Francesca S. makes some pretty wild interpretations of the Bible in this short series. The downfall being that in such a short time it's impossible to provide enough background material in order to fully explain and support the claims she makes. She does talk to different people about their views and interpretations and provides some data to substantiate her ideas. I give her major props for throwing out her beliefs being that there are so radical.
30 Reviews
Expansion, not remake, of it's Nova namesake
kols19 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
And, in the episode "Did God Have a Wife?", Ms. Stavrakopoulou puts together three implications from the 2008 Nova program: the link between Canaanite theology and Israelite theology, the implication that Israel was really a subset of Canaanite polity and that the Israelis re-invented themselves during the Babylonian Exile, shedding their Canaanite roots and becoming truly monotheistic only on The Return.
What the Nova program hinted at she makes explicit. Especially in terms of the mechanism that shed Canaanite polytheism's nascent gender equality in favor of Patriarchal male dominance, affecting Judaism, Christianity and Islam not for the better.
On a broader note: the mid-first millennium B.C. seems to be a watershed for such transitions: conservative Rome beginning to overshadow liberal Etruscan culture, the Greeks evolving into elitist patriarchies, Egypt floundering. Fertile ground for a history PhD dissertation.
What the Nova program hinted at she makes explicit. Especially in terms of the mechanism that shed Canaanite polytheism's nascent gender equality in favor of Patriarchal male dominance, affecting Judaism, Christianity and Islam not for the better.
On a broader note: the mid-first millennium B.C. seems to be a watershed for such transitions: conservative Rome beginning to overshadow liberal Etruscan culture, the Greeks evolving into elitist patriarchies, Egypt floundering. Fertile ground for a history PhD dissertation.
A sad day for 'Biblical Scholars'
catmancool8 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The narrator of this series, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, apparently is a Biblical Scholar that heads a Biblical Studies department at some English University. She is pretty, well spoken, and traveled to many ancient sites mentioned in the Bible.
There are three episodes in this series, and a disturbing pattern emerges which leaves me deeply disappointed in the Series, as well as the BBC, and modern education-industrial complex.
In the first episode she sets out to challenge the existence of King David. Unfortunately, her whole argument comes down to the 'fact' that there is no archaeological evidence found dating to times when David ruled. Instead, she places her whole argument on the fact that evidence has been found in northern Israel for King Omri, who was several after David.
In the Second episode she asserts that God had a Wife, and that 'fact' has been suppressed by Hebrew and Christian scholars. She traces this to the fact that some artifacts have been found in Israel that show an apparent goddess along side a god that dates back to Canaanite cultures.
In the third episode she asserts that the Garden of Eden was in fact simply a garden belonging to a long dead king.
Throughout the series the same pattern emerges in every episode: her inability to distinguish facts from assertions (her own). It seems that she takes one or two ambiguous items, subject to her interpretation, and then believes they become facts because she so wills it. Her logic is deeply flawed, and her disgust for the Bible as a historical record of great events is fairly evident. in these episodes.
I will not dwell on the her faults, as they will be obvious to objective thinkers every where. However, there may be value in watching this series for those who want to stay atop the manner in which modern atheist attempt to discount mounting archaeological evidence that increasingly give veracity to Bible events. Instead of denying that they ever happened, she merely twists the interpretation of that evidence to meet her own notions.
There are three episodes in this series, and a disturbing pattern emerges which leaves me deeply disappointed in the Series, as well as the BBC, and modern education-industrial complex.
In the first episode she sets out to challenge the existence of King David. Unfortunately, her whole argument comes down to the 'fact' that there is no archaeological evidence found dating to times when David ruled. Instead, she places her whole argument on the fact that evidence has been found in northern Israel for King Omri, who was several after David.
In the Second episode she asserts that God had a Wife, and that 'fact' has been suppressed by Hebrew and Christian scholars. She traces this to the fact that some artifacts have been found in Israel that show an apparent goddess along side a god that dates back to Canaanite cultures.
