I was sent this new 4 part series by Simcha Jacobovici and I wonder why he called them Biblical Controversies when there is nothing in the episodes which really point to an actual biblical controversy. Parts one and three may point to a church issue but not a biblical controversy and episodes two and four point to a Roman Catholic church problem and a personal belief or gnostic issue but again has nothing to do with a problem in the Bible
The first episode was actually well done and I was surprised that Jacobovici had anything to do with it as it lacked any of the drama that is a part of a Jacobovici production. The interviews do not feel like they have been edited to fit a desired point of view and the science was documented and proceeded in a very logical and methodological manner. Unfortunately the production failed when Jacobovici made his usual giant leaps to conclusions without real evidence to support those links.
The episode focused on the supposed crucifixion nails re-found by Jacobovici and after all their work to prove that they probably were located in Caiaphas’ ossuary, there was no evidence linking them to any special event. Since we know so little about Caiaphas’ life there is no hope of discovering the link between him and the nails or what they were used for.
For all we know, they were just thrown in there for no purpose at all or they fell in by accident. But leave it to conspiracy theorist Jacobovici to make hay out of something so minute.
Episode two deals with a discovery of a small statuette most likely made by Michelangelo and for some reason this little work, though not a finished piece but a work created to bid for a project,has Jacobovici seeing secret codes and imaginary controversies between Michelangelo and the Roman Catholic Church.
My question is how can people like Jacobovici claim there is a secret code hidden in Michelangelo’s work when the latter makes no mention of doing such a thing and a quick check of the artist’s biography doesn’t mention any such secret activity? Where do people like Jacobovici find such information and then proclaim it is gospel fact?
Of course, Jacobovici has to extend this code into a biblical controversy involving a marriage between Jesus and Mary M. There is no basis for this leap to a conclusion. It is like all those people who claim that Leonardo painted Mary M next to Jesus in his famous work The Last Supper. How would a painting made 1500 years or so after the last supper be able to depict who was at the table and who sat where? Where would Leonardo get his information that would influence his work in that manner?
Both Leonardo and Michelangelo were not inspired by God to present an alternative to the gospel message so why are people pointing to their works as some sort of infallible clue that contradicts what Matthew and the other gospel writers wrote? Why do we, the public, have to suffer through their error-filled projects? I think Gary Trudeau said best through his Doonesbury character The Duke when he was using that strip to talk about the JFK Conspiracy theorists.
He said, ‘ it doesn’t matter if they are right or not. The conspiracy brings some sort of purpose to their normally empty lives.’ And that is how I now see Jacobovici in part. He is trying to fill some void in his life by creating supposed biblical controversies where there are none and then talking about them publicly. He is certainly not bringing to the world any real or credible evidence to think about nor is he presenting anything that would upset Christianity or change its doctrines.
Part three, talks about crucifixion in general but again it fails as it bases its point on bad history, bad archaeology other distorted assumptions he could come up with it is an interesting topic but someone other than Jacobovici should have investigated it, someone more qualified and more logical and rational to bring the facts of history to the forefront and leave the conspiracies behind.
The main problem is the assumption that Jacobovici and company could determine what the Romans did at each and every crucifixion. Jesus’ turn was not a mass event where thousands were executed for their crimes so the Romans could do things differently at that time instead of following their usual routine. Also the fame of Jesus required a different handling of his crucifixion. But we do not know because there are no ancient records, that I know of, that describe the exact methodology the Romans used to crucify their victims. You can read one version here
Part four was just terrible,pathetic and not worth commenting upon here. It was that terrible and typical or vintage Jacobovici. Long on assumption and leaps to conclusion and very short on actual fact, evidence and common sense. His viewers were greatly disappointed when he did not mount the cross like he did in his Naked Archaeologist t.v. series.
There is just no worthwhile content in that last episode.
One of the things that has always bothered me is the question: How do atheists. skeptics, and unbelievers think they can say anything about the Bible, what its message is or even understand its words then feel that they are qualified to make different t.v. shows and movies about the events of the Bible when they do not even believe God exists? Robert Cargill does this and he is an atheist who he falls very short in his analysis of the Bible. The following link goes to his latest effort
I have asked him that question by the way and his answer was less than satisfying. He does not believe that God exists so how can he think he can even be a bible scholar when he has no truth in him no help from the HS and is deceived? It would be best if the atheists, the skeptic, and the unbeliever left making t.v. shows and movies about the Bible to true believers. At least the world would be exposed to the truth instead of sinful, subjective deceived opinion that is offered by these non-christian scholars and filmmakers.
It would be nice if the unbeliever gave up making their own productions and simply asked questions and let the true believer answer them honestly. More would be accomplished than the mocking tone that comes with those who do not believe when they examine biblical events.