Showing posts with label Anti-Christian Hucksters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-Christian Hucksters. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Jerusalem Post: Jesus Tomb Film Scholars Backtrack

Jesus tomb film scholars backtrack
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS


Several prominent scholars who were interviewed in a bitterly contested documentary that suggests that Jesus and his family members were buried in a nondescript ancient Jerusalem burial cave have now revised their conclusions, including the statistician who claimed that the odds were 600:1 in favor of the tomb being the family burial cave of Jesus of Nazareth, a new study on the fallout from the popular documentary shows.

The dramatic clarifications, compiled by epigrapher Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem in a paper titled "Cracks in the Foundation: How the Lost Tomb of Jesus story is losing its scholarly support," come two months after the screening of The Lost Tomb of Christ that attracted widespread public interest, despite the concomitant scholarly ridicule.

The film, made by Oscar-winning director James Cameron and Emmy-winning Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, prompted major criticism from both a leading Israeli archeologist involved in the original dig at the site as well as Christian leaders, who were angered over the documentary's contradictions of main tenets of Christianity.

But now, even some of the scholars who were interviewed for and appeared in the film are questioning some of its basic claims.

The most startling change of opinion featured in the 16-page paper is that of University of Toronto statistician Professor Andrey Feuerverger, who stated those 600 to one odds in the film. Feuerverger now says that these referred to the probability of a cluster of such names appearing together.

Pfann's paper reported that a statement on the Discovery Channel's Web site, which previously read "a statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters...concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family," in keeping with Feuerverger's statement, has been altered and now reads, "a statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters... concludes that the probability factor is in the order of 600 to 1 that an equally 'surprising' cluster of names would arise purely by chance under given assumptions."

Another sentence on the same Web site stating that Feuerverger had concluded it was highly probable that the tomb, located in the southeastern residential Jerusalem neighborhood of Talpiot, was the Jesus family tomb - the central point of the film - has also been changed. It now reads: "It is unlikely that an equally surprising cluster of names would have arisen by chance under purely random sampling."

Israeli archeologists have said that the similarity of the names found inscribed on the ossuaries in the cave to the members of Jesus's family was coincidental, since many of those names were commonplace in the first century CE.

The film argues that 10 ancient ossuaries - burial boxes used to store bones - that were discovered in Talpiot in 1980 contained the bones of Jesus and his family. The filmmakers attempt to explain some of the inscriptions on the ossuaries by suggesting that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that the couple had a son, Judah.

One of the ossuaries bears an inscription reading "Yeshua son of Yehosef" or "Jesus son of Joseph;" a second reads "Mary;" a third is a Greek inscription apparently read by one scholar as "Mary Magdalene;" while a fourth bears the inscription, "Judah, son of Jesus." The inscriptions are in Hebrew or Aramaic, except for the one in Greek.

But Shimon Gibson, who was part of the team that excavated the tomb two and half decades ago and who appeared in the film, is quoted in Pfann's report as saying he doubted the site was the tomb of Jesus and his family.

"Personally, I'm skeptical that this is the tomb of Jesus and I made this point very clear to the filmmakers," Gibson is quoted as saying.

"We need much more evidence before we can say that the Talpiot tomb might be the family tomb of Jesus," he added.

In the film, renowned epigrapher Prof. Frank Moore Cross, professor emeritus of Hebrew and oriental languages at Harvard University, is seen reading one of the ossuaries and stating that he has "no real doubt" that it reads "Jesus son of Joseph." But according to Pfann, Cross said in an e-mail that he was skeptical about the film's claims, not because of a misreading of the ossuary, but because of the ubiquity of Biblical names in that period in Jerusalem.

"It has been reckoned that 25 percent of feminine names in this period were Maria/Miriam, etc. - that is, variants of 'Mary.' So the cited statistics are unpersuasive. You know the saying: lies, damned lies, and statistics," Cross is quoted as saying.

The paper also notes that DNA scientist Dr. Carney Matheson, who supervised DNA testing carried out for the film from the supposed Jesus and Mary Magdalene ossuaries, and who said in the documentary that "these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely be husband and wife," later said that "the only conclusions we made were that these two sets were not maternally related. To me, it sounds like absolutely nothing."