In the third episode she asserts that the Garden of Eden was in fact simply a garden belonging to a long dead king.
Throughout the series the same pattern emerges in every episode: her inability to distinguish facts from assertions (her own). It seems that she takes one or two ambiguous items, subject to her interpretation, and then believes they become facts because she so wills it. Her logic is deeply flawed, and her disgust for the Bible as a historical record of great events is fairly evident. in these episodes.
I will not dwell on the her faults, as they will be obvious to objective thinkers every where. However, there may be value in watching this series for those who want to stay atop the manner in which modern atheist attempt to discount mounting archaeological evidence that increasingly give veracity to Bible events. Instead of denying that they ever happened, she merely twists the interpretation of that evidence to meet her own notions.
Bringing things into focus....
Blackbird013-124 February 2019
Theory is just that, theory. If you want to strip the delusion away from organized religion much of what is taught is either a bad translation, or church doctrine that deviates from the actual test. That means that much of what is believed is theory rather than part of the actual original religion.
Explaining the nature of the root of the religion or how it came to exist in it's current form is simply a reality check taken from a historical perspective. If faith is easily dispelled or offended when the contradictions and mistakes are pointed out, then it's faith based on the organized religion establishment that tells you what to believe rather than the actual religion.
Sooner or later religious history has to reconcile with actual history to have any value and survive over the centuries to come. The reality of existence is more likely to survive scrutiny over time than a false shine.
I believe this kind of presentation is spectacular, and will become more common until followers can reconcile themselves with actual history and actual text. Reform can be a good thing!
Explaining the nature of the root of the religion or how it came to exist in it's current form is simply a reality check taken from a historical perspective. If faith is easily dispelled or offended when the contradictions and mistakes are pointed out, then it's faith based on the organized religion establishment that tells you what to believe rather than the actual religion.
Sooner or later religious history has to reconcile with actual history to have any value and survive over the centuries to come. The reality of existence is more likely to survive scrutiny over time than a false shine.
I believe this kind of presentation is spectacular, and will become more common until followers can reconcile themselves with actual history and actual text. Reform can be a good thing!
Radio carbon dating
dustinbarr7 February 2019
This show states "Grain seeds, lentils like this and olive pits were sent to radio carbon dating." He states that the uncertainty for the ninth century is only between 20 and 30 years. Yet he is talking about David and Solomon's time. I am a college graduated chemist and I can tell you that there is no degree of certainty that the radioactive decay of carbon has been the same for all time. So there is no way that it is known with any degree of certainty that the rate of radioactive decay has always been the same.
Scientific approach is what we need
erich-9925 August 2019
We have for too long approached biblical history with only faith instead of a scientific approach as we do with every thing else in our history and natural world. Any scientific methodology is immediately met with hostility which only happens within this study. The Bible was clearly written by men and influenced by those in power at the time. Honestly, we will never evolve as a species until we stop believing in angels and start scientifically approaching these extremely interesting and informative historical artifacts.
Remarkably myopic
meesew-5871818 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Her dissertation and academic record should be reviewed. It is unclear how someone with such poor understanding of how to interpret data produced by radio carbon dating. We are told that there are berries and that the layer is typically associated with the time of King Solomon. We are told that the berries are from 20 or 30 years after the death of Kind Solomon. There are only a handful of artifacts which have been able to be dated with an error rate of plus or minus 30 years. Berries from the 9th or 10th century BCE are not among those artifacts. And sediment laters correlate to much larger periods of time than 20-30 years. Today, we live in homes that are much older, where we may leave our own pottery in a garden in the same sediment layer as pottery that is more than 200 years old.
