You can follow the course on Twitter, Facebook, and you can watch podcasts of Dr. Cargill’s lectures on iTunes U. Registered students may access the course website here.
This blog is provided as a public service to any and all interested in the history of Jerusalem, and will be updated regularly to summarize each class meeting’s lectures. You may post comments on this blog’s postings, but please not that the comments are moderated, and that Dr. Cargill may respond to some comments here in course lectures.
today, i marry the woman i love overlooking the pacific. i truly love her, and this day could not come soon enough.
so, i like blogging and all, but all apologies if i’m offline for a week. not that i will ever be truly offline, but i reserve the right to not blog from my honeymoon. after all, there is such a thing as tmi. ;)
Roslyn and I in Crystal Cove, Newport Beach, CA, December 2009.
since some consider march madness a religion, i figure i can share my bracket publicly, so that i’m on record.
ucla did not make the tourney, so this year doesn’t count ;-) btw, the hardest one i had to decide was #5 butler vs. #12 utep. i really think utep can surprise folks, but i chose butler. we’ll see. kansas should win.
click the image to see the bracket (and ridicule my picks).
We have been dealing so far with the question of how the manuscripts came to be collected in the Qumran caves, the character of the collection itself, its undoubted antiquity, and finally the connection between the caves and the buildings. Attempts have been made, however, to explain these points by a different hypothesis, one that does not envisage a special religious community established in the area. According to K. H. Rengstorf, the documents have nothing to do either with the Essenes or with any other sect. They comprise part of the library of the temple at Jerusalem which was stored in a safe place at the time of the Jewish Revolt…The presentation of this theory, which is personal to Rengstorf himself, is preceded by a critique of the ‘Essene’ theory in the form in which it has often been presented, and the author rightly emphasizes the weakness or ambiguity of certain lines of argument. But his own explanation entails great difficulties. - Roland de Vaux, 1959
(from de Vaux, Roland, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Schweich Lectures 1959, rev. ed., (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 105-6.)
question for review: who first proposed a theory stating that the dead sea scrolls had nothing to do with qumran, but were part of a library that came from jerusalem?
in related news, the son of norman golb has accused a nyu scholar of plagiarizing the thoughts and ideas of norman golb and passing them off as his own. golb’s son, raphael, has since been arrested.
i must take issue with the ap’s article on two matters. first, the article claims the following incorrect statement:
By incorporating new archaeological finds and recent scholarship, the exhibit is the first to fully present two competing theories: Were the scrolls written and collected by an ultra-religious Jewish group living in the desert? Or were the manuscripts smuggled out of Jerusalem on the eve of the Roman invasion in A.D. 70 and hidden for safekeeping in the wilderness?
this statement is not only misleading, it is downright false. and not only is the statement untrue, it is guilty of the very overly-simplistic, either-or dichotomy that has plagued dead sea scrolls scholarship for the past six decades.
let’s deal with the first problem first.
as a matter of fact, previous exhibitions have indeed discussed the multiple theories concerning the origins of the dead sea scrolls and the nature of the settlement at qumran. in my ‘ancient qumran: a virtual reality tour‘ movie that was on exhibit at the san diego natural history museum in 2007, i specifically noted that some scholars argue that the dead sea scrolls came from elsewhere and that qumran was established as a hasmonean fort. in addition, i also mentioned the multiple other theories concerning the nature of qumran, including a pottery factory, a trading depot, a tannery, a pilgrimage site, all in addition to the identification as a sectarian center. likewise, i asked who the residents of the cave were and what that meant for the origin of the dead sea scrolls.
don’t believe me? here’s a clip from the movie’s trailer:
thus, the minnesota exhibit is certainly not ‘the first to fully present two competing theories.’ it was done at san diego in 2007.