Furthermore, Pfann also says that a specialist in ancient apocryphal text, Professor Francois Bovon, who is quoted in the film as saying the enigmatic ossuary inscription "Mariamne" is the same woman known as Mary Magdalene - one of the filmmakers' critical arguments - issued a disclaimer stating that he did not believe that "Mariamne" stood for Mary of Magdalene at all.

Pfann has already argued that the controversial inscription does not read "Mariamne" at all.

The burial site, which has been contested from the start by scholars and church officials alike, is some distance from the Church of the Holy Sepulchrr in the Old City, where many Christians believe Jesus's body lay for three days after he was crucified.

According to the New Testament, Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion, and an ossuary containing Jesus's bones - the explanations of the movie director notwithstanding - would contradict the core Christian belief that he was resurrected and then ascended to heaven.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The Lost Tomb?

Dr. Ben Witherington (a real scholar) has a post in which he shows how completely ridiculous the claims of movie director James Cameron (not a scholar by any stretch) that he has discovered the lost tomb of Jesus Christ.

THE JESUS TOMB? ‘TITANIC’ TALPIOT TOMB THEORY SUNK FROM THE START

One does get tired of the media going into a tizzy every time some idiot comes along with such manifestly baseless claims, and making pronouncements about how this could "rock the Christian faith." It would probably help if more people in the media had a real education of their own -- in some field other than how to look good on camera.

Update:
Get Religion weighs in on this as well.

Codex gives a round up of other posts on this subject.

More updates:

Ben Witherington adds to his original comments here.

More from Ben Witherington:

THE SMOKING GUN---TENTH TALPIOT OSSUARY PROVED TO BE BLANK

More from Get Religion:

Can we call Lost Tomb a hoax now?

And Codex gives another days round up of news on this subject.

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Da Vinci Code Hogwash





You can read Orthodox responses to the Da Vinci Code posted on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese web page, by clicking here.

Archpriest Nicholas Dalinkiewicz of Melbourne gave a talk at the 2004 Syezd (Russian Orthodox Youth Conference) in Canberra, Australia, which can be read by clicking here.

Fr. Joseph Huneycutt's Responses can be read by clicking here.

Other responses from Antiochion Orthodox writers can be read by clicking here.

New Testament Scholar, N. T. Wright delivers a lecture you can watch by clicking here.

The White Horse Inn (a Reformed Protestant Radio Show) had a good discussion about the Da Vinci Code with Dr. Paul Maier, which you can listen to by clicking here.

Dr. R.C. Sproul addresses the claims of the Da Vinci Code in an interview linked here.

Update:

This was written by Jim Royal, a member of the "Orthodox Convert" list and posted on that list earlier today.

Dr Suess reveiws the Da Vinci code

I would not watch it on TV,
I would not watch on DVD.
I would not watch on VHS,
I would not watch on CBS.

I would not watch it in a car,
I would not watch it in a bar.
I would not watch it with my dad,
I would not watch it when I'm sad.

I would not watch it in my bed,
I would not watch with my friend Fred.
I would not watch it on a box,
I would not watch it shown on FOX.

I would not watch it on a table,
I would not watch when it's on cable.
I would not watch it in a chair,
I would not watch it anywhere.

I wish I had not paid eight bucks,
This movie really really sucks.

Update! More Ridicule:

The Internet Theologian Explains the Da Vinci Code

Pope Admits to Secret Code

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

My Da Vinci Code Boycott





Many people have argued that boycotting a movie is futile. They have short memories. The Last Temptation of Christ was another Hollywood attack on Christ, but it was a box office bomb because of a well organized boycott... and it was a sorry movie too.

This movie is based on a book that is fictional, but claims to be based on real history... though no real historian supports it's ridiculous thesis. As Pat Buchanan pointed out, making this movie is analogous to making a movie that claims that the Jews are plotting to take over the world, based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Based on the early reviews of the Da Vinci code, this may well turn out to be a bomb, even without a boycott, but regardless of what anyone else does, here's what I'm going to do:

1) Any theatre that runs the Da Vinci Code is not going to see my money for three years. The Prophet Elijah taught Ahab a lesson by praying that it would not rain for three years, and so that seems like a good time-frame for an economic drought.

