Jesus is dead?
February 26th, 2007 by 
soulster
(Que announcer) Producer James Cameron, creator of Titanic, is teaming up with provocative director Simcha Jacobovici to bring to light a startling new discovery that will shake the very foundations of Christianity. Deep in a hidden cave, 10 stone coffins tell a shocking tale about Jesus of Nazareth — founder of the Christian religion. Did Jesus really rise from the dead like the church says? (Tone of voice hints no.) Was there something going on between him and Mary Magdelene? (Tone hints yes.) And is it possible Jesus had a son? (Hinting yes again.) Cameron is willing to boldly dig up the truth in this daring documentary and peal back church cover-ups and a conspiracy that has ruled the world for two thousand years. Watch the Discovery Channel to find out about these amazing new discoveries….
See Time’s coverage here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1593441,00.html | or more detailed coverage at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3368731,00.html
Here we go again. Now, let me start with a disclaimer: I believe Jesus rose from the dead. I believe that it is scientifically possible and did happen. There, my bias is revealed (as if you didn’t know.) But I am also interested in the quest for archeological truth about the life of Christ — the quest for the historical Jesus, many have called it. Really, I am. But this is exactly why the topic of truth and knowledge is much more difficult than us saying, “hey, this is a fact” and bottle-necking all of life and the human experience by regurgitating the great maxim of the scientific method (which, like any ideal, is limited in both application and actual accuracy).
What Cameron is doing is grand standing for personal profit. He’s bull-dozing the gaping holes in a minor archeological discovery to make a few bucks (actually more than a few). Of course, such a criticism would be expected from a Christian like me. But I’m not the one saying it. Professor Amos Kloner, the directing archeologist on the dig and highly respected expert for the Department of Antiquities (now IAA), says, “The claim that the burial site has been found is not based on any proof, and is only an attempt to sell,†and “I refute all their claims and efforts to waken a renewed interest in the findings. With all due respect, they are not archeologists…A burial chamber of Jesus’ family would be a discovery that would shake up the world, and that’s what the filmmakers want to do†[here]. Kloner is quick to point out these coffins have been studied for over 30 years by the best minds in Israeli archeology and the international community, and the evidence is inconclusive. Eleven years ago a similar film was made based on inuendo, but it lacked the multi-million-dollar marketing to give it the “credibility” of the current psuedo-documentary. But there is no more evidence or information to link the findings to the family of Jesus.
I believe Kloner. He is the kind of sober scientist that I respect. He shot down the supposed discovery of the “James son of Joseph” Ossuary based on the differences in the patina long before the details of the sketchy actions of the buyer surfaced. But on the other hand, he also objected to some of the unbased criticisms of his colleges that were obviously slanted [see here]. As disappointed as Christians were (including me), I’m thankful to know the probable truth in the matter. Better not to believe lies, no matter how convenient (after all, my faith is about radical honesty).
But Kloner’s objections don’t really matter. Why? Because Cameron is having a press conference in New York today (2/26/07) that will be tomorrow’s headlines. The press, of course, will use “according to” and “the film claims” to avoid the moral dilemma of sensationalizing largely unfounded information, but they really won’t be able to resist the sell-ability of such an implication, no matter how doubtful.
Here enters Marshal McLuhan’s [wiki] axiom “the medium is the message” [wiki]. Simply put, the content of any message is subordinated by how is it communicated and the medium/media reinterprets the message by creating context, from which the human creature draws most of its information. Despite doubts about the media, most people still view news sources and especially the Discovery Channel and public TV (who have already cut deals to air the film even before previewing it) as a reliable information source. No matter how many “according to” qualifiers are used to relieve the consciences (and liability) of those selling psuedo-science, because of the medium, people will accept this as a new fact — incorporated into the large mythical body of things everyone can believe without researching for themselves.
