Crucifixion Imagery
I saw this article out of the corner of my eye as I was logging out of my Yahoo(!) E-Mail account this evening. The headline? "Study: Jesus crucifixion image may be wrong". The article goes into a bit of detail, but all it really comes up with is a statement that it's a possibility that Jesus wasn't crucified in the way that his crucifixion has been depicted for thousands of years.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the lowest common denominator of both history and journalism, two fields that I am notably familiar with. You don't have to have any evidence to make a thesis like this. Saying that the traditional image of Jesus' crucifixion could be wrong is sort of like saying that Julius Caesar could have had a birth mark, or King Richard the Lionheart could have been allergic to peanuts. When there's no evidence to disprove something, you can say pretty much anything you like, and some jackass, in this case the Agence France-Presse, will publish it.
For shame.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the lowest common denominator of both history and journalism, two fields that I am notably familiar with. You don't have to have any evidence to make a thesis like this. Saying that the traditional image of Jesus' crucifixion could be wrong is sort of like saying that Julius Caesar could have had a birth mark, or King Richard the Lionheart could have been allergic to peanuts. When there's no evidence to disprove something, you can say pretty much anything you like, and some jackass, in this case the Agence France-Presse, will publish it.
For shame.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home