likewise, there aren’t just two theories! this ‘two salient theories’ argument has been the mantra of norman golb and his indicted son, raphael, since the dead sea scrolls began touring the united states years ago. in one of raphael golb’s anonymous blogs written under the now notorious alias ‘charles gadda,’ golb points out that the language of a simple dichotomy of ‘two salient theories’ comes, in fact, from a cambridge history of judaism article (1999, vol. 3, chap. 25) on the dead sea scrolls written by none other than norman golb himself!! here we have an example of a scholar (golb in this case) writing an article about his particular theory, using an anonymous alias to promote the article and the theory while discrediting other museum exhibitions that do not talk enough about said scholar, and a museum being influenced by a student of said scholar (in this case michael wise) to frame their exhibit in the form of the very dichotomy which was set forth by the very scholar who originally wrote the article. if that sounds confusing (and self-serving), that’s because it’s supposed to be! one of the purposes of using aliases is to disguise the origins of something to make it look objective, when in reality it is nothing more than self-citation. apparently, the minnesota dead sea scrolls exhibition was circularly talked into framing its exhibit in a manner that promotes the very scholar (golb) who originally came up with the framework adopted by the museum. thus, while multiple other museums presenting other dead sea scrolls exhibits managed to see through the charade of aliases and anonymous reports that according to the new york district attorney’s office were the product of the golbs (see here and here), the administrators of the science museum of minnesota fell prey to it. and, in an attempt to justify their decision, they have claimed to be ‘the first to fully present two competing theories,’ when, as has been shown above, that is simply not the case.
this, of course, is precisely why we’ve seen no massive, negative online campaign criticizing this minnesota exhibition like we did with seattle, san diego, north carolina, and toronto. for one, norman golb, the ludwig rosenberger professor of jewish history and civilization at the university of chicago’s oriental institute, has finally been invited to speak as a part of a dead sea scrolls exhibition. that norman golb was repeatedly not invited to speak at the various exhibitions was a major point of contention for the golbs (see here and here). second, golb’s son, raphael, was arrested on 50+ felony and misdemeanor counts of identity theft, forgery, criminal impersonation, aggravated harassment, and unauthorized use of a computer in connection with his participation in an online smear campaign that attacked various museums and administrators, their dead sea scrolls exhibitions, and the scholars that participated in them (like lawrence schiffman, jodi magness, william schniedewind, david noel freedman, risa levitt kohn, bart erhman, myself, and others) because, in part, he felt the exhibitions did not adequately represent his father, norman’s, point of view regarding the dead sea scrolls. when golb was arrested on march 5, 2009, all online hostilities immediately ceased (with the exception of a few anonymous comments on a few articles a few months later). court documents recently made available to the public have shown that raphael, his father, norman golb, and his brother, joel golb, exchanged emails regarding critiques of the exhibitions and comments made about other scholars, and demonstrate that the golbs employed numerous aliases to propagate a campaign of criticism and harassment against scholars that disagreed with norman golb’s theories. thus, the combination of norman golb being invited to speak, the science museum of minnesota following a simplistic paradigm that golb created, and the indictment of golb’s son mean that criticism of the science museum of minnesota is not surprisingly lacking.
Dr. Michael Wise, student of Norman Golb, is advisor to the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibition at the Science Museum of Minnesota.
Dr. Norman Golb was Michael Wise's teacher at the University of Chicago.
this leads us to ask: why has the minnesota exhibition taken this ‘new’ approach, which they claim to be original? the answer may lie in the fact that one of norman golb’s former university of chicago doctoral students, michael wise, is listed as a ‘museum consultant’ and advisor to the exhibit. now, michael wise is a fine scholar and an excellent choice as an advisor for the minnesota dead sea scrolls exhibit. he has spent his career studying the scrolls and i am certain he will be an asset to the success of the minnesota exhibition. but let us not forget that michael wise was a student of norman golb at the university of chicago. it should therefore be of no surprise that norman golb has finally been invited to speak as a distinguished lecturer at the minnesota exhibition – a demand his son, raphael, has been making anonymously on his behalf for years now. at the same time, it is unfortunate that the science museum of minnesota’s administrators have apparently (at least, accorting to the associated press’ article) bought into golb’s straw man argument that there are only two theories concerning qumran: golb’s theory and the ‘traditional’ theory.
specifically, there is a third ‘salient’ theory that essentially blends the two polar opposite approaches. it is a theory that has been researched and advanced by scholars like stephen pfann (see his articles here, where i first encountered the theory). the theory works well with the research of lawrence schiffman (nyu) and john collins (yale). i adopted this approach in my recent book, qumran through (real) time. this theory is alternatively called the ‘multi-cave’ theory, the ‘cave cluster’ theory, or the ‘multi-party’ theory (or make up your own name). but in the long run, i am convinced it will be known as the dominant theory concerning the origin of the dead sea scrolls: that different groups (including essenes, priests, zadokites, sadducees, zealots, pharisees, and/or other unknown jewish groups) hid different scrolls (including the damascus rule, the serekhs (1qs, 1qsa, and 1qsb), biblical literature, and extra-biblical/pseudepigraphical literature) in different caves or cave clusters (caves 4-5 and 7-9 immediately surrounding the qumran settlement vs. cave 1 and 2 farther away vs. cave 11 vs. cave 3, etc.) near qumran. the cave cluster theory (as pfann has dubbed it) allows for a small sectarian group (perhaps the essenes or a sub-group identifying with the essenes) at qumran to have hidden scrolls in caves 4, 5, and 7-9, while a different group (like zealots) to have hidden their scrolls in cave 11, priests (of some origin) to have hidden scrolls in caves 1 and 6, while still other unknown jewish groups to have hidden completely different scrolls in cave 3 (for example, no copies or fragments from the serekhs or the damascus rule were discovered in cave 3 with the copper scroll).