We can talk all we want about the scientific method, but it is not the engine of our world or the minds of the people. McLuhan is right. The new media has created a tribalism through which Big Brother may enter the internal space of every person. It is the village that drunkentune has loathed elsewhere on this blog. The only cure is a plea to radical honesty, introspection, and faithfulness to our own stories first, and then to all others — all tenents that created the scientific method in the first place.
Posted in current issues, epistemology | 
February 26th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
PZ Meyers at Pharyngula gave an atheist’s response to the converage as well. I think it’s completely insane, and I agree with you. It’s a load of bull designed to fleece people out of money. It looked like another one of those crazy things that pass under the radar, but just this morning as I was reading the newspaper, someone flipped to some early show on CBS or ABC - James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici were speaking. One skeptic was interviewed, and he said in brief, ‘No, the Roman names of Jesus and Mary are perhaps the most common names of Palestine in the 1st century. Finding names is not proof of anything.’
The two then said repeatedly, ‘If you want to know more, see our movie, buy our book.’
End of story.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I think this episode can be very instructive to the difficulty with truth. Watch the “exclusive video” on the Discovery channel site: here. It sounds so reasonable, so balanced, so humble, so sensitive. Like Simcha saying he’s not out to prove anything (although he slips later and says he’s found the missing info that proves this is the tomb), he’s just bringing to light a story many archeologists over-looked like an Indiana Jones film plot. He claims he’s just doing his duty. But then look at the experts on the project. Some of the most doubtful characters to be granted degrees in their various fields (people obessed with selling books and endlessly criticized for making unfounded claims by their peers). (Who’s missing — anyone from the IAA, the major Biblical archeology schools. Why?)
So how do you sell a good lie? Find one everyone will pay to hear. Gather some supporters who will say it for you so you don’t have to. Find, in the vast range of thinkers out there people who will agree with you and list their degrees in impressive array. Then pretend that the playing field is level and anyone who wants to disagree can (although they can’t access the economic and media engines you’re using). Prefectly insideous.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Lots of atheist bloggers have been having fun with this one. Mostly it has been something of an amusement. I don’t think that many people atheists or otherwise consider this story to be true, but that hasn’t stopped them from having a few giggles about it.
I don’t think that they have found the tombs of jesus and his family, though I admit, it would be considerably entertaining for me if they did.
The only people who seem to be getting their knickers in a knot over this are theists. In the same way they did when the Da Vinci code came out. What part of the word, “fiction”, didn’t they understand? Oh yeah, they may have trouble with being able to differentiate between fiction and non-fiction, I forgot.
Of course, this new find, if considered true, could increase the cost of relics. There may be a bidding war on ebay any day now for Jesus’ little toenail. (I just hope I have enough money to bid for it in Paypal.)
February 26th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
I put the claims of Jesus’s tomb and Lourdes in the same box. That is the benefit of being a skeptic. I don’t have a dog in the fight.
(Watching video link now courtesy of soulster)
February 26th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
I wasn’t up in arms about the Da Vinci code. It was presented as fiction most of the time and that’s no problem. It was a mildly entertaining book and movie based on some silly psuedo-science conspiracy theories. I do dispise, in a certain sense, the ploy to make a buck by saying something slanderous. I look at that the same way as those who would say “Charles Dickens was illiterate” or “Shakespeare was gay” just to get people to buy books, etc.
But still, there are a lot of suckers out there who can’t sort it out. This tomb stuff being on the Discovery channel makes it a problem of a different order. I liken it to the guy who thought dragons were real after seeing a fiction piece done documentary-style on a Discovery channel off shoot. One problem with any type of forward looking humanism is that is assumes humans in general can be rational and responsible. I think the statistical data is against them. (Not that you should abandon high ideals because most of the race can’t keep up.)