Worth Considering
hdentistry4 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Only 3 episodes in one season? Only watched 1&2. 1 points out via her opinion yet an open (no agenda) view that there's currently no solid archeological evidence that david and his reign existed...yet. She leaves it open. She doesn't disprove it. 2 points out that there are other gods via a Hebrew interpretation and explanation of Yahweh etc. It's a legit perspective and one to consider because of biblical references referring to a council of God's or God ("el" as she explains) of gods etc. And further an explanation of God having a wife and her power and influence. I really liked her insights and think the views she presents should be considered. If it rocks your boat, look for answers. I've found mine. I'm a Christian and a scientist. What she says is a fair consideration.
Immature understanding of complex theological themes
liyanjms8 February 2019
It feels like an undergraduate rant created after a few "intro to archeology" and "old testament literature" classes. There are a lot of sensational fundamentalist 'documentaries' about Biblical history on TV these days. This is the other side of that coin. There is a lot of power, positive energy (i.e. faith, hope, love) to be gleaned from deep ongoing study of sacred scripture (not just the Bible). This show's shallow dismissal of the primary sacred text of monotheistic thought based on partial information and a great deal of confusion between their own naive understanding and profound spiritual wisdom was a huge waste of my time to watch. If you're interested in learning, go find a real class or book that takes the time to flesh out the depth and nuances of monotheistic spirituality and explores how these theologies actually evolved over the course of several millennia. Such an investment will grow your own moral and spiritual understanding. This documentary on the other hand....empty calories!
Out of Date and Biased
kender-725-35842518 February 2019
The series is archaeologically out of date. Francesca Stavrakopoulou is not an archeologist; but she is a self-avowed atheist with her own agenda. She discounts the entire Old Testament as having historical value. She makes wild accusations and uses very faulty logic to 'prove' her assertions.
This series is a waste of time and money.
This series is a waste of time and money.
Clearly made with an agenda
harpsoul9 February 2019
It's easy for someone to create an agenda and then find historical evidence in bits and pieces to prove such agenda. You will hear in each of the first few episodes how this all boils down to being hard on women ... which truly seems to be her message . She sounds like somebody in pain trying her best to do something about an entire world view to take away her internal
Struggles. So keep that in mind, she's coming with a feminist agenda with very little evidence to overturn thousands of years of belief... most of this based upon remote findings in different parts of the world which she has interpreted to go along with her agenda . Most of this is forgiving about these massive amounts of archaeology that which supports the opposing view..
Very Biased
drpulikal12 February 2019
I'm sorry but this has to be one of the most biased TV series I've ever seen....maybe on par with ancient aliens. The narrator clearly has a view of the bible, that is shaped by her personal religion and there is no attempt to cover up her and the production team's bias. Might as well be a propaganda film
Some of the worst scholarship I've seen in a documentary!
rachelnstephens29 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This is by far some of the worst scholarship I've ever seen in a supposed documentary.
A brief overview:
Claims: the Israelites were polytheistic because Canaanite deities were worshipped and the Bible hides this fact.
The truth: The Bible clearly states that the Israelites CONSTANTLY went after foreign gods, which is why God had them put to the sword, sent pestilence, had them taken into captivity, etc, etc, etc. This is a CONSTANT occurrence in scripture.
Claims: the God of the Bible is actually the Canaanite chief of the pantheon, El, and therefore Israelites were polytheistic.
The truth: El is a generic term for "god." See "El Shaddai" and "El Elyon" - both are different descriptions / titles of God. Her claim that this is proof the Israelites are polytheistic is like claiming that because some Hindus claim to worship Jesus, and Hinduism is polytheistic, therefore, Christianity is polytheistic.
Claims: God had a wife, Ashteroth, because if you change the last two letters of the Hebrew word "hosts" you can spell the name "Ashteroth." God having a wife is then stated as a fact.
The truth: Let's change the last two letters of any random word. Let's try "baby" - back, bade, bags, baht, bail, bake, bale, balk, ball, balm, bama, band, bane, bang, bank, bano, bans, baos, bape, bard, bare, barf, bark, barn, bars, Bart, Baru, bask bash, bass, bast, bate, bath, bats, baud, bave, bawd, Bawe, bawl, bawo, bays.