I realize that this may mean that I won't have a theatre to go to for the next three years. One could suffer far worse things.

However, a dispensation may have to be granted for Mel Gibson movies during this period of time.

2) I will also boycott all Sony Pictures movies for the next three years.

3) Tom Hanks and Ron Howard are never going to see my money again, unless they show signs of sincere remorse for this attack on my faith. I hate to do this, because I have generally liked the work of both of these guys, but Aunt Bee's curse be upon them both, until they say they're sorry.





4) Sir Ian McKellen is on my dirty dog list for good, for his comments today... barring a really sincere apology... but that's a tricky one, because he's such a good actor, how would you know? And to think I had nominated him to be the next Dumbledore.

The bottom line here is this: Hollywood has no respect for our faith, or for us, but they do pay attention when it comes to money, and so I say hit 'em where it hurts. If you look down on people of faith, keep it to yourself, if you expect us to continue to patronize your work.

Monday, April 10, 2006

More on the "Gospel of Judas"

Ben Witherington, who is a well known Biblical Scholar, and a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, has a blog, and has posted several things of interest on this subject:

The Gospel of Judas et al.---Part One

The Gospel of Judas--- Part Two

The Gospel of Judas-- the NPR Discussion

You can listen to that NPR discussion that he blogs about by clicking on this page, and taking your choice of Windows Media or Real Audio formats.

The shame of the format of this show was that you had one conservative guest who knew what he was talking about, two liberal scholars with fairly far out views, a talk show host who didn't have a clue, and a bunch of wine and cheese liberal callers who had even less of a clue. Who would have thought that NPR would have stacked the deck in favor of the liberals?

Fr. Joseph Huneycutt posts about this here, and has a link to this article in Get Religion.

Eric Jobe, who is a graduate student at the University of Chicago in Northwest Semitic Philology, has a post here.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

St. Irenaeus' Primary Beef with Gnosticism



St. Irenaeus of Lyons, author of Against Heresies (c. 130 - c. 200 a.d.)


In the course of the discussion about the Gospel of Judas, repeated mention has been made of the fact that St. Irenaeus mentions this Gnostic Gospel in his treatise "Against Heresies" [1:31:1]:

"Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."

Little mention has been made however of St. Irenaeus primary arguments against the Gnostics. The Gnostics were a religious movement with some similarities to the New Age movement of today, and this movement predated the time of Christ, and has no origins whatsoever in the Hebraic tradition. Gnostic, like New Agers, like to use elements of other religions as window dressing, for their non-Christian beliefs, and when they encountered Christianty, some of them began to use Christian window dressing. They claimed to have a secret tradition from Christ, but different Gnostic gospels claimed that this source came via different routes. However, what they all had in common was that there was no historical evidence that they could produce to substantiate their claims to having any connection with Christ. Here is the gist of St. Irenaeus' refutation of these claims:


"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this Faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believed these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the Tradition is one and the same. Neither do the Churches among the Germans believe otherwise or have another Tradition, nor do those among the Iberians, nor among the Celts, nor away in the East, or in Egypt, nor in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But just as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the Truth shines everywhere and enlightens all men who desire to come to a knowledge of the Truth. Nor will any of the rulers in the Churches, whatever his power of eloquence, teach otherwise, for no on is above the Teacher; nor will he who is weak in speaking subtract from the Tradition. For the Faith is one and the same, and cannot be amplified by one who is able to say much about it, nor can it be diminished by one who can say but little" [Against Heresies 1:10:2]."

"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things….

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,-a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me? ""I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles" [3:3:1-4].

"When, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the Truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the Truth, and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life. For she is the entrance to life, while all the rest are thieves and robbers. That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them, while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the Traditions of Truth. What then? If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of Tradition, which was handed down to those whom they entrusted the Churches?" [3:4:1].

In short, the teachings of the Orthodox Church have a historical record that can be examined, and St. Irenaeus could say "I was taught the faith by St. Polycarp, and he was taught it by the Apostle John himself". The Gnostics had nothing but claims and assertions without any evidence to support their claims -- and this in the face of overwhelming evidence that their teachings had no roots at all in the Judeo-Christian Tradition.