Either way, I think it effectively demonstrates the problem with information and “truth”. For most people, the only reference they have to external scientific information is a plea to an authority of some kind, whether they are atheist or theist. The problem is, there aren’t too many trustworthy authorities that are accessible and not many accessible authorities that are are trustworthy. That’s the point with this film. Kloner is no Christian moaning about this discovery [beepbeep, some people are simply complaining because they are interested in truth]. But his voice is unlikely to be heard by the masses, even though he is much more trustworthy [and notably, he was not interviewed by the director].
In the current environment, I am convinced that all we can be certain of is our experience, and that fundamentally changes the place of scientific method in my life. I think any highly-idealistic epistemology that places the scientific method at center simply isn’t being honest, at least for most people (one could make an arguement it fits in the epistemology of a society). How could it be in such a world? Kloner may use it. He may not. It is unlikely I will ever know. I’m sure that the film makers are not using it, and they will be the voice most people hear. The point is, I will never get to employ the method in this case, so I must use some other process to decide the truth. In this case, it was reading articles on blogs, news sites, etc. How should I then rate the reliablity of the information? The sites accuracy: maybe 75%? The accuracy of knowing if this is the right historical interpretation (according to the film makers 6:1 in favor) maybe 5% (following Kloner). So my certainty in this is extremely small, and there is no way I can apply the scientific method in this case, as in most of life. It works great in a tightly controlled environment when focused on some natural processes, but beyond on that we realistically must and do use other paths to truth.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I would tackle a viewing of “The Tombs of Jesus’s Family” (or whatever it is called), in the same way as I would tackle any other claim including the claims from Lourdes.
1. Have the tombs been dated? And by what method?
2. Have the tombed dated consistently?
3.Have the tombs dated consistently by various dating authorities?
4. What is the dating of the inscriptions and have they dated consistently?
5. Is the method and process of inscription typical of that found on tombs of the same period? If not, why not?
6. What language is the inscription in? (aramaic, latin, hebrew, greek, english? haha)
7. Is the language and font typical of that found on other tombs of the same period?
8. Why were the ossuary boxes, bone boxes, (which would also need to be dated, follow 1-5 again), not mentioned upon their discovery approximately 27 years ago?
9. Jesus was supposedly a common name at the time, as were Joseph, Mary and James - yet they admit to having found one other ossuary which supposedly has the name of jesus on it. Their claim is that because thousands of people were named jesus and because they have only found 2 boxes with said name, that this points in favour of an historically accurate find. This sounds like Ed’s claims of 66 supposed cures as being evidence of the supernatural. In other words, there could be thousands of reasons as to why they haven’t found more tombs with the name jesus on them. In the same way that there could be thousands of reasons as to why a very small % of people who visit Lourdes are “cured.” (None of which would need to involve a supernatural entity.)
10. DNA testing of bone fragments can only test for mitochondrial DNA. In other words, it can test for a genetic relationship between the ossuary boxes, and it may provide some details of ethnicity.
11. But what can this tell us that we wouldn’t already know? 12.It seems reasonable, but not 100% positive, that people buried in the same tomb would be related. (This is typical, not extraordinary.)
13.DNA can tell us some aspects concerning ethnicity. Now unless they find a specific genetic marker that indicates that the bones belonged to someone from North America or Australia, I can’t see how startling this information can be.
14. The DNA cannot confirm or deny that the bones are the bones of jesus of nazareth because there is no DNA of said figure with which to compare and contrast the DNA.
15. The DNA , considering that from a religious point of view that jesus was human, should only be consistent with what we would expect from human DNA.
16. According to my understanding, DNA geneticists are unable to test DNA for “supernatural qualities.” Frankly, I don’t believe that they exist, but regardless of that, unless the DNA can show some incredible anomolies - characteristics which are atypical to the inhabitants of the time, the DNA can only show a possible relationship to the other bones, and possible ethnic markers.
Could any of this be conclusive evidence that the bones belonged to jesus and his family? No.
So, unfortunately, I don’t think that they will be able to prove anything conclusively either way. They won’t be able to prove that it was jesus and they won’t be able to prove that it isn’t.
