Talk:Simcha Jacobovici

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.


Contents

[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)
I have a problem with the logic of the show, myself, as mentioned the numerous "Logical Leaps" which are made. I realize the term "archaeologist" is a bit deceiving, but that's not what I really have a problem with. He has no actual credentials in archeology? Fine, if he's the host of a TV show and his job is to just narrate and lead through the explanations. You could call that the "documentation of archeology" or something. It's more irking that he presents himself as an authority in making claims of historical events based on, at best, shaky evidence IE: "This archaeologist said that theres a chance the man buried here was during the time of Jesus. Therefore this is probably the tomb of Jesus." There is no conjecture nor are the experts given the opportunity to give the final opinion. He makes an (amateur) hypothesis and then he cherry-picks a few sound bytes by those who know and makes a few logical leaps and presents it as history. Drbuzz004:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Another question: He is Jewish? Interesting and surprising, because the show seems to take Christian scripture as fact and the conclusions always seem to support Biblical accounts. It seems very much like the goal of the show is to prove or validate Christian beliefs.Drbuzz004:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is an Orthodox Jew. However, if you think he is pro-Christian, maybe you need to watch some more of his work. A lot of what he presents proves the historicity of the Old Testament Writings, so I guess if you view that as Christian, then, yes? He is? If anything, he would be out there to show people more about the real Jesus, and not the figure that has been presented by the Church.

[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."

It has since been announced that through close examination of the patina on the James Ossuary inscriptions matched perfectly those on the Talpiot ossuaries. They are from the same tomb.

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)

This section is disambiguous and should either be balanced or removed. Yahshammah (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not the place to spew anti-judaism (or pro-Judaism for that matter)

Deleted disgusting diatribes from jew-haters, as well as unnecessary defences. This talkpage is to discuss content and editing of the main article. Please keep it that way.71.125.227.129 01:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Why has the entire criticism section of this article been deleted? --rsgdodge (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)