I have now worked my way through Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou's "The Bible's Buried Secrets" and I f---ing LOVE it.
I think the great thing about it is that, while she is often stating outright what popular scholars will more often cover with more guarded language, she doesn't end up saying anything terribly controversial. During the second episode there was one point where I thought she'd skipped a step in her argument.... because she had. Intentionally. By the end of the episode she'd filled in the blanks and the argument was pretty solid.
She has clear and careful arguments which are rooted in the historical evidence and she's always careful to remind us that history and archeology is an ever shifting discipline which has to cater to new evidence constantly. She makes clear where she has strong backing in his discipline and where she is going out on a limb.
And to think there are people on the blogosphere comparing her to blooming Dan Brown. (This guy's a symbologist <A what?> and he's discovering patterns in symbols and numbers. <Based on historical evidence?> -No, based on patterns in symbols and numbers. I just said. <Well that's stupid isn't it?> - No, it's brilliant. Look he's discovered that Jesus was politically important <bollocks> and that he had a wife <based on bollocks> and that the female protagonist is Jesus' direct heir <which after two thousand years means precisely bollocks>. -Well it's an exciting enough story, right? <No, the writing's bollocks too.>)
The choice of topics has been pretty cool too. Did King David really exist as the powerful king he is described as in the Bible? What function might tales about King David have served? Were the Israelites always monotheists? When might they have shifted to monotheism and why? But perhaps the real kicker (and the thing that I suppose has earnt her the Dan Brown comparison) is whether God had a wife. Her issues with the influence of patriarchy on ancient stories carry on with her criticisim of the way Eve is presented in the Garden of Eden story. Along with that she asks: What elements are read into the Garden of Eden story today that are not even in the text? Was there a real Garden of Eden? Did the story have political relevance?
Also interesting is the number of people responding not with "BLASPHEMY!" but rather with "well yeah... of course". People being shocked by the claim that King David never existed, that Yahweh had a wife and that the Garden of Eden was originally a temple would be unsurprising. To hear them saying that this is all obvious is a bit of a shock.
Now going round the internet there is no shortage of people trying to poke holes in Dr.Stavrakopoulou's arguments. There are claims that she doesn't show alternative viewpoints. (Not only does each show feature at least one viewpoint from each of the Abrahmaic religions, but she often disagrees with scholars in religion and/or archeology too.) There are claims that her accounts are too superficial. (A dodgy argument when we are dealing with a TV programme for a typical layman audience with only a single hour on each of the three big topics.) There are claims that she is putting forth the arguments as her own innovations. (She also speaks to scholars/archeologists who agree with her arguments and are working on the vital evidence. The title of her programme "The Bible's Buried Secrets" means that the evidence for her claims is found in archeology i.e. "buried", not that she's uncovering some kind of conspiracy.) So yeah, some people are wrong on the internet. Big surprise.
Francesca Stavrakopoulou's Three Claims
Claim One: King David was a myth.
(Youtube link for part one of episode one)
The idea that modern Israel is now an archaeological battleground was well known to me before watching the programme. Israelis are in possession of the land and, as well-meaning as many of the individual archeologists may be, there is a definite bias involved in the expectations placed upon them. The digs are being funded in order to confirm Jewish history, not to study a variety of theories about the wide-ranging history of the region.
Naturally future discoveries are possible and Stavrakopoulou, like a good historian, approaches the discussions with scepticism. If there's little sign of anything other than nomadic tribes during that point in history, taking for granted the existence of a united kingdom with great cities seems like a big mistake. What's more, when Judah appears to actually have had cities during that time, the lack of them in the same period in ancient Israel is all the more puzzling when taking the Bible stories as true.
The thing that comes to mind for me at this stage is the King Arthur legends. King Arthur stories are often depicted as involving stone castles with drawbridges and knights in metal armour on horseback. Yet these stories are also supposedly meant to pre-date early English kings like King Alfred. So what happened? Well, the old stories were brought up to date for a later audience. What's more, King Alfred did not rule the whole of England, yet King Arthur is titled as "King of all England". While what is meant by "all England" may depend on the views of the time, what with these being political boundaries and not clear-cut geographical ones, the likelihood is that story points more to the ideal of a united country than to a real king who ruled over the whole of England. Myths can involve looking back to an earlier time, so setting a recent story (or even an entirely fabricated story) back at the beginning of (or at least very early) history can give it a more profound meaning.
