Posted on 01/15/2015 2:01:39 PM PST by SunkenCiv
My main complaint would be found in the treatment of Ipuwer's Lament - Having read it previously, I felt it was glossed and gussied up to provide an evidence that IMHO is barely there (as it has before)... Were it not for the 'river turning to blood' reference, I doubt anyone would readily tie this work to the Exodus... Not that it couldn't be exactly that, but it is a rather generic lament which could fit many different events. Can I 'read in' the plagues and exodus followed by the invasion of the Hyksos? I guess so... But mostly because that is what I want it to say... And in this, I found the dissenting view was made to look strident and self-serving, when really it was the more objective view. JMO.
I also wish I had not stayed for the commentary after the show - It felt rather plastic and strained... pimping amazement that wasn't really there. This is hardly a new argument, and the panel kinda made much ado about nothing.
That all being said, I am glad to see the expanded archaeological results coming out of Goshen. And I am made curious about the pyramid tomb - I will investigate that, which will be a pleasant aside... A pretty good show as documentaries go. Would I spend the twenty bucks again? No.
The pyramid tomb was definitely interesting.
I’d like to know how they calculate the length of the “dark years” in Egyptian history, but they didn’t discuss that. Also, what have they seen in the study of other cultures in that area that don’t seem to line up with the Egyptian timeline?
I watched the program at a local theatre. Just one thought re: Finkelstein. He belongs to a rather sizeable group of archaeologists who are, frankly, sick and tired that the discipline of archaeology in the Levant has been in service to Biblical fundamentalists. He wants his discipline to be respected by all other scientists. His attitude was not so much arrogance as frustration that he was speaking to yet another person who wants syro-palestinian archaeology to be “biblical” archaeology. In my opinion the writer/ producer of the program made a mistake by including Finkelstein in the first place.
My main complaint was the long lead-in, as I’ve been familiar with everything in this controv since, well, for 40 years now (that’s the surprise for today). It took forever to get started, and I got impatient. I didn’t expect the level of detail found in Velikovsky, or even in Rohl (like Peter James et al, authors of “Centuries of Darkness”, David Rohl came out of the failed Glasgow Chronology, which was dreamed up as a replacement for V’s reconstruction, in part because he was a Jew), and the intended audience would have gotten more out of that timeline virtual wall thing.
Thanks for the link. Interesting background.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.