James Cameron is coming out with a new documentary in which he claims the body of Jesus Christ has been discovered in an ancient tomb. I find the claim ridiculous. Please note that I critique his claim not because of it’s content, but because of it’s intellectual lameness. If someone presented credible evidence that Jesus Christ did not raise from the dead, that would pretty much cause me to leave the Christian faith. Such has never been presented, though. Anyway:
Cameron claims he has DNA evidence to backup his description of the body as that of Jesus Christ. Pretty obvious problem here: DNA only works as evidence if one has a credible sample with which to compare. Since no sample of Jesus’ DNA was preserved from his time on Earth, what could Cameron possibly be thinking? Probably something along the lines of “people are wowed by science, so I’ll appear more credible if I say I have DNA evidence”. 
I have some ocean-front property in Montana to sell, and I have ten scientists with DNA expertise who will vouch for what a great deal it is. In fact, they’ll do so in PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS!! (the gold standard of truth)
UPDATE 2.25.07: It seems that Cameron’s DNA claim is not that the body is that of THE Jesus, but that a “Mary” in the tomb is specifically not related by blood to the body labeled “Jesus” (both incredibly common names). In Dan Brown-esque fashion, he’s apprently pushing a marriage between Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ. To put this in perspective, imagine someone 2000 years from now discovered side-by-side burial spots labeled George and Barbara. From this and little else, they inferred they had discovered the final resting place of Bush 41 and his wife. Amazing.
February 28, 2007 at 2:35 pm
It appears the only digital reason found here is what conforms to the blog masters preconceptions. What about the unfettered search for truth, scientific inquiry, and detached observation? In the absence of these perhaps it would be wise to leave the Christian faith right now.
Be patient, this claim will prove or disprove itself without any outside help. Anyway is God diminished by a spiritual resurrection? Does the fact of an evolving creation make God weak?
Here’s and idea for the Digital Reason Apparel Store: a blindfold.
February 28, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Oh, how I hope you’re still around, VoR. I would love to further know your thoughts on this. Here’s my comments on your response:
The thing about preconceptions: anyone who feels they are completely objective is naive or foolish. It’s been my experience that attempting to rid oneself of preconceptions is a futile quest, and that one can make much deeper progress by taking stock of preconceptions, recognizing them for what they are, and being aware of their affects.
I took the time to research Cameron’s claims (to the point that they were available for examination; he’s holding back quite a bit in order to gain viewers for his show), took into account my knee-jerk response, carefully weighed the merits of the claims, then posted of their ridiculousness accordingly. The most “unfettered” researcher wouldn’t need to “detach” much in order to evaluate such clearly ludicrous claims. If you feel there’s something of substance I’m missing, I’m truly passionate about your enlightening me; please do!
And yes, God is indeed diminished by a spiritual resurrection, since He claimed to have risen bodily; He is diminished to being a liar.
If you’re truly concerned about my “blindfold”, please help me to remove it; be specific and focused in your critique, offer substantial evidence that contradicts my claims.
March 5, 2007 at 12:23 pm
wow, VoR, that is some response! I have little doubt “this claim” of James Cameron will prove or disprove itself, but I am amazed by your response to this post. Certainly poppies has opinions, but he isn’t ranting and raving about the documentary like some religious lunatic…
I agree that Poppies’ argument is a bit lightweight — he doesn’t delve into all the questionable scientific claims this documentary seems to bring up (there’s a very careful, complete analysis at http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7109).
But it sounds like you think Poppies’ religious belief is interfering with his reasoning ability… I don’t see that at all. His main argument, breaks down into two claims:
1) he has not been exposed to any credible claims that Jesus didn’t raise from the dead, and
2) that it is extremely unlikely we could identify Jesus’ body with DNA evidence, since we would need a known source of DNA for Jesus
His first claim is hard to refute, because it is about his own experience. I’m sure he would be happy to hear any claims that Jesus did not raise from the dead that you think are credible.
His second claim is only common sense. Do we currently have any stores of DNA for Jesus? I doubt it. Some might say that the shroud of Turin or another religious artifact could contain material that we could extract Jesus’ DNA from, but I find it hard to believe that the scientific community at large would except that (I am a scientist myself, and I know I wouldn’t), because it is not very clear that these objects themselves are authentic.
So why accuse him of being “blind”? What’s he blind to? I don’t find anything of real substance in your accusations or arguments.
And what’s this about a “spiritual resurrection”? I believe this is an idea that the church at large has already rejected 1700 or so years ago, because it changes the whole message AND it doesn’t fit the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.
March 12, 2007 at 9:35 pm
As far as I know what the documentary tries to establish is not only that there was a Jesus and Mary that were related in the same tomb but also that there was a James…and others that were related to Jesus and that some accounts say are Jesus’s brothers. Now, while all of the names are common, the researchers (at least according to the Discovery Channel version of their documentary which is somewhat suspect) were able to establish that there is a 1 in 30′000 chance that this is not Jesus’ tomb.
March 12, 2007 at 9:45 pm
The probabilities rely on some fairly shaky premises. The link wallflower referenced, http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7109 , is a helpful resource.
I should bring up, though, once again, that should someone ever come forward with significant evidence that they found the body of “the” Jesus, that would falsify Christianity for me instantly.
March 13, 2007 at 10:13 am
As a rationalist I disbelieve resurrection accounts pending evidence, so the idea that Jesus never resurrected is not particularly world shaking for me– I will say though that the theory that he did resurrect is technically falsifiable (we can simply find the bones) but practically infalsifiable as we do not have his DNA. It is up to Christians then to devise an experiment by which we may falsify the resurrection or agree on what pieces of evidence, if produced would be convincing for them. At any rate, pending the resolution of this case critical, rational people should at the very least suspend judgment on the resurrection, they should desist from affirming it as it is possible that a pretty good probabilistic case will emerge from scattered data.
July 23, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Very interesting site… I wish I could write like you! Miky