What they will do, is to suggest a possibility that it is jesus and his family. In the same way that Lourdes likes to suggest the possibility that a supernatural intervens.
Both suggestions are good for business.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I wonder how many will (erroneously) link the Discovery Channel and the Discovery Institute as one and the same? In an odd sort of way that would be an amusing consequence.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Haha infidel - you “evil” human you.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
beepbeep:
That sounds like a pretty good “manifesto” for viewing the program. Since I don’t have a TV or cable, I’ve made arrangements with a friend to record the program and view soon after. I might use your list as a suggested viewer’s guide and see how they do.
Infidel:
You know, I think that Discovery Institute has based its marketing on a cognitive link of people to the Discovery Channel as a main link to science. DC has made much of the scientific world that was only available in print more accessible. I think DI is taking advantage of that in its branding (just visit their website which is a graphical cross between DC and National Geographic). Now, that’s nothing new to you, but it might be worth something for a believer to say it is a sly move similar to the film makers discussed above.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:11 am
I can’t say that I wouldn’t like it if they could indicate conclusively that the tomb contained the ossuary boxes of jesus and his family.
I am an atheist afterall. The concept that there was a person called jesus who was a political dissident but who was nonetheless human, seems a much more rational story to me than the one that religion tells.
But, regardless of my personal desires, I would prefer that all claims were treated without fear or favour. Even the ones I would prefer to be true.
Afterall, that is the concept of objective information. It is the concept of the scientific method, that all claims can be treated and assessed in an even manner.
That information, regardless of whether it complies with what we believe, can be processed in order to provide a rational and logical assessment of the situation.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I’ll be watching the Discovery Channel’s coverage - and having a good laugh, just as I did after reading The DaVinci Code. Dan Brown’s earlier books are all fun conspiracy of ignorance/’Running Man’ larks, and it bothers me when people take such claims at face value.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:36 am
I enjoyed the Da Vinci code and found it a very entertaining work of fiction. I think the reason that a lot of theists had problems with it, was because it was in competition with their own book of fiction. It’s a wonder that Dan Brown wasn’t burnt at the stake.
On the same topic, this is what that crazy fundie lady from Jesus Camp had to say about the Harry Potter books, more fiction that is apparently in evil competition.
Harry Potter Is Evil
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/search?q=harry+potter
February 28th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Well… Harry Potter is a warlock…
February 28th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
And I am tinkerbell..
March 1st, 2007 at 10:10 am
beepbeep:
Ah-ha! My suspicions are confirmed!
All:
I do not read much in the way of fiction, but my wife and I read Harry Potter to each other for quality time. While awaiting the last novel, we have been reading The Lord of the Rings. So, obviously, the Jesus Camp does not represent all believers in this opinion.
For a believer, this raises the question, does this mythic literature weaken the faith since it is easy to view scripture in the same way? For all humans, this raises the question, does mythic literature threaten us all by promoting wishful thinking and day dreaming? After-all no mythic literature is purely naturalistic, generally involving a lot of ’supernatural’ events. I tend to follow Joseph Cambell’s line on this: myth is telling us something very important. It is encoding the experience of being alive. I would disagree with him, however, in one point: I think myth is also saying what it means to be alive, which he avoided saying I think to avoid the competition of teleologies in different myths (he was, after all, extremely pluralistic, i.e. all myths say basically the same thing).
I’ve seen the Jesus Camp stuff on Harry Potter, and I think, short of a Nazi-type book burning campaign or prohibitions on the level of the Scope’s Monkey Trial, the attempt to de-mythologize society is unrealistic and is totally disasterous. Are you going also to prohibit children’s imaginations? We will always create such stories, and there is much to say that such is the healthy behaviour of humans. The point then is to learn filter all stories, including the stories science is teaching us. What truth can you gain from it? How can you think critically about what it is saying? Etc.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:47 am
Many of these mythic works of fiction have the same central theme–good vs. evil–and in the case of the Harry Potter series, Lord of the Rings trilogy, and even Stephen King’s “The Stand,” evil is trumped by good. How can that be bad for children to read?
