecturer from Exeter to host the show, though - especially now that we know the University receives massive funding from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi Royal Family. One also imagines that it would be difficult to get the BBC to agree to such a programme - mainly because there is no such thing as modern textual criticism of the Koran, but also because the BBC's head of religious programming, Aaqil Ahmed, is a practising Muslim.

......................................................................

Update 22/3/11: The Bible's Buried Secrets, episode 2

i) Why didn't Stavrakopoulou invite proper Jewish or Christian scholars to contribute to this programme? With all due respect, the Rabbi she interviewed as her "opposition" wasn't equipped to enter into a proper dialogue (reminds me of the time Richard Dawkins interviewed school children about Creationism, suggesting they were some kind of experts on the subject - talk about easy targets!)

ii) Has she not heard of the Christian Trinitarian concept of God - which explains passages such as "in our own likeness we shall create him", or "God said to my God", and which help explore the deeper and more mystical literature in the Jewish Scriptures?

iii) How is Mary the "Goddess of Heaven"? (Suggested at in one sentence towards the end of the episode).

iv) What's new? All that Stavrakopoulou covered in this evening's programme is openly available in the Bible. None of these things are "secrets", anyone who reads the Bible can read about El and Baal and the complex relationships that existed between these cults and the early monothesistic Hebrew culture. Also, these ideas have been raised and discussed amongst Biblical scholars for centuries - whereas scholars of the Koran still haven't applied modern criticism to their text.

v) Life isn't clear cut, and Jews and Christians know this. Our Scriptures don't try to hide the fact that cultures and societies affect each other - the Canaanites and the Israelites shared ideas, so what?

vi) Does Stavrakopoulou think that we never knew that El and Elohim are used as ancient names for God, one of which at least implies that monotheism is rooted in polytheism (Elohim is plural) - what's so astonishing about that? Does she not know that St Paul told the Greeks that the god they worshipped as the invisible one could be his God... In other words, God - as in the one God - could very easily have revealed himself to ancient polytheistic cultures amongst their deities.

vii) Yet again, no questioning of the Koran or Islam - in fact Stavrakopoulou was seen smiling broadly when it seemed that Muhammad's monotheism was purer that the Judeo-Christian (i.e. earlier) one - from which he got his ideas in the first place. Did she not know that Allah was an ancient pagan god amongst Arabic tribes, who happened to be the greatest (for Muhammad) and was therefore used as the ideal template for the one God?

Oy vey, this woman has some issues! Maybe that's why proper scholars don't appear on her programme?