It's a stupid arugument to claim that changing the last two letters of a word is proof of anything.
Claim: Adam was a king and that "King Adam was kicked out of Eden for captialism and waging war."
The Truth: The rebuke of the King of Tyre is about the fall of Satan from Heaven, not Adam.
Claim: King Adam "ruled 2 and a half thousand years ago" and didn't pay tribute to Nebuchadnezzar. Being kicked out of Eden was the destruction of the first Temple.
The truth: Moses wrote Genesis! Moses lived almost 3,500 years ago. The story of Adam predates the first Temple and Nebuchadnezzar.
If you care about truth, this documentary is not for you.
A brief overview:
Claims: the Israelites were polytheistic because Canaanite deities were worshipped and the Bible hides this fact.
The truth: The Bible clearly states that the Israelites CONSTANTLY went after foreign gods, which is why God had them put to the sword, sent pestilence, had them taken into captivity, etc, etc, etc. This is a CONSTANT occurrence in scripture.
Claims: the God of the Bible is actually the Canaanite chief of the pantheon, El, and therefore Israelites were polytheistic.
The truth: El is a generic term for "god." See "El Shaddai" and "El Elyon" - both are different descriptions / titles of God. Her claim that this is proof the Israelites are polytheistic is like claiming that because some Hindus claim to worship Jesus, and Hinduism is polytheistic, therefore, Christianity is polytheistic.
Claims: God had a wife, Ashteroth, because if you change the last two letters of the Hebrew word "hosts" you can spell the name "Ashteroth." God having a wife is then stated as a fact.
The truth: Let's change the last two letters of any random word. Let's try "baby" - back, bade, bags, baht, bail, bake, bale, balk, ball, balm, bama, band, bane, bang, bank, bano, bans, baos, bape, bard, bare, barf, bark, barn, bars, Bart, Baru, bask bash, bass, bast, bate, bath, bats, baud, bave, bawd, Bawe, bawl, bawo, bays.
It's a stupid arugument to claim that changing the last two letters of a word is proof of anything.
Claim: Adam was a king and that "King Adam was kicked out of Eden for captialism and waging war."
The Truth: The rebuke of the King of Tyre is about the fall of Satan from Heaven, not Adam.
Claim: King Adam "ruled 2 and a half thousand years ago" and didn't pay tribute to Nebuchadnezzar. Being kicked out of Eden was the destruction of the first Temple.
The truth: Moses wrote Genesis! Moses lived almost 3,500 years ago. The story of Adam predates the first Temple and Nebuchadnezzar.
If you care about truth, this documentary is not for you.
Lies, Lies and more lies
soccer_goalie_sports5 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
She starts with an assumption and then fits the story around her ideas. The first episode dealt a little more in facts and archaeology, still left out some important deatails but hey, at least it was not misrepresenting the Bible. The second episode, Stavrakopoulou states that the Bible covers up the fact that the Israelites worshipped many gods. THAT is simply not true. The books of Judges, Kings, and Chronicles ALL have repeated failure to worship the One true God. Then she goes on in the third episode and said the concept of original sin is not found in the Genesis. That it along with the serpent being the devil, she even has the audacity to say that there is no fall of mankind. Now how can you claim to be a scholar and not read that there is no fall of mankind and no inherent sin? She pops in some technically true things like it may not have been an apple, or the serpent not being the devil technically. She claims it was actually about sex. This is absolutely a sham of any remote objectivity. She blatantly ignores Christian and Jewish Theology about the identity of God. It is a misrepresentation of the highest order. She makes The DaVinci Code look factual.