This is where Stavrakopoulou's theory on David comes in and this really impressed me. King David's rule is described in history as a united kingdom. However, Stavrakopoulou explains that the evidence points to Judah actually having the stronger power-base during this period. King David's power is being exaggerated to emphasise the needs of the time. It is the ideal of a united country.
Now Stavrakopoulou is disinclined to imagine that King David actually existed at all. She notes that the only real evidence of his existence lies in a single mention of his name on a written artefact which wasn't even from his period of history. She allows another scholar to discuss his theories on whether King David exists. This other scholar doubts the David of the David and Goliath story, but insists that David the King was real. He reasons that the Bible points out flaws in King David and then argues against David's opponents. However, King Arthur too is not portrayed as entirely perfect. He makes mistakes and the question is raised as to whether we can justify those mistakes in the light of his rule as a whole.
Another mythical figure who is quite clearly flawed is Theseus. He promises his mother he won't leave and then he leaves. He promises her he will take the longer safer road and then doesn't. He promises his lover in Crete that he will take her home with him and then leaves her. Finally he fails to follow the request of his father, perhaps the most important promise he has ever made, and raises the wrong flag on his return. Theseus is a figure constantly caught up in his own heroic status whether it's leaving home to find his kingly father or taking the shorter route to the kingdom to fight monsters and bandits. However, part of that character is that he has little interest in his obligations to others. He has a sense of heroism and glory, yet no sense of responsibility. Mythical figures who make mistakes are not proven historical by their flaws and, being often treated as genuine heroes despite those flaws, defences of their flaws inevitably arise too. Many may be familiar with the animated movie "Sita Sings The Blues". It highlights an often unmentioned flaw of Lord Rama in relation to his wife Sita. Naturally there are apologetics regarding this issue. (There is actually a neat little article about the issues from a contributor on FreeRatio.org called Hinduwoman. She is a Carvaka Hindu - the nearest thing to the western materialist atheism within Hinduism. Sadly the article appears to be unavailable anymore.)
That King David was a myth is not the really interesting bit. The things that are really interesting are why the King David story holds such prominence in the Bible and the ways the figure of King David is being used politically to this day.
Claim Two: God had a wife
(Youtube link for part one of episode two)
A rather neat video highlighting the changes from polytheism to monotheism can be found here.
Now, what Stavrakopoulou wants to bring to our attention (and this is where the nature of archeology as a constantly shifting body of work becomes really exciting) is the discovery of a particular piece of pottery that references both Yahweh and Asherah together:
Stavrakopoulou explains, as the video linked above also says, that the Canaanite religion held El as the leader of the gods and his wife was Asherah. Yahweh came to replace El. The Bible even says so.
"I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai, and by my name Yahweh I was not known to them."
Exodus 6:3
Moses is told that earlier Biblical figures would not know the name Yahweh.
Meanwhile Asherah is also mentioned. According to the Book of Kings, Asherah was worshipped in the Temple:
"Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, following the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done." 2 Kings 21: 1-3
Why an Asherah pole? Well, Stavrakopoulou explains, Asherah was often connected with a tree. A "tree of life" in fact (though whether this bears any relation to the tree of life in the Garden of Eden I am not sure). That some depiction of a tree would be involved in her worship seems unsurprising.
So the next question is why were references to Asherah's worship edited out of Bible history? According to Stavrakopoulou the story of Elijah in the Book of King's mocking the worshippers of Baal is intended to assert the strength of Yahweh and the impotence of the other Canaanite gods. As a god of rain, the temptation to worship Baal would be great. Stavrakopoulou believes, because of the dating of the texts and the archeological evidence, that the point where polytheism is shunned by the Israelites comes after the first destruction of the Temple and the exile to Babylon. The destruction of the dwelling-place of Yahweh came as a massive blow to the Israelites, so to deal with this monotheism was essentially an act of revenge. Yahweh had been knocked from the hierarchy of the gods and the only way to put him back in top position seemed to be to destroy that hierarchy entirely. This strict denial of all gods other than Yahweh included shunning Asherah, Yahweh's wife. The efforts to wipe her from the Bible were perhaps particularly strict because of her original closeness to Yahweh. While Baal can easily be placed as a competitor for Yahweh to vanquish, the same cannot be done so easily with Asherah. She had to be simply forgotten.
Now it could be that I am letting my own imagination dramatise this a little too much. I'm not so familiar with the exact archeological facts. Still, two things are clear. Asherah was worshipped by Israelites and was closely linked with Yahweh to the point where they could be depicted side by side. Polytheism was gradually edited out of the Hebrew Bible.