March 1st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
soulster,
I agree as well. I should point out that any attempt to de-ritualize is also in poor taste. We all have ritual, both secular and religious, and to remove it from daily life degrades the bonds between families, just as removing common myth and legend degrades what it means to be part of a community and its history.
But we should all recognize that while we may treat them as truths, myths and rituals are not true in the scientific sense, or (I think) in any other sense of the word other than what personal value we give to it.
March 1st, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Joseph Campbell would say that they transcend personal truth, and I think he is right. While he would advocate not forcing such things on anyone (and I agree), he would point out that the context of story is most often societal, and should be so. One mythic example he uses frequently is the costume of judges and government agents i.e. police. Their power is mythic in several ways.
Again, I’m pushing here on my thinking that the is/ought boundary in society is not helpful because it prevents the creative conversation. That’s not to say that one or the other should rule as in times past (such as when ought surpressed the is). I would disagree with any limitations that would want to limit stories to the personal realm, but on the same hand, I would advocate and even insist on an ethic of personal choice in most cases.
Also, in Campbell’s work, there is a sense that myth is biologically true, evolutionarily true, and physically true, but encoding these truths in a different way than a science report on the news or text book. It’s my opinion that his thinking deserves serious consideration.
March 1st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Infidel:
I think Joseph Cambell’s work is short sighted in one way. In an effort to be comparative, he tends to elevate the similarities in myths over the differences. I think they are thematic, such as good-over-evil, because they have roots in the deepest parts of the human psyche. But the differences are also profound, and that makes them real. There are wrong and right answers in the real world, so the subtle differences and flavors in mythic stories is highly important. Take for example the two approaches to evil in each of these stories you list:
Harry Potter: relational faithfulness (love+courage) is the answer to evil.
Lord of the Rings: giving up power sacrificially is the answer to evil, since it is taking power selfishly.
I only saw the Stand as a TV series and don’t remember it well. You might be able to fill in its approach to fighting evil.
March 1st, 2007 at 6:02 pm
soulster,
I fail to see (perhaps I should read Campell’s work. Any suggestions?) how some things may be true in a factual sense and yet be a fabrication. Is is that there is a deeper meaning found in myth that is true, or something on the lines of multiculturalism or pluralism of fact, where nothing is true, or everything is true?
March 1st, 2007 at 7:47 pm
RE: the stories of good and evil.
It is interesting to me at least, how a lot of our story-telling, myth, legend, fable and literature, revolves around essentially the same message. The fight between “good and evil” and the eventual success of good over evil.
Religious stories are essentially just an extension of this, or perhaps in an historical sense, our modern literature and story-telling is an extension of the genres of story telling which preceeded it.
Mankind has always attempted through fable, myth, legend, folklore and consequently religious stories, to present life situations which mankind considers essential to the human experience. Ones which can provide examples of the characteristics and attributes which we consider to be shining examples of our better selves. And, as an adjunct to this, they necessitate examples of our none too pleasant natures as well. They are essentially “how to survive stories.”
So, the stories are full of self-sacrifice, strength through adversity, courage, determination and quests for truth in what are presented to be virually hopeless combats against the opposite of these characteristics.
They depict the model, or what is considered to be the desirable model, of human interaction and behaviours within a cultural and societal chronological reference.
That many of these desired human attributes stand the test of time, that is, that they are found throughout history, indicates that mankind, has seen life as a struggle. And it is. Life is tenuous, unpredible, and inevitably fatal. So, human success stories provide hope of success and the comfort of knowing that success is possible. (By success I mean survival.)
All well and good. We like to hear how great we can be if we only set our minds to it. We like to believe that we can share some of those attributes of our heroes, religious or otherwise, by emulating their lives, deeds and works.