it is worth noting that this multiple cave/multiple peoples theory will be the focus of a forthcoming documentary on national geographic channel in april. of course, the great irony is that one of dr. golb’s contributions to dead sea scrolls research is the suggestion that some (not all) of the dead sea scrolls may have come from outside qumran, an idea that is now widely accepted (despite the fact that golb’s son often intentionally mischaracterized the original theory for rhetorical purposes, claiming that those who believe there was a sectarian group living at the site believed that all scrolls came from qumran, which golb held up as a straw man argument to knock down). likewise, dr. golb was correct (imho) in his understanding of qumran as having initially been constructed as a fortress, a position that yuval peleg, i, and others have accepted and that many scholars and explorers prior to dr. golb also published, such as bar-adon, masterman, dalman, among others. however, some of dr. golb’s conclusions also appear to have been in err, like his suggestion that qumran was always a fort, or the suggestion that absolutely none of the dead sea scrolls came from qumran. thus, there is evidence that some of the scrolls may have come from qumran, and evidence that some (like the copper scroll) may have not.
of course, this entire argument is lost on the science museum of minnesota’s curator of archaeology, dr. ed fleming, who later states in the article:
“Really there is no serious evidence, in my mind,” he said.
Handwriting analysis suggests the manuscripts were written by several hundred people, too many to have lived in one location. And the texts represent more than one community’s point of view.
this is the analysis from the museum curator who, according to press and with all due respect:
received his Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Minnesota. Most of his research is focused on material culture of the Late Prehistoric period in the Upper Mississippi River.
according to fleming’s analysis, there were too many different scribal hands used in writing the scrolls (which, by the way, has been one of norman golb’s central arguments for decades) for all of the authors to have lived at qumran. but this assumes all the scrolls were written by sectarians at the same time! and yet, we know that the scrolls were not all authored all at the same time, but from the late third century bce down until 68 ce – a period of nearly 300 years! and, lest we forget, there is a cemetery adjacent to qumran consisting of nearly 1000 tombs. given magen and peleg’s (and everyone else’s except magness) calculation that the site was occupied form the mid-hasmonean period until 68 ce, if there were enough time to fill a cemetery with 1000 people, then probably more than a few of them could write over these many generations, thus explaining the diversity of scribal hands. if we add to the mix the fact that inkwells were found in a site surrounded by a tannery used for making parchment, animal bones and stables located on site that provided the leather, pottery of the same chemical composition as those ceramic vessels discovered in the caves with the scrolls, and, lest we forget, a bunch of scrolls discovered in caves 7-9 in the qumran settlement’s backyard and caves 4-5 right next to the site, then i’d say, with all due respect to dr. fleming, that there is perhaps some evidence to support a claim that some of the scrolls were created at qumran. further more, if after reading the scrolls, we read about a community of initiates (that is, not born into the sect, but joining from the outside) that sought to remove itself from what it considered a corrupt temple and into the desert, pooled their assets (explaining the wealth of coins found at the site and further explaining the diversity of scrolls brought from outside the site), and obsessed with ritual purity (explaining the presence of at least two miqva’ot or rital baths), then maybe we can explain why so many scrolls from so many different time periods from so many scribal hands could be found in the caves next to qumran. some were written there, some were brought to the site over the 150-200 years of its occupation, and some had nothing to do with the site.
but to dr. fleming, ‘really there is no serious evidence.’
alex jassen, on the other hand, the fine dead sea scrolls scholar from the university of minnesota whom i had the pleasure of sitting on a panel with this past december at the association for jewish studies annual meeting in los angeles, understands that were the scrolls all from disparate libraries throughout jerusalem and none from qumran, one would have an even harder time explaining the congruency of the scrolls (especially the sectarian manscripts), and the loathing of the contemporary jerusalem temple leadership and the sanhedrin in scrolls originating from jerusalem. simply put, arguing that all the dead sea scrolls come from jerusalem creates more problems than it solves.
the article states:
Jassen subscribes to a variation on this theory – that a religious group lived and wrote at Qumran but also brought manuscripts from other groups and places. When the Romans threatened their community, they hid their library in the caves.
