Talk:Simcha Jacobovici

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Why the name for the series?

The Naked Archaeologist, why is the show given that name? -Chris

Not to be taken literally, what they mean by "naked" is "stripped-down (figuratively)" and "raw," and in general, no beating around the bush, all just straight up IN YO FACE.

Personally I find the name of the show extremely dishonest as he has no credentials in the field of archaeology (a fact never mentioned on the show, which even showed him participating in a real dig as if he was an archaeologist), in interviews he describes himself as a journalist. The name is obviously just for titillation and trivializes archaeology as a serious endeavor. On the show he continually ignores the scientific method in favor of presenting his own biases regardless of contrary evidence to his positions or a lack of evidentiary support for his theories. He also often misrepresents theories that would argue against him.

--Wowaconia 12:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an actual degree in Archeology (among others) and I have to say, that show is offensive for a variety of reasons but the basic objection i have is that the show visually suggests he is in fact, an archeologist, in the series introduction that runs before every episode and does nothing to prevent a viewer from coming to that conclusion. in fact, the intro is designed to introduce him as "the Naked Archeologist". He lifted the "naked" bit from Jamie Oliver's 'the Naked Chef" show in the sense that "naked" is supposed to indicate unconstructed, freshly approached. I've watched four episodes of that show and in each one, he makes astonishing logical leaps that dumbfound the real archeologists and istorians he interviews. He does have degrees in Philosphy and if he'd just call him self the naked philospher, no one would have an issue. it's just that if he is this comfortable with misrepresenting his basic credentials, why wouldn't he also misrepresent facts and history as well? Of course, the article has to stay NPOV. I would suggest making a separate section for criticisms and bulletting the cited criticisms LiPollis 23:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Simcha Jacobvici has an alterior motive in his totaly bias Jewish approach and attempt to confirm the Jewish belief that Jesus has not resurrected and is not the messiah. His approach and beliefs are slanted to dis-confirm Christian beliefs. New Testament scripture states that Jesus did in fact resurrect, and was seen by over 500 witnesses over a period of, symbolically speaking, 40 days. The findings of this so called tomb, are deceptive, true to like the name "JACOB" (meaning deceiver) in JACOBvici! Need i say anymore? - Preacher Man

Absolutely. Also note the fact that, of the sarcophagi found, Joseph's crypt wasn't amongst them. Is this a means from which the Talmudists can argue that Mary mother of Jesus was a whore like their own teachings suggest, and that Jesus is a bastard? Also, the "Mariameme" sarcophagis, which draws heavily on the long-discredited knights templar myth. More Talmudic nonesense to malign Christ our Savior's memory as much as possible by linking him -- though marriage and though parental lineage -- to prostitutes and goyim (the Roman guard who they teach is Jesus's biological father), the lowest strata of society in the eyes of these Jews. Their hatefulness and spite is why they're cursed for all eternity.

What real proof is there in these inscriptions? Inscriptions can be fraudulent and fabricated, as it is in this case. Does anyone smell a further conspiracy here to deny the resurrection? Matthew's Gospel in the 28th chapter, verses 11 thru 16 render the accounting of a conspiracy to deny and hide the truth of the resurrection from future potential believers. All fabricated from fearful and zealot Jewish (and Roman) non-believing communities. The guards that were posted over the tomb of Jesus, were instructed to lie and say, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole His body while we were asleep." (15) "So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day." Jacobovici has confessed that he is merely an author. I would add that he is a fictional one at that. - Preacher Man

[edit] More of his comments on "Jesus Family Tomb" film

I decided not to include this information on the main page as it seems to be more about the Jesus family tomb film and not specifically about him, I include it here for interested readers

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/us/27jesus.html In an interview, Mr. Jacobovici was asked why the filmmakers did not conduct DNA testing on the other ossuaries to determine whether the one inscribed "Judah, son of Jesus" was genetically related to either the Jesus or Mary Magdalene boxes; or whether the Jesus remains were actually the offspring of Mary. "We're not scientists. At the end of the day we can't wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA," he said. "We took the story that far. At some point you have to say, `I've done my job as a journalist.' "

And this from "Scholars, Clergy Slam Jesus Documentary" By MARSHALL THOMPSON at Associated Press

Simcha Jacobovici, the Toronto filmmaker who directed the documentary, said the implications "are huge."

"But they're not necessarily the implications people think they are. For example, some believers are going to say, well this challenges the resurrection. I don't know why, if Jesus rose from one tomb, he couldn't have risen from the other tomb," Jacobovici told "Today." ...Archaeologists also balk at the filmmaker's claim that the James Ossuary - the center of a famous antiquities fraud in Israel - might have originated from the same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five suspects with forgery in connection with the infamous bone box. "I don't think the James Ossuary came from the same cave," said Dan Bahat, an archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University. "If it were found there, the man who made the forgery would have taken something better. He would have taken Jesus."

Simcha seems very eager to accept the claim about the so called James Ossuary (he did a whole episode trying to delcare it true in his The Naked Archaeologist now he goes so far as inluding placing it at this tomb in this new film despite the fact as http://www.dakotavoice.com/200702/20070226_4.html points out:

Fourth-century church historian Eusebius makes quite clear that the body of James, the brother of Jesus, was buried alone near the temple mount and that his tomb was visited in the early centuries.

Perhaps this information should be included in the wiki-article about the film.

Wowaconia 11:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)