With my fastination in bibilical and historical fiction (and of course all of Card's storytelling), I really enjoyed reading the Women of Genesis series. But I also recently caught the TV series on PBS called "Walk the Bible", which is based on Bruce Feiller's book of the same title. In a nutshell, it is a record of his journey by land through the Five Books of Moses.
One amusing moment in the TV show was his travel to the see the Burning Bush, which is supposedly located at St. Katherine's monastery, in Sinai. In his TV show, he mentions that the Burning Bush was actually moved, and then as the camera pans by the new location you can actually see a fire extinguisher on the ground right next to the burning bush...
If you get a chance, try to watch it, it is beautifuly captured and fasinating to see him try to locate and visit the actual sites of the bible.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of the authenticity of "traditional" sites, I remember reading Michener's "The Source" when I was in college. His novels are thoroughly researched, so when he showed Constantine's mother (Constantine the Roman Emperor, not Constantine the American Idol contestant) going around the Holy Land arbitrarily deciding by her "feelings" where famous sites were located, I figured that he knew what he was talking about.
Turns out, however, that his version was far from the truth. In fact, she was very careful to ask the Christians who actually lived in these areas. The location of the Garden Tomb, for instance, is almost certainly correct - its location had never been forgotten, even when it was buried in rubble after the destruction of the temple and of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans. So when it was excavated, it was restored to its rightful place.
This is not an uncommon thing. Of course the location of things like the burning bush is bound to be bogus (there's reason to believe they have the wrong mountain!), just like most or all of the relics that were so important to medieval Christianity. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of biblical "experts" make pronouncements about where (or whether!) figures from the Bible actually lived, what they really did, etc. When those things are said, it's always good to remember that most of the time, the ONLY source of information in the world about these people is the Bible itself - everything else is just rumor or speculation.
So it happens - often, really - that biblical stories and events that the "experts" have declared were later fabrications have turned out, in the archaeological record, to be absolutely dead on correct. The Bible has a track record of holding up very well to close scrutiny.
Though I'm betting against the fire extinguisher.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We Jews had our oral tradition for about 1800 before it was written down for fear that the Romans would kill the entire generation.
Recently, we saw communities saved from the big tsunami becuase of their oral traditions. There is no reason to think that the location of historic Christian sites is different.
However, the problem is that there is some history of relics, etc. that casts huge doubt on the reliability of the church itself.
The bible makes a point of the ambiguity of places like Eden, Sinai and Navo. Hebron and Jerusalem are specified. We are supposed to know where the latter are, and not the former.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
