Film claims discovery of nails from Jesus's crossThis Reuters piece appears in the Jerusalem Post. Jacobovici, the "Naked Archaeologist," is in top form here: having noticed that an excavation found some ancient nails in a tomb near Jerusalem, possibly connected with the grave of the high priest Caiaphas, he concludes, naturally, that the nails were used to crucify Jesus. After all, what else could they have been for?
By REUTERS
04/12/2011 09:13
Simcha Jacobovici's "The Nails of the Cross" claims that the artifacts turned up in a Tel Aviv lab; many call the film a publicity stunt.
At least the IAA was consulted:
The Israel Antiquities Authority, which oversaw the Jerusalem excavation, said in reaction to the film's release that it had never been proven beyond doubt that the tomb was the burial place of Caiaphas. It also said that nails are commonly found in tombs.[UPDATE: Robert Cargill: no, simcha, you didn’t find the ‘nails of the cross’ of christ (a week before easter).
"There is no doubt that the talented director Simcha Jacobovici created an interesting film with a real archaeological find at its center, but the interpretation presented in it has no basis in archaeological findings or research," it said.
UPDATE: Rogue Classicism: Simcha’s Crucifixion Nail Silliness.]
Then this:
British Museum hopes to clean up with the 'Holy towel of Jesus'There is scholarly disagreement in the sense that all scholars believe the latter and none the former.
By Rob Sharp, Arts Correspondent (The Independent)
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
It is Jesus's "Holy Towel", once visited by pilgrims in the belief that it showed the face of Christ, formed when he dried his wet head on a piece of cloth and left an indelible mark.
The Christian relic the Mandylion of Edessa usually takes pride of place in the Pope's private Matilda chapel in the Vatican. It is rarely seen in public, and is one of the earliest images of Jesus – although there is scholarly disagreement about whether the facecloth is the original or a copy made 400 years after the life of Christ.
[...]
Don't get me wrong. I think it is cool that the BM is displaying a Monty-Pythonesque late-antique relic that got a lot of attention in the Middle Ages. Such things are of intrinsic historical interest (for the history of late antiquity and the Middle Ages) despite being fakes. As I've said before, I like my fakes ancient. But I do object to the tone of the article, which creates a bipolar distinction between two "views." When journalists do this, frequently (as here) one of the two views is reputable and the other is held by cranks, if anyone.
I can't find anything about the Mandylion at the BM website, but I'm going to assume they are marketing the exhibition in a responsible way.
And this:
Fall of Roman Empire caused by 'contagion of homosexuality'This one is drawing some wider attention due to the wild political incorrectness of the claims. My thoughts are:
A prominent Italian historian has claimed that the Roman Empire collapsed because a "contagion of homosexuality and effeminacy" made it easy pickings for barbarian hordes, sparking a furious row.
By Nick Squires, Rome 4:56PM BST 08 Apr 2011 (The Telegraph)
Roberto De Mattei, 63, the deputy head of the country's National Research Council, claimed that the empire was fatally weakened after conquering Carthage, which he described as "a paradise for homosexuals".
The remarks prompted angry calls for his resignation, with critics saying his comments were homophobic, offensive and unbecoming of his position.
The fall of the Roman Empire was a result of "the effeminacy of a few in Carthage, a paradise for homosexuals, who infected the many.
"The abhorrent presence of a few gays infected a good part of the (Roman) people," Prof Mattei told Radio Maria, a Catholic radio station.
[...]
1. I know of no evidence that homosexuality was more prevalent at Carthage than in other parts of the ancient world. Given how common and mainstream it was in Classical Greece, I see no reason why the ancient Carthaginians should be singled out as "infecting" Rome with it.
2. Even if we set aside the question of Carthage, this sort of higher order abstraction ("homosexuality caused the downfall of the Roman Empire") would have to be argued on the basis of highly detailed evidence on many levels and it would be exceedingly difficult even for a modern sociologist to defend any similar claim about the modern world. I suspect it would be impossible to argue convincingly. It would be vastly more difficult to argue for an ancient society about which comparatively little evidence survives.
3. But Professor De Mattei was not arguing, he was asserting, in an interview with his co-religionists. As far as I'm concerned, he's entitled to his opinion and to the free speech to assert it as long as he makes clear he is expressing a personal view and not speaking in his official capacity. It's not clear to me whether he did express himself this carefully or not.
4. All that said, his claim seems historically dubious to me — and also unfalsifiable (untestable) and therefore not very interesting. As Popper would say, it's not even wrong.
Cross-file under "Punic Watch."
[UPDATE: David Meadows has a roundup of discussions over at Rogue Classicism: Pondering the Cause(s) of the Fall of Rome.]
And finally this:
Secrets within Great Pyramid of Giza Point to One True GodThis is just a press release about a book that revives goofy hermetic claims about the Great Pyramid. I wouldn't have mentioned it except for the fact that it appears on the website of the San Francisco Chronicle. It's not marked as a paid advertisement, but perhaps they're getting some money for posting it. But they shouldn't be getting mixed up in this kind of nonsense.