The idea of linking this all with the Babylonian exile makes a lot of sense. All through the Hebrew Bible the Israelites are told that God is angry with them, but it's never clear why he keeps getting so upset with them. The assertion is that they are constantly turning from God and even worshipping other gods, but alongside this appears to be the claim that they worshipped one single God from Abraham onwards. What better explanation for this conflict than that Yahweh's anger is at the level of devotion shown to other gods? Naturally when devotion to other gods is underplayed in later edits of the text, this makes Yahweh's anger a little harder to understand.
Claim Three: The Garden of Eden is the Temple in Jerusalem
(Youtube link for part one of episode three)
Link to blog article on part three of Stavrakopoulou's "Bible's Buried Secrets" programme.
The idea is that the original Temple would have been very different from what we'd expect. It would have flowing water and plants. It would be a garden and it would be presided over by a King. That King would act as a prophet and, according to Stavrakopoulou, could even hold the title of "messiah". The story of such a King is found in the book of Ezekiel. So, to unshamedly nick the reference from the website linked above:
"You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you. [...] Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you." Ezekeil 28:11-15.
I've bolded the word Eden. Eden is still referred to as a garden. What's more, this story in Ezekiel is believed to have been written earlier than the one in Genesis. This is essentially an earlier version of the Garden of Eden story.
So why are there two versions of the story? As I said before, setting a story back at the beginning of history can give it a more profound meaning. The same goes for setting stories at the end of history. The thing is that the Jews had a cyclical view of history. Not necessarily that history works in a loop, but a fatalism that if something has gone wrong in the past it'll probably go wrong in the same way in the future. This idea is actually found in the reboot of Battlestar Galactica. A phrase often repeated is:
“All of this has happened before and all of it will happen again,”
It's very likely that this was an intentional reference by the writers to Biblical ideas, just like the 12 colonies (12 tribes) seeking a promised land.
Obviously the "fruit" wasn't an apple. But also the snake was not the devil. The idea of Satan is found in a number of places in the Bible. Since Satan means "adversary" it is used to refer to the Angel of Yahweh when it blocks the path of Balaam. The idea of people acting "as a Satan" is mentioned a number of times. There is also the actual personification of Satan in the book of Job. Since the New Testament is using an entirely different language (Greek rather than Hebrew) it is rather awkward to work out whether Satan is used in the same way there, but it seems very likely that the idea of Satan as an evil "Prince of Darkness" figure in opposition to God is post-Biblical, originating with the Church Fathers. Those Church Fathers being the same people who first made the link between this Price of Darkness figure and the snake in the Garden of Eden.
Stavrakopoulou once again ties the ideas in the reworked Eden story in Genesis to the Babylonian exile. The seige of the Temple needs to be blamed on old practices, so the snake connected with a healing cult is blamed for the old king's hunger for power. By setting the story in the beginnings of human history this hunger for power is suddenly understood as part of general human nature rather than the folly of a single leader.
Stavrakopoulou VS Widdecombe
Ann Widdecombe is clearly far better at exploring ideological factors than historical ones, so when interviewing Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou about the historicity of Moses and the Ten Commandments she had real difficulty accepting basic historical facts. Stavrakopoulou explained to her that the number of Hebrew slaves believed to have travelled into the desert in the book of Exodus (600,000 free men, making the total including wives and children around 2 million people) would be expected to leave some archeological evidence that is simply not present. Not wishing to be bogged down by anything so petty as historical accuracy, Widdecombe decides to insist that Stavrakopoulou cannot be absolutely certain. Naturally, being a good scholar, Dr. Stavrakopoulou accepted that we couldn't be sure with the proviso that whatever actually happened would have to be very different from what is described in the Bible.
The Daily Fail later quoted Ann Widdecombe as follows: “I would guess that most other theologians will demolish her theory in three seconds flat.” It seems that Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou may have shaken her faith a bit. Aw... bless.
Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou has an article about Abraham here:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-bible-a-history/articles/abrahams-inheritance
I'm putting her book on my Christmas list:
http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Religious-Diversity-Ancient-Israel-Judah-Francesca-Stavrakopoulou/9780567032164
Also, you can find my transcript of her appearance on the radio programme "Museum of Curiosity" here:
http://fatpie42.livejournal.com/128831.html
And I'm really interested to see what she has to say in the future. Awesome stuff....