Is the History Channel becoming more religious?

Question

I've noticed that the History Channel has been airing a few shows lately that boldly refer to Jesus' life as a historical reference point...
On a show this afternoon, they had a guy reciting a story from the bible (in his own words) and the caption under him said "Historian" NOT "Biblical Historian" or "Theologan" which is what he actually was being on the show...

I'm not interested in debating whether its right or wrong - we all have our opinions - I'm really just wondering which side of this issue the History Channel is on?

Answer 1

I was wondering about that and I was also wondering if religious communities are sponsoring/paying for the programmes, so the Channel puts them on because they're cheaper than other programmes?

Why not look at the credits next time one of them is on air?

Answer 2

The History Channel airs shows that it thinks will make money. Thus we have a number of shows on the historicity or lack of historicity of the Bible, the Da Vinci Code, UFOs, and any number of things that either fill up air-time or fit in neatly with current events/interests.

In this case, shows with a religious bent fit in with that goal. While many of the shows that air on the channel are reasonably well researched and responsibly presented, a number are not at all well researched or well presented. Unfortunately, there is no oversight into the sort of things that are aired on the channel. I am aware of a number of instances where experts in the field have been interviewed for their productions and their interviews have been re-edited (without the permission of the expert and often without their knowledge until they view the show) in order to present the viewpoint desired by the producer of the program. There are also several instances where footage from one program is used in another, whether it be footage of an interview or footage of a site, re-enactment, etc.
In those cases where scholars have flatly refused to participate in some of the more outrageous "documentaries" the producers of the program have simply shopped around until they found someone willing to say whatever it was they wanted to hear.

Not all the shows on the History Channel and similar channels suffer from this lack of ethics, but a number of them do. For this reason, people should be cautious about accepting the conclusions presented on such programs at face value without first looking into the issue themselves and, if possible, looking into the background of the "experts" interviewed during the program.

Answer 3

What I particularly like is that they'll have a show about the "history" of something like the book of Exodus, but only in the last five minutes will they show the historians all saying that there is no corroborative evidence whatsoever. In other words, according to "history," it almost certainly didn't happen.

It seems like they could take care of that in a thirty-second spot.

Answer 4

I think they just air what the people are interested in. Right now, we're all focusing on Israel, and you can't understand the Middle East without understanding some of the religious background. If you'll notice, they tend to focus on certain topics at certain times of the year--the JFK assassination in late November, the Revolutionary War around the Fourth of July, and the histories of Halloween and Christmas.

Answer 5

i'm no longer a Christian, yet an entire blown secularist, possibly even an atheist. yet i'm a sprint stricken, no longer via the question, yet via the lack of readability interior the thinking at the back of your question. via what nicely-known could we degree what "the Bible could have been"? i know that i've got not got get right of entry to to that nicely-known. particular. The early church--nicely earlier Constantine--began to shape the Bible in the direction of a definite ideological purpose. aside from all varieties of writing. have been they remarkable? i do no longer know. What i think of i know is that the Bible does not have been greater suited to my way of thinking if each and all of the in all danger candidate information were blanketed. It in basic terms could have been longer and greater complicated. historic literature is historic literature. I desire greater had survived--Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Hebrew, Jewish, etc. i'm grateful that plenty has survived. and that i desire greater would be got here across. The Bible is what it rather is. like the making of sausage, the making of the Bible replaced into no longer exceedingly. yet so what? Why could I care? previous historic pastime. I actually have a super time analyzing it because it rather is. And analyzing the different historic information besides.

Answer 6

The History Channel is portraying religious thought and action in a scientifically rational way--taking the mystery out of alleged miracles.

Answer 7

I'm not sure, but history is full of religious figures and events. Our school books may leave that out due to school districts afraid of being sued, and atheists who vote it out, so when true History is reported it seems strange to those who have been taught History with minimal religious overtones.

Answer 8

i stopped watching history channel some time back, got tired of re-runs of world war 2 and old hitler atrocity films..the bible is an old book lots of history, doesn't make it any more religious than an african native worshipping the sun...the word "religion" has caused way too many wars and deaths....

Answer 9

I noticed that too while i was scrolling thorugh the history channel programs. Everything was religous

Answer 10

Religion is part of history.