“I think the evidence seems to be pretty strong that this is a unified collection that represents the distinct library of a community of ancient Jews who were quite devout in their observance of Jewish law and ritual,” he said.
the conclusion is, of course, that some of the scrolls originated from or were brought to qumran by sectarians, while other scrolls, like the scrolls from cave 3 like the copper scroll were placed there by other jews. there is no reason to force a choice between two equally bad extreme choices.
in sum, the curator of the minnesota dead sea scrolls exhibition has apparently caved in to the demands of norman golb, who along with his student, michael wise (a consultant to the exhibition), has apparently convinced museum administrators that the exhibition should follow golb’s approach to the dead sea scrolls. these museum curators are either ignorant of the contents of previous dead sea scrolls exhibitions (as demonstrated above), or have knowingly turned a blind eye to the other exhibitions and have made false claims about the nature of their exhibition. the curator of the minnesota dead sea scrolls exhibit has erroneously characterized previous scrolls exhibitions as negligent of the different theories surrounding qumran (specifically of golb’s theory), a claim that has principally been made over the years by none other than norman golb himself.
enjoy the exhibit.
(for tickets visit the science museum of minnesota website.)
i came across this video today from randall niles, a finance and securities lawyer in colorado who now heads up multiple christian companies, including a llc called thinkworks™, whose mission is ‘to get real and encourage others in their life journeys.’ (see for yourself.)
in the video, mr. niles was attempting to explain why the dead sea scrolls are important.
i’m not going to comment on the video because it’s just not fair and i don’t want to dump on anyone who is not trying to pass himself off as a scholar. mr. niles is not a scholar and not claiming to be one. i shall just dispute his claim that the only difference between the two isaiah scrolls (there are actually 2 from cave 1 and portions of at least 20 other copies of isaiah from qumran) and our modern masoretic texts of isaiah is a single word and some punctuation (3:30). in fact, the fact that the two isaiah scrolls from cave 1 at qumran differ, often significantly, tends to undermine his argument. the point is that there are far more interesting features about the isaiah scroll than the fact that it was written before the time of christ (3:00). but as i said, i’ll refrain from a critique.
and while i’m not a big fan of dilettantes and archaeological and scholarly pretenders, i can’t fault mr. niles, or anyone else for that matter, for attempting to reach out to kids to get them involved in both history and in issues of faith.
however, it is important to get your facts straight. and i shall fault those who sell christianity and judaism for a price. were this a preacher, i’d let it go. but because this is a business with lawyers and marketers and websites and money being made by preying on the ignorance of young kids, whose parents and pastors want to try and reach out to them with hip new media (that happens to be dilettantish and false), then i have a problem. of course, those who sell religion and peddle faith have every right to do so; indeed, it’s a billion dollar business in this country and one of the most profitable (and often tax exempt) business models in the country. but that doesn’t mean that what they’re selling is any good, and certainly doesn’t make the country any smarter or better, whether you are a person of faith or not. because whether you are an atheist, agnostic, or person of faith, bad information and poor apologetic arguments don’t help either side; they make people of faith look dumb and atheists cringe.
this does demonstrate, however, the immediate importance and need for trained scholars to reach out directly to the public, not just to criticize and combat pseudoscience, fake archaeology, and misinformation, but to offer a vetted alternative – real and regular solutions in the form of direct-to-the-public lectures and discourse. we scholars must seek to raise the level of public discussion about matters of faith in an academic manner. doing so will raise the level of critical thinking for both athiests and people of faith.
the problem is we’re missing the boat! the rise of technology and social media now allows scholars to compete with traditional, for-profit media companies that prey on the beliefs of the uneducated public and who peddle sensationalistic ideas to make a buck. we have the same abilities to reach the public directly and educate them, but the academy is by and large not using them. scholars have an opportunity to educate the public directly via the internet, youtube, blogs, podcasts, itunes u, and other free media outlets where the public spends much of their day, and whence they now obtain much of their information. additionally, by communicating to the public from their positions at accredited and reputable universities, scholars can trump these amateur ministries and professional faith peddlers because scholars are still held with somewhat high esteem across the nation. (although, this is changing. look what passes for an ‘expert’ on some documentaries these days. scholars, while still considered esoteric and therefore smart, are losing ground in both terms of credibility and indispensability. don’t believe me? how’s your department’s budget doing?)
