Ok - lets call this one an opinion and not a review. Because, when I watched The Lost Tomb of Jesus with my brain off, it was great fun. It told a story I wanted to believe, a plausible story about a normal guy, with a wife and child, who happened to have started a great religion. The story that the documentary presents is one that I think is likely to have happened from an occam's razor type of "best fit if you eliminate Jesus being divine" kind of approach. As an Atheist, I theorize that the hole divine aspect to the life of Jesus was made up after the fact as his religion gained power. The only reasonable explanation is that Jesus was just a normal man.
Back to the documentary - When the documentary ends, I smiled to myself ad my brain woke up from its two hour nap. I found myself frowning while pulling on my big red beard. I thought a very unscientific, "what a load of crap". They oversold a weak hypothesis.
Part of what I do for a living is tear apart weak hypothesizes. Every week, I examine faulty reasoning in my quest to figure out what is really going on in the fast paced world of manufacturing. I have a nose for it. My basic problem solving method is to assume everybody is leaving something out - and then finding the missing pieces. The Tomb of Jesus was full of missing pieces. Ted Koppel astutely focused on this point in the after show discussion. It made me squirm to watch.
In the case of The Lost Tomb of Jesus, the filmmaker, Simcha Jacobovici, builds a chain of reasoning where each link is dependent on the last. He does not mention the "alternative explanations" that would lead a critical mind in a different direction. instead, he pushes ahead with a faulty "follow the evidence" approach, building a house of cards on flimsy reasoning. I don't buy it.
I think that the most reasonable outcome of this documentary would be a scientific re-examination of all of the evidence. If that is what the Jacobovici intended, then the documentary has served its purpose. However, after watching closely, I can only assume that Jacobovici was trying to present his story as fact. In which case - I think he needs to go back to the drawing board.
6 comments:
Great Post!
For a comprehensive and scholarly rebuttal of the film’s evidence please visit ExtremeTheology.com.
Read and hear the evidence for yourself.
It seems to me that Jacobovici did a good job of presenting the evidence. There is not much supporting evidence, but then the last 2000 years has held another theory about Jesus with even less evidence than this movie.
The lost tomb of Jesus
Even using the term "evidence" for much the Jacobovici thesis is pushing the envelope. Much of it is based on calculating assumptions, that in my view lead up the garden path in the direction of fantasy. Frankly I'm surprised Jacobovici is playing so fast and loose with his credibility as a professional.
Joey's take on the documentary reflects a balanced response. There are so many holes in the argument it comes close to insulting the intelligence of those who would like to believe there is something in it.
The above comment by danutz rightly points out there is even less supporting evidence for the whole Jesus myth, which of course suggests that any effort to build a thesis of this sort on inconclusive findings is really in the end a bit of a lost cause.
Joey:
I am surprised at your response to this tendentious and lying piece of trash. Don't you realize that you are doing what you would (rightly) condemn a believer for doing, not looking closely at something and 'letting it slide' because it fits what you'd like to believe.
We athiests HAVE to be as critical of the fools and liars on our side as we are of those on the otrher side.
The 'evidence' supposedly presented is, for the most part simply nonsense. I've written so much on this on various blogs, from DEBUNKING CHRISTIANITY to CHRISENDOM -- an at times deliberately hilarious blog by an English Doctoral student in Theology -- that I'm not going to repeat it here, except to point out a couple of howlers and to say that both the forensic anthropoligist and the statistician have totally withdrawn their support from this.
Howlers: The idea that the 'child-sized' bone box implied that the putative 'son of Jesus' might have grown up to be the 'beloved disciple' and even (on the website) been Thomas of the 'Gospel of Thomas.' Well, no. The existence of the vhild-sized box implies that the child DIDN'T grow up.
The idea that a poor family in Gallilee would have had a family tomb in Jerusalem, one that existed at the time of the Crucifixion is *ahem* highly unlikely.
The idea that the 'mara' on the end of name on the supposed Mary Magdalene tomb means 'master' (instead of "Martha" as is much more likely) means that the people marking the ossuaries gave a title to Mary M., but not to Jesus.
Then there are the lies about the James ossuary, which was not the 'exact size' of the missing ossuary, was photographed in 1976, and had soil on it showing it came f5rom another site entirely.
No, sorry, this belongs in the Hovind/Chopra file.
prup - what part of - I thought a very unscientific, "what a load of crap". They oversold a weak hypothesis. - did you not understand. I did not like it at all.
prup - in fact... I wanted to believe but could not becuase of how bad they presended the "facts".
Post a Comment