"Gospel of Judas" Coverage Betrays Media's Lack of Theological Literacy






From Newsbusters:
"Gospel of Judas" Coverage Betrays Media's Lack of Theological Literacy
Posted by Tim Graham on April 9, 2006 - 07:25.


Friday's enraptured major-media roll-out of a purported "Gospel of Judas," which claims that Judas was actually Christ's best buddy, betraying him only so he could slip out of his awful human body, drew harsh words from conservative bloggers. At The Volokh Conspiracy, media critic David Kopel whacked away (Hat tip: Instapundit):

This Friday's coverage of the so-called "Gospel of Judas" in much of the U.S. media was appallingly stupid. The Judas gospel is interesting in its own right, but the notion that it disproves, or casts into doubt, the traditional orthodox understanding of the betrayal of Jesus is preposterous...

Suppose that sometime around the year 3,800 A.D., someone wrote a newspaper that began: "According to a recently-discovered document, which appears to have been written sometime before 1926, Benedict Arnold did not attempt to betray George Washington and the American cause, as is commonly believed. Rather, Benedict Arnold was acting at the request of George Washington, because Washington wanted Arnold to help him create a dictatorship of the proletariat and the abolition of private property."

A reader who knew her ancient history would recognize that the newly-discovered "Arnold document" was almost certainly not a historically accurate account of the relationship between George Washington and Benedict Arnold...

In the March 2 issue of USA Today, ancient Egyptian documents expert James Robinson correctly predicted that the owners of the Judas Gospel manuscript would attempt to release it to coincide with the publicity build-up for "The DaVinci Code" movie, but explained that the "gospel" was part of a genre of pseudo-gospels from the second century onward, in which the authors simply made up the stories. In contrast, virtually all serious scholarship about the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) believes that they were written much closer to the events they describe--sometime in the first century a.d.

The influential Christian bishop Irenaeus, in his treatise Against Heresies, written in 180 a.d., denounced the Gospel of Judas as the product of a gnostic sect called the Cainites. (Book 1, ch. 31, para. 1.)

It's doubtful that network TV producers were paging through their dog-eared copies of Ireneaus to assemble their good-Judas stories. Catholic apologist and blogger Mark Shea suggested the roll-out displays the theological illiteracy of the media and our culture in general:

In a culture so theologically and historically illiterate as ours--a culture that takes the Da Vinci Code with utmost seriousness--it goes without saying that the selfsame people who are exacting to a degree when it comes to the canonical gospels will drink in the Gospel of Judas without a dram of critical thought. You've seen it all before. "Mark place two angels at the tomb, but Matthew only notes one! The witnesses are hopelessly contradictory and worthless!" Likewise, if you point to the overwhelming testimony of the early church on the apostolic origins of the four gospels, you get nitnoid "analyses" of this or that Greek word which somehow is supposed to prove that the gospels are fabrications without any relation to the apostolic testimony.

But when somebody drags out an *obvious* second century document bearing every earmark of a typical gnostic school of thought (Jesus jabbering about "the man that clothed me" and all the typical stuff that went with the whole "spirit=good/body=bad" mindset so foreign to both Jesus and the apostles, credulous gulls in the MSM are ready to treat the notion that this is a genuine record of an eyewitness as settled fact.

The most hilarious irony of all of this is that many of the hedonists and "sacred feminists" who are so eager for the gnostic Jesus would not want to have touched a real gnostic with a barge pole. After all, when your religious theory tells you that matter is a prison and women are the means by which spirit is imprisoned in matter, this tends to give rise to a rather low view of women.

One of the great favors some historian is going to have to do us all one day will be to compare the status of women in the early Church, not with the ludicrous notions of the Idealized Pre-Christian Sacred Feminine Paganism of Dan Brown and his research drudgewench Blythe, but with the average life of women in pre-Christian paganism and Judaism. I have no illusion that the lot of women vastly improved with the dawn of the gospel, just as the lot of slaves did not not immediately improve. But the notion that everything was just peachy for women until the Evil Church suddenly instituted patriarchy and crushed Woman underfoot is something that, well, only a culture as historically and theologically illiterate as ours could believe.