Posted on 12/13/2007 3:06:53 PM PST by Charles Gadda
"A breakdown in our political culture has been accompanied by other, related manifestations. These can be illustrated by examples from three domains: (1) fallacious theoretical discourse about a claimed nexus between science and religion; (2) religiously motivated sensationalism involving two hoaxes initially perpetrated on the National Geographic and Discovery channels, and widely publicized through dozens of other media outlets; and (3) the ongoing scandal involving the cooperation between a major "non-profit" science museum and a "scholarly" monopoly aimed at exploiting the public's fascination with Christian origins..."
(Excerpt) Read more at nowpublic.com ...
Neither the Tomb of Jesus or the Judas text are hoaxes. Certainly sensationalized, but not hoaxes. Neither have been conclusively identified and the scholarship continues.
For some, no proof is necessary; for others, no proof is sufficient. Thanks for the post!
I have changed “hoaxes...perpetrated” to “dubious ‘findings’...broadcast.” Thanks for the input on that, you are quite right that the word was too strong.
Ping to read later
The National Geographic translation of the Judas text WAS a hoax.
Response of the translators to DeConick:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/l07gospel.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
I’ve read the response, but find it extremely weak. The circumstances (see the analogy DeConick appropriately draws with the Dead Sea Scrolls monopoly) speak for themselves, and that not a word is said to justify them shows, in my view, that Meyer is just trying to wriggle out of an impossible situation by ignoring the ethical core of the problem and reasserting his “opinion.”
I think DeConick makes a good argument. I think Meyer is agenda driven.
Again, I don’t think the translation is a “hoax” - as you concurred. The word is too strong. But one can certainly argue that the translation was done poorly.
Personally, I don’t look to history to justify my faith, but I do find Biblical origins fascinating. It is, however, very difficult to wade through both pro and anti Christian biases because everyone involved has such intense motivations.
Here too I would concur with you; however, I would also insist on distinguishing between anti-Christian bias and opposition to interpretations of historical or scientific evidence that are religiously motivated — and above all, opposition to presenting such interpretations in a science museum exhibit as if they were accepted fact. (Several of my articles criticizing the San Diego scrolls exhibit were attacked on the grounds that I’m a “bigot,” which is quite unfair.)
Pretty fine (and subjective) line you're walking though. Granted, no one here is manufacturing phony ossuaries and saying Jesus' brother was buried in them, but outlandish claims are being made and phony, misleading arguments and evidence are used to support them. I guess "Dr. Feelgood's Magical Elixar" isn't a hoax because maybe it really is "good for everything that ails you." Just sensationalized, scholarship continues.
It has been known for a long time (there are mentions of it in the writings of the early Church), and there have been copies floating around for quite a while also.
Not very impressive. Noting opposition hardly justifies the insane and ridiculous comments made by the translators in the press, or the preposterous conclusions reached.
Another article covering the Judas text controversy:
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4152
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.