Still all well and good. Now for the “but” and that was inevtiable too, wasn’t it..
When, how and under what circumstances do we decide that a story is legend, myth, folklore, fable, or a false religion?
Answer: - When we decide that it isn’t literally true. The majority of people on the planet have little or no problem with ascertaining that it isn’t literally true that Achilles was immortal except for a spot on his ankle which wasn’t immersed in the river Styx. People have little difficulty in deciding that Hercules didn’t literally kill a 3 bodied monster called, Geryon. People have little difficulty in recognizing that Perseus did not slay a a creature called Medusa who supposedly had thousands of snakes as hair and whose gaze could turn a man to stone.
Millions of people, do, however have great difficulty in assessing whether or not a man called muhammad rode a winged horse into the sky, or whether a man called jesus was born without the addition of sperm.
This is not to say that religious stories cannot fulfill a positive function, as all stories of human struggle can do that, but it is to say that we appear to have great difficulty in assessing and evaluating the literal truth of extraordinary claims if we choose one hero and their heroic accounts over all others. That is, we have difficulty in assessing the literal truth of extraordinary claims once we choose to use them as the guidebook to life, the universe and everything. (Obviously, my guide book is “Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”. );)
The other “but” I have with the stories of good and evil is that they present a “black and white world.” - A false dichotomy or dilemma of either this or that. Heaven or hell, good or evil and right or wrong.
Unfortunately these concepts are only ever viewed within the narrow context of “what would MY hero do”, rather than what would be a rational, reasonable or logical course of action under many or most circumstances.
They also suggest that the just or righteous person has only ever one course of action to take under all circumstances. A one size fits all mentality and that to stray outside the “one size fits all mentality” is an act of evil in itself.
They are NOT pluralistic, in the sense that they recognize that all of these stories contain instances of human adventure from which lessons could be learnt, they are dictatorial.
They do not see others in themselves, they see others as those who must submit to the “obvious truth” of their specific heroic creed of choice.
March 1st, 2007 at 7:56 pm
They essentially devolve into, (when accepted as literal truth), believe in the one and only true hero or die. Either at the hands or will of the hero, or at the hands or will of those who follow the hero.
March 1st, 2007 at 8:54 pm
soulster,
In The Stand the battle between good and evil is physical combat but victory is fleeting and temporary. The last paragraph lets the reader know that evil has survived to fight another day and is gathering strength for the next confrontation. I am almost always disappointed in movie versions of King’s novels so I didn’t see the TV miniseries. So much is lost in transition from one medium to the other.
March 1st, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Infidel,
All I have to say: The Shining. So much better with Kubrick’s direction.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:44 pm
drunkentune–
No one can play a a crazy person as convincingly as Jack Nicholson. Kubrick’s original was the best adaptation of the book I agree. Did you know the novel was written at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado which was the inspiration for the ‘Overlook’? Creepy to think I stayed in that same hotel in the early 70’s, before SK’s inspiration, but alas, another missed opportunity to be scared out of my wits by animated topiary.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Back to the original topic of James Cameron’s docu-drama: Wouldn’t it be a hoot if they had Geraldo Riviera open the ossuary boxes? It seems only fitting….
March 1st, 2007 at 11:52 pm
For anyone who may be interested, my follow up story to this can be found here.
Do Invertebrates Go To Heaven?
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2007/03/do-invertebrates-go-to-heaven.html
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 am
And wouldn’t it be so ironic, so painful and wrongheaded if Geraldo Riviera opens the boxes to discover… Jimmy Hoffa clutching Al Capone’s money!
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
You people are funny.
drunkentune (#20):
Perhaps the best way to access Campbells work is through the transcripted interviews The Power of Myth. I wish Campbell was alive to answer for himself, but I’ll give it a try. I think Campbell would respond to you that true facts (as in the Western sence of “that which could be scientifically shown to result from understood natural, mechanistic phenomenon”) cover only a small part of what can be known, and an even smaller fraction of the human experience. The fact is, we will all die. But there is a great deal about what can be known about death, the ways to face it, the meanings given to, how we can live in light of it — all that has nothing to do with “the facts”. Myth is where much of this is encoded.