thus, as easy as it is to rebuke those who peddle faith online and on tv, the true rebuke is to scholars, who aren’t doing enough to offer better alternatives. the title of this blog, ‘how not to talk about the importance of the dead sea scrolls,’ is a play on the fact that scholars are doing the same thing these amateurs are doing: not talking about scholarly issues to the public effectively. the academy is just as guilty as bible and archaeology pimps in that neither is talking about issues of faith and science effectively to the public.
and we wonder why universities have no money. people are looking elsewhere for information. and unless we want people getting bad information from uninformed or misleading sources, scholars must get involved with social and public media outlets to get their ideas out to the public.
the following is a set of practical guidelines for anyone who uses email in the course of their work in higher education. a good email citizen sends emails that are effective and collegial in terms of content, and is cognizant of the differences between emails with a single recipient and those with multiple recipients. in this age of spam, email overload, and privacy concerns, it is just as important to know how to address your messages as it is what to say, as well as what not to say and reserve for means other than email.
most universities have standard email policies. for example, ucla’s email policies can be found here:
as a good email citizen, you will want to use proper ‘netiquette’ and know how to send emails that convey only essential content to appropriate recipients. here’s how:
tips about email content
don’t complain via email.
the commonality of email has pushed traditional letter writing on paper to an elevated status. because one is more likely to complain via email, letters of complaint written on stationary and signed by hand are inevitably treated with greater importance.
customer service managers regularly state that a signed letter of complaint is worth 100 phone calls. anyone can make a phone call in the heat of frustration, but those who take the time to articulate thoughtfully their complaints in a professional manner are taken far more seriously. because emails are considered less formal than written letters, they tend to be treated more like phone calls. therefore, do not complain via email, but rather use email to communicate information and send quick reminders to colleagues when appropriate.
don’t compose lengthy emails in your email client.
never compose a document in a client that you cannot regularly save. email clients are notorious for disappearing and lost content during composition. unlike many word processing apps that automatically save content while it is being composed, email clients often crash, messages are accidentally closed, or worse yet, the messages are accidentally sent without the message being complete, leaving the sender looking like he or she is not capable of sending a proper letter.
for emails of some length, or that require more thought than is involved in simple communication, it is better to compose the email in a word processer, which possesses spell check, auto save, and a full array of formatting options, and then cutting and pasting the message in to an email for sending.
this process prevents what many techies call premature e-jaculation, that is, the premature sending of emails before they are complete and proofread.
don’t write too much in an email.
no one likes to open an email and see an essay. when most employees see a lengthy email, they immediately skip to the next, smaller, manageable email and respond accordingly. employees tend to put off lengthy emails until last, meaning the lengthier your email, the lower priority it receives.
reserve email for concise information. ask and answer questions briefly and to the point. don’t be reluctant to send a one-line email. if your question requires a lengthy email, think about making a phone call. it will save you time and will receive more attention from the recipient than a lengthy email. make full use of bold facing and colors to highlight the important items in your email, but AVOID USING ALL CAPS, which people tend to interpret as screaming.
(you can always use no caps at all when writing electronically; it’s hip, distinctive, very relaxed and informal (which is popular on the west coast among those who distinguish between formal academic writing, personal electronic correspondence, and blogs), makes up for german capitalizing every single noun, is a tribute to early internet programming pioneers who didn’t use caps (check your url and your email address), and saves you the effort of having to reach all the way over to the shift key every sentence.)
remember: you are competing for the recipient’s attention in a full inbox. shorter is sweeter when emailing.
think before sending.
many have heard of ‘drunk dialing’ – the practice of making a phone call to another individual that under normal circumstances (and usually much sober, next-day reflection) should not have been made. the same is true for email.
you don’t have to send every email you write. often, the mere process of articulating your feelings through words written in a letter is all the release one needs to vent frustration. wait a half hour and re-read your email. is that really what you want to say? will this email be used against you down the road? in court? if the email is still worthy of sending after some sober reflection, send away.
tips about how to address your email
don’t address the email until the very end.