Clear Axe to Grind
andrew-doyle-825-45483124 February 2019
Firstly, this is a well shot miniseries with beautiful shots of the Israel/Palestine region. However, the narrative is difficult to reconcile with a larger understanding of religious study. The host of this series sets out, seemingly, to attempt to prove/disprove biblical events or persons through archaeology and other scientific means but her conclusions are heavily jaded by her clearly atheistic perspective. She makes bold claims from translation of the Hebrew scripture or other data that are clearly unverifiable claims or issues where no definitive conclusion can be drawn. Time and again throughout the miniseries she uses these uncertainties to justify her position that something could not possibly have been. She is trying to connect the dots to distrusting the Bible but her logic continually skips steps; she either doesn't have the best data or she isn't presenting it well. Either way it makes for a difficult watch.
Disappointed
b_sandusky16 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I was hoping this show would blend biblical text with archeological finds and I was extremely disappointed. Unfortunately, the Dr focused on her beliefs on misunderstandings of the texts without giving much support for her beliefs. For instance, she states that she believes that the texts have an error which would have indicated a pagan God who she laters states as God's wife. She just jumps to conclusions too quickly for me to think she is correct.
Bad science with an agenda
poppyc24 February 2019
Bias that's not so buried in this serie...
cas-935397 May 2019
I've never written a review, that's the truth, I signed in for the first time to say this was absolutely biased and a shameful series to consider. I'm open to new ideas and certainly don't close the doors to anyone trying to express their point of view. However, this series was clearly pointing in one direction with no acceptance of any kind of opposition. The director was so blatant about her biases towards atheism that the theories she stated she was testing weren't of any objective truths, but rather her own hidden agenda to so desperately want to disprove the Bible.
Complete bias
jamesfarmer-6698621 July 2019
I couldn't even get through the 1st episode - there was a clear bias from the beginning - anything that supported the host view was claimed with absolutes, while anything against it was " well maybe " or "perhaps"- host also doesnt even have the Biblical statements correct. I'm all for a debate or discussions on both sides of the fence, but this is not that type of show. No reason this didn't make it out of 2011
Was hoping for more
digitalcat20127 April 2019
I was looking forward to good questions. Moments to ponder. You know, the things that make you go "hmmm." That is not what is found here. What is found is an obvious agenda, bizarre leaps in "logic" and no real conclusions.
Watch for a laugh if you like.
Watch for a laugh if you like.
Garbage
wctaplin16 August 2022
I started with the final episode about the Garden of Eden. Not even five minutes in and I couldn't stand this supposed "biblical scholar."
In the first scene, she visits a man who is preaching and reading the Bible to a group of attentive Christian teens. This "scholar" is sitting off to the side making a big show of just how bored she is and even shoots the teens this stuck up smirk. She had a smarmy attitude and makes it obvious that she believes she's better than Christians.
Sloppy scholarship, biased presentation
DoveStar184 March 2019
I give it 3 stars because the production value is great and the host is very charismatic. In terms of the content, whatever facts she presents are overshadowed by her complete disregard for and almost mechanical dismissal of evidence that contracts her claims. She makes countless hyperbolic statements with little support, and consistently demonstrates a poor understanding or ignorance of Jewish and Christian theologies. She tries to present herself as an unbiased scholar, and then proceeds to blame all of the pitfalls of Western society on monotheism and the Biblical narrative, apparently ignoring all historical context. There are also unnecessary political aspects to her arguments that, in my opinion, only dig the hole deeper for her arguments. Honestly, my main takeaway from this series is that Biblical minimalists are as concerned with evidence and logic as are Creationists.
Misleading Movie Title.
expectedinheaven16 May 2019
Not the Whole Truth
austinwaldrop-4438210 June 2019
The Israelites worshipped many gods plus Jehovah God. It is called idolatry. There are many heavenly host and fallen angels people worship but one God.They still suffer today. That is why Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar. Read Jeremiah and Lamentations. Gods so-claimed wife Asherah is in the league of idols. If you look up baal, dagan, and chumash they mean fish god. All three are married to ashra. Her name is also arte, asthroth, ashura. She is listed in the book of enoch as a fallen angel. Further the phillistines worshipped her. Look it up. Besides the phillistines and canaanites hated God. Remember david and goliath?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
