Interestingly enough, the Book has also been passed down generation to generation, so we have the consensus of our ancestors to justify the texts (that doesn't mean they are proven, but that is evidence going for their authenticity. If better evidence is found to go against tradition, then you can make the argument that the ancestors were wrong. But, if you doubting them just to doubt them, you are just being a "chronological snob." Also note that the texts or oral teachings can be correct, but the interpretation be wrong). We have a paper trail leading back to the first century for the New Testament, and its Traditional understandings are found in the first century. There is also the oral Tradition (St. Papias calls it the "oral Gospel"; sometimes scholars identify it as "the Q source") that can be traced to the first century, which is passed on by the Bishops to today.
For the old Testament, we have the strength of oral Tradition of the Hebrews to justify the texts. 21st century western people have an unfair bias against oral Traditions. To break out of this terrible habit, I highly recommend Jan Vansina's Oral Tradition as History: http://www.amazon.com/Oral-Tradition-History-Jan-Vansina/dp/0299102149
Christi pax,
DDangle
Hey, thanks for stopping by!
I study oral literature and ethnic performance. My thesis was about how one indigenous community in the Philippines uses epic chanting taught at a school they run as a way to mark themselves as an ethnic group, sort of in the same way that other epic traditions get associated with particular countries or religious communities (Mahabharata and Ramayana for Hinduism, Shahnameh for Persia, wayang plays for Indonesia, griots in West Africa, etc). It's fun to look at the different plot structures, character tropes, and symbolism in the context of other cultural materials to see how people understand their own stories, which always gives more insights than if that interpretation was done along the same lines as, say, a European novel.
Hmmmm I haven't seen too many that get it right honestly haha. Maybe it's because I mostly watch sci-fi and period dramas. I would say that Star Trek tries the hardest to get at the kind of ethical dilemmas that anthropologists deal with as far as not intentionally changing cultures simply by observing, but I say "intentionally" because culture is always changing. Always has, always will. The most you can do as an observer is try to work with the people you're studying to prevent harmful change. Now do I also enjoy all three Indiana Jones movies while knowing that he's a grave robber? Absolutely.
I think the thing I most enjoy is also the hardest, and that's putting myself as a straight white dude author in the mindset of the characters. What do they assume is true about the world they live in; how does this affect their decision-making and their place in society; what what are their particular strengths, struggles, weaknesses, etc relative to the expectations placed on them, etc? When it works, it really forces me to look at things from their POV rather than writing only in my own voice. Not sure it always works but some of my own voice sneaking is unavoidable.
I haven't read that book yet and honestly I don't work with evolutionary anthropology much but I'm familiar with the broad strokes. Anthropology degrees in the US and other countries that follow the US 4-field system require at least an introductory level of familiarity with cultural, linguistic, biological anthropology, and archaeology. I did read Oral Tradition as History over the summer though and I'd recommend it for any authors out there who want to look at non-Western storytelling forms. It's a great overview and not too technical.