Questions of the Day, Part 1

Two big questions on the docket today in Jerusalem, one regarding events of long ago, one about events in the here and now (and possibly the future), both fraught with implications for millions and millions of people.

The first, as you may have heard (and many have, judging by the more than 3,000 comments on Tim's earlier post) concerns the documentary "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," which asserts that Jesus and his family, including a wife and a child, were buried in a tomb initially unearthed in 1980 in the East Talpiyot neighborhood of Jerusalem. Naturally, such claims arouse resistance, and some anger. Already a host of questions have been raised on the scientific front. The Jerusalem archaeologist who first examined the site, Prof. Amos Kloner, told The Jerusalem Post, "It makes a great story for a TV film. But it's completely impossible. It's nonsense." Others have said it's an interesting hypothesis, they'd like to see further investigations and such, but generally even the support has been lukewarm at best. It's not nearly as bad as Geraldo Rivera claiming to have located Al Capone's secret vault, and opening up an empty basement on live TV, but it seems unlikely that the rest of the world will be quite as taken with the findings as are the filmmakers.

Which is fine. They put out a theory and others can contest it, try to prove or disprove it, or ignore it. Maybe it will inspire arguments about the objectivity of science, about the nature of faith, about whether it is important that certain stories be literally true, and about how, in this region, archaeology can be at times political. All good things to discuss, especially nowadays. I tend to doubt, though, that even firmer evidence in this case would have a great deal of impact in the long run. The filmmakers are suggesting that they can disprove a miracle--the resurrection--that they can use reason and science to disprove something that many people believe occurred beyond the realms of reason and science. To put it another way, they are trying to show that something that should not be able to happen did not actually happen.

Those arguing for and against are arguing on different planes. That's not to say the questions shouldn't be asked. They should, because they inform discussions on the role of faith in a society, the nature of faith itself, and the political ramifications of both, which are on display here and in many other places, sometimes tragically. This film, the 3,000-plus comments on the earlier post, the rituals most every religion requires--these things show how individuals and societies feel that faith is something that must constantly be maintained, how for the faithful the primacy of belief must repeatedly be reasserted over science and doubt and whatever else might challenge it, how convulsive it can be to a believer or a society of believers when core elements of a faith, any faith, are questioned. Clearly this triggers something far more primal and deeply rooted in the human psyche than contemporary issues do. A fascinating post saying a Saudi diplomat is acting like a de facto American Secretary of State gets, at last count, 16 comments, and a report about a documentary that's been received primarily with skepticism gets 3,000? Something has indeed been unearthed by the documentary, just as something crucial is unearthed, and revealed, about our species by many claims, trends, or images that challenge the tenets of particular faiths and the stories those faiths tell about themselves.
--Phil Zabriskie/Jerusalem