The Lost Tomb of Jesus—A Slight Return

This is a continuation of yesterday's sermon concerning the documentary about the tomb of Jesus, which I watched with keen interest. I did not watch the Critical Look show that followed because I wanted a clear picture so that I could make up my own mind.

First of all, I don't think that the show even rates as scholarly.

I have been trained—ever so slightly—in the craft of news journalism. What I saw last night, by today's standards, was about par, especially for video sensationalism. With journalists like Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck on CNN, and anyone that considers himself/herself a journalist on the Fox News Network, I find the documentary okay. After all, the only reason that we have ever heard of them is because they have an agenda that sells ad time for the networks.

But, for real journalism, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck and their compatriots on The Fox News Network, just don't fit in anywhere. And I'm not really disappointed that the show was not a true documentary. It was what I expected.

Mr. Jacobovici failed to convince me that this find was the tomb of the Biblical Jesus. His best evidence is that the names on the coffins are the names of family of Jesus. I am unconvinced that this isn't coincidental. He used only one statistician's say-so as proof. There needs to be more statistical evidence; much more. The inference that I got was that the 1-in-600 ratio could mean that every sixth-hundred tomb dating to that general time could have the same set of names on caskets. There were probably thousands of tombs such as this and many of them would have been in or near Jerusalem. Of the thousands, some could have had the same markings.

I will dismiss his DNA evidence as concluding very little. In fact it actually proves nothing concerning the who-what-when-where-why and how that a news journalist is interested in. I also believe that science takes this general approach when confronted with a theory.

To give Mr. Jacobovici credit, he says that he is offering the show as a possibility and not as fact. Actually, even this cannot stand up to any kind of scrutiny because of the use of actors to portray people and places. As a cop on and old television show used to say, "Just the facts please".

I believe that this show was made for entertainment, at least I will take it as such because it was rather enjoyable. Many more of this genre have been produced over the years, either pro or con of popular spiritual beliefs, and I suppose that many more will be made; at least, I hope so. This drama is no better or no worse than many of them. Bringing to light any evidence supporting or contradicting a controversial subject can be considered nothing but good for all of us in the big picture. If the producers wanted to present the show as possible facts, they should have, in the very least, provided a much greater degree of evidence. Their evidence should have been examined by many more experts in the fields that they used on the show, and all findings should have been placed before the public. They knew that it would raise a controversial stink in the way that it was presented. It seems that they got what they wanted.

One problem that any of them have, pro or con, is that most scientists won't delve too far into the subject because they would have to assume a negative proposition (faith that Jesus is the Son of God) and real science doesn't deal with the ideology of faith, only the facts. A tomb with coincidental markings is just not enough facts.

In the end, I cannot support or deny that the tomb of the biblical Jesus has been found. I can agree with the producers that it is possible. And that is not a leap of faith, because there are no facts that this Jesus or any other is the son of any god.

A five minute news show could have explained as much as this drama did in two hours