anyone who has accidentally sent an email before it is complete has experienced the frustration of having to email the original recipient yet again, apologizing for looking like a luddite or worse yet, a dumbass, before once again emailing with the original intended email.
to guard against this, try not addressing the email until the email is proofread and ready to send. perhaps cut-and-paste the intended email address in the body of the letter at the top. this way, should you accidentally click ‘send’ or type a combination of keys that sends the email, the email will not be sent, but will return an error asking for a destination email address. this simple trick can save you much potential embarrassment.
learn to use the bcc feature.
the blind carbon copy, or ‘bcc’ feature is not just for tattling on your coworkers by secretly showing your email to a colleague. the bcc feature can be very handy when sending distribution emails to a large number of people.
the bcc feature allows you to send the same email to multiple recipients, but each recipient only sees their address in the ‘to’ field and cannot see the other recipients’ addresses.
it is important to write emails that are to be sent to bcc recipients in a generic manner so that each recipient assumes the email is written to him or her specifically (that is, unless you want the letter to appear as a form letter intended for many people. features include addressing the email with ‘all,’ or ‘dear applicant.’)
a few years ago, a department search committee chairperson at a university that shall remain unnamed sent rejection letters via email. but, rather than loading the 125 rejected recipients’ email addresses into the bcc field, the chairperson listed them all in the cc field, meaning every recipient could see the emails of the other rejected candidates. remembering to use the bcc field is a discreet way to send one email to many people.
use distribution lists
most universities make extensive use of dedicated distribution lists, which allow an employee to join a list and receive emails from an authorized sender on a specific topic. the benefit is that the ‘from’ field clearly states the sender’s distribution list, which can be filtered or read based upon the desire to follow messages from the sender. one additional benefit is that the recipient’s email address in not lumped into a massive list of email addresses in the ‘to’ or ‘cc’ field, meaning other recipients cannot see your email address and instantly be reminded, say, that you owe them money of a reply to an earlier email.
one last thing
dont email anonymously. ever! first, it’s cowardly. second, there is no such thing as anonymity online! if someone wants to, and has the patience and the resources, one can find out who you are and what you’re doing.
never, ever, ever, ever take out an email address in someone else’s name, pretend to be them, and confess to made up crimes the person didn’t commit. if you do, you could end up under arrest and on trial in new york for identity theft, criminal impersonation, forgery, aggravated harassment, and unauthorized use of a computer.
these email tips will help you be an effective emailer. you will communicate your message more effectively, and will do so with a professional etiquette. and you’ll stay out of jail.
(a simplified version of the above is located at the ucla center for digital humanities (cdh) blog here.)
it’s an open protocol for training atom and rss feeds into realtime streams. or, in nontech terms, it’s a subscription model that allows two completely different websites to communicate in realtime through a hub. in even simpler terms, it’s a cross-platform subscription service. for example, if you blog on wordpress, you can publish your content to your wordpress blog and to subscribers on other systems instantly, in realtime.
Paramount Pictures and former Walden Media co-founder Cary Granat producing with Reel Fx are mounting In The Beginning, a 3D telling of the creation story. The film is using The Book of Genesis as its primary resource. A script has been written by John Fusco (Hidalgo), and directing will be TV vet David Cunningham.
we also learn that:
the $30 million film will use 3-D visuals to transform the oft-told tale into a spectacle that the filmmakers hope will attract family- and faith-based audiences that flocked to The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, that first Chronicles of Narnia installment made on Granat’s Walden watch.
so there you have it. the next great mythological story told in 3d will be the story of adam and eve. and i can’t wait to hear the debates this movie will generate. here are a few just to get us started:
will the movie tell the genesis 1 story or the genesis 2 story (or harmonize them into a single creation story)?
will the movie give a literal account from the bible or will it embellish the story at all?
will the movie be praised by the evangelical christian crowd as much needed in a liberal hollywood climate, or will it be criticized if too much liberty is taken and the script deviates from the biblical account(s).
will it be a good script?
will it look as good as avatar?
will the academic community:
embrace it for its portrayal of a biblical story (thereby welcoming a movie based upon a piece of ancient literature)?
reject it for propagating a creation myth as historical (if the movie based upon a creation account is marketed as ‘factual’)?
embrace it because it embellished a mythological account of creation (and fictional stories should be celebrated as such)?
reject it because it feeds a frenzy of fundamentalist religion at a time when we should be critically examining the fundamental stories of various religious traditions over and against our modern, scientific understanding of humanity and the world?