Rameses and his first-born


#1

Last night I saw part of the new Discovery channel special, Rameses: Wrath of God or Man? Did anyone else see it?

I am interested in other people’s thoughts about it.

For instance, the show kept insisting that religious tradition fingers Rameses II as the Pharoh of Exodus, but is that really true? I don’t think the Pharoh’s name is mentioned.

Also, I never did hear the evidence for why this skull was supposed to belong to Rameses first-born, who has a really long name, let me look it up, Amun-her-khepeshef, and why this particular skull, out of the others found in the same tomb, would belong to the first born. Since I didn’t watch the whole program, did anyone else catch that part?

Also, the skull has a big dent in it, as if the person (allegedly Amun-her-khepeshef) died from a blow to the head, and the documentarians seem to be putting forth that if the first-born son died from a blow to the head, then the plagues and the Exodus is not true, at least not as in the Bible.

But, does Exodus say specifically how the Angel of Death would kill? It could be that the Angel could cause another person to become angry and murder, or the Angel could take the life of someone who was already wounded and laying ill, couldn’t he?

Anyway, any thoughts or observations about the show?


#2

[quote=Sola]Last night I saw part of the new Discovery channel special, Rameses: Wrath of God or Man? Did anyone else see it?

I am interested in other people’s thoughts about it.

For instance, the show kept insisting that religious tradition fingers Rameses II as the Pharoh of Exodus, but is that really true? I don’t think the Pharoh’s name is mentioned.

Also, I never did hear the evidence for why this skull was supposed to belong to Rameses first-born, who has a really long name, let me look it up, Amun-her-khepeshef, and why this particular skull, out of the others found in the same tomb, would belong to the first born. Since I didn’t watch the whole program, did anyone else catch that part?

Also, the skull has a big dent in it, as if the person (allegedly Amun-her-khepeshef) died from a blow to the head, and the documentarians seem to be putting forth that if the first-born son died from a blow to the head, then the plagues and the Exodus is not true, at least not as in the Bible.

But, does Exodus say specifically how the Angel of Death would kill? It could be that the Angel could cause another person to become angry and murder, or the Angel could take the life of someone who was already wounded and laying ill, couldn’t he?

Anyway, any thoughts or observations about the show?
[/quote]

If you ASSUME that Rameses was the Pharoh of Exodus, and if you ASSUME that the skull is one of his sons, and if you ASSUME the skull is that of the first born, and if you ASSUME that the fracture killed him, and if you ASSUME that this was associated with the departure of the Jews from Egypt, you can assume about anything.http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Notice how they kept showing a Hollywood depiction of the plague killing the first born, and even said at one point that everyone, including Hollywood, assumes the First Born were all juveniles – which would obviously be wrong, since that would mean no living adults were first borns at the time.

This kind of stuff is all claptrap – I can recall one that said the Shroud of Turin is “the holiest relic of the Catholic Church” (wrong – it’s never been accepted as a relic) and that “they take it out and worship it once a year.” http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon10.gif


#3

I saw it and I agree with both of you… The thing that kept getting me was the assumptions and then the conclusions they where seeing as facts from them. I finished watching wondering why I stayed up so long, it didn’t show much to me…


#4

[quote=AmyS]I saw it and I agree with both of you… The thing that kept getting me was the assumptions and then the conclusions they where seeing as facts from them. I finished watching wondering why I stayed up so long, it didn’t show much to me…
[/quote]

When you’re watching one of these programs, and you find yourself muttering, “Come on, come on – cut to the chase” that’s a pretty good sign someone is counting on hype to attract viewers.


#5

[quote=vern humphrey]When you’re watching one of these programs, and you find yourself muttering, “Come on, come on – cut to the chase” that’s a pretty good sign someone is counting on hype to attract viewers.
[/quote]

True. The show was so much teasing and repetition and excessive commercials, that’s why I stopped watching it. I don’t like being treated like a moron or a sucker.

Sounds like I didn’t miss anything.


#6

[quote=Sola]True. The show was so much teasing and repetition and excessive commercials, that’s why I stopped watching it. I don’t like being treated like a moron or a sucker.

Sounds like I didn’t miss anything.
[/quote]

Funny thing – on another thread we were talking about the Oxford Papyri – fragments of the Gospel of Matthew found in some papyrus fragements collected by Oxford that have been dates to the mid-60s.

This discovery knocks all sorts of pet theories into a cocked hat – like the idea the gospel writers all wrote AFTER the destruction of the Temple (in 70), that Matthew copied Mark, and so on. It is a body blow to the Jesus group – who purport to have distilled a “fifth Gospel” that shows what Jesus really said.

But no special on the History or Discovery Channels about THAT!


#7

Funny thing – on another thread we were talking about the Oxford Papyri – fragments of the Gospel of Matthew found in some papyrus fragements collected by Oxford that have been dates to the mid-60s.

This is extremely debatable; the majority of Biblical scholars do not accept this dating of the fragment in question.


#8

the mystery to me is why the Discovery channel, which markets itself as the “science” channel and the History channel, which purports to present history, are both fascinated with biblical themes, which they reject on scientific and historical grounds. they search far and wide for dissenting ex-Catholic priests like Crossan, who has an appealing accent and looks like a venerable professor, to give a warped version of Christian teaching. they set up all kinds of pseudo-scientific evidence interpreted by self-defined “experts” and then shoot it down. Why don’t they stick to science and history and leave the bible alone? they are incapable of recognizing true science and true history when they see it, especially in the bible.


#9

[quote=puzzleannie]the mystery to me is why the Discovery channel, which markets itself as the “science” channel and the History channel, which purports to present history, are both fascinated with biblical themes, which they reject on scientific and historical grounds. they search far and wide for dissenting ex-Catholic priests like Crossan, who has an appealing accent and looks like a venerable professor, to give a warped version of Christian teaching. they set up all kinds of pseudo-scientific evidence interpreted by self-defined “experts” and then shoot it down. Why don’t they stick to science and history and leave the bible alone? they are incapable of recognizing true science and true history when they see it, especially in the bible.
[/quote]

Because they make their money based on their ratings. Simple, stupid, and controversial are the key words here.


#10

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm]This is extremely debatable; the majority of Biblical scholars do not accept this dating of the fragment in question.
[/quote]

The evidence is however, rather persuasive.

In addition, there is the ending of Acts – after recounting the doings of Peter and Paul (especially Paul, whose every stroke and bruise he recounted), Luke fails to even mention their martyrdom. He ends his story before its end.

Finally, of course, the Q Document is a violation of Occam’s Razor – it was created to explain a hole in the theory that Mark wrote first, and Matthew and Luke copied him.


#11

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm]This is extremely debatable; the majority of Biblical scholars do not accept this dating of the fragment in question.
[/quote]

Most who do not accept it base their position on the radical impact it has on established scholarship. The evidence itself is quite persuasive.

There is also the ending of Acts – Luke ends the story before the martyrdom of Peter and Paul – and yet up to that point, he records virtually every stone and bruse Paul received.

Finally, looked at objectively, the Q Document hypothesis violates Occam’s Razor. No one has ever found the Q Document, or found mention of it in ancient writing – but it has to exist to explain the Mark-first position.


#12

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.