It’s not that myths are attempting to be factually true in this Western naturalistic sense, because it’s really dealing with the huge expanse of human experience that the facts do not cover. On top of that, it is a way of encoding knowledge that is decidedly human. There is so much information in even a Fairy Tale that goes so far beyond math equations and chemical formulas. They can actually tells us how to live, form societies, have expectations for life, excercise creativity and ingenuity, etc.
According to Campbell, myths originate from the language of our organ systems. The fight between good and evil is a expansion of the fight to stay alive, to share resources and manage impulses in a self-aware system, all to maintain homeostatis within us. In this way they are encoding biological information of an order that medical science is just now approaching, party because it has been hobbled by a Western/Newtonian view of the body. Take for example the mythical medicine of reflexology and Eastern five-element theory. It works, but it is not “factually” true by the standards of Western mechanical understandings. It works because the myth encodes tons of experential information relating to body systems and how they interact.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 pm
beepbeep (#21):
You might be interested in reading Campbell’s “Hero with a Thousand Faces” which influenced Lucas when he was creating Star Wars and the Wachowski brothers who brought us the Matrix. I think he would fundamentally disagree at several points with your view of myth and the hero’s role, but he is no believer, although he very much like Buddhism’s and Hinduism’s imagery.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Infidel (23):
Than I guess I’m not missing much since it has faded from memory. I agree with the medium thing. Reading the Lord of the Rings for the first time in years reminds me how different the books are from the movies. I wonder how myth changed when it went from oral to written?
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:16 am
RE soulster
“It works, but it is not “factually†true by the standards of Western mechanical understandings. It works because the myth encodes tons of experential information relating to body systems and how they interact.”
I am not sure what you mean by “the myth encodes tons of experential information relating to body systems and how they interact.”
But, no doubt, I would require evidence to that effect.
It seems similar to the idea of religious memes as described by Dawkins.
Meme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
“Meme-theorists contend that memes most beneficial to their hosts will not necessarily survive; rather, those memes which replicate the most effectively spread best; which allows for the possibility that successful memes might prove detrimental to their hosts.”
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 am
soulster,
The odd thing is, I picked up a copy of The Power of Myth at a flea market for a dollar. I’ve got it in storage right now with a few other boxes of books after moving, but I’ll look into it.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
While reading articles in Archaeology Magazine there was a link to the docu-drama story that started this thread if anyone is interested:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/jesus/
Looks like some of our suppositions are correct: There is a book, and a new website, in addition to the Discovery Channel special, just in time for Easter! Better stock up on those marshmallow bunnies to chomp on as the story unfolds!
March 4th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
beepbeep:
I’m still thinking about some of what Campbell says, so I don’t want him to speak for me, nor could I speak authoritatively for him. I think most of his work is in comparative mythology, so the idea of origins in body systems is probably on the order of speculative theory common in the humanities. It would likely be impossible, given the context, to experiment for this, mostly because primative myths where formed in dim history or pre-history. But here’s an example I’ve seen him use: people are self-aware that they are alive. To some extent it bothers them to see other living things die, even those things they kill to eat. On the other hand, we do get hungry and even need a high-protien diet to run our big brains. This pits a portion of our psychology against a portion of our metabolism. Conspicuously, much of the most primate mythology deals with hunting rituals and the elaborate rites that make killing the animal “right”, including a mythology in which a god or the animal itself presents the prey as a sacrifice. So here would be an example of internal struggle forming mythology. According to Campbell, this type of mythology is the foundation of religions and many other things.
March 5th, 2007 at 12:41 am
To soulster
RE: The lost tomb of jesus thingie.
From Pharyngula
(Basically, the movie was worse than I even thought it would be.)