Robert Cargill lays into Simcha Jacobovici's Nails of the Cross

Bob Cargill has published an excellent, thorough debunking of the ludicrous Nails of the Cross documentary that recently aired on the History Channel:

A Critique of Simcha Jacobovici’s Secrets of Christianity: Nails of the Cross

Simcha makes two bold claims to say the least: the first is that the lost nails of Jesus’ crucifixion have been recovered, and the second is an implicit assertion that the IAA covered it up. Unfortunately for Simcha, his theory has a problem, and its name is Legion, for they are many. Any one of these problems renders Simcha’s theory impossible, and their aggregate renders the theory preposterous.

Bob does not mince his words but at the same time patiently demonstrates why the theory is so absurd. My comments on the fiasco are gathered here.

One of the elements mentioned by Bob is the work of Barrie Wilson who has apparently co-authored a book with Simcha Jacobovici to come out next year on the Arabic Infancy Gospel of the Savior.  Wilson's website provides a teaser:

BRIDE OF GOD:
A Lost Gospel of Jesus’ Marriage to Mary Magdalene
by Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson

In Bride of God: A Lost Gospel of Jesus’ Marriage to Mary Magdalene, the authors take us into the world of an early Christian community that encoded its beliefs in a now forgotten manuscript, presently collecting dust in the British Museum. In the course of the investigation, the authors decode the manuscript using techniques employed by early Christians for understanding ancient writings. Part mystery story, part adventure/travel and part historical investigation, Bride of God reveals up to now unknown details about Jesus’ family, sexuality and marriage . . . .

Good grief.

Nails in the coffin of the Nails of the Cross documentary

Before Simcha Jacobovici's Nails of the Cross documentary has even aired, it looks like the story has died. Where news stories have continued to appear, they generally have riders like "Experts doubt it", which is encouraging to see.  When the Washington Post weighed in on Friday, they quoted Gabriel Barkay to the following effect:

"There’s no proof whatsoever that they originate in the tomb of Caiaphas,” he said. “It’s all conjecture."

Even if we were sure that these nails came from the Caiaphas tomb, and even if we were sure that it is Caiaphas the High Priest's tomb, it is of course bonkers to assume that these nails would have been the nails from Jesus' crucifixion.  But Barkay's comment makes clear that there is nonsense on top of nonsense here.

I took a look at the History Channel's schedules and noticed that they are broadcasting this documentary at 11pm, which hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement!

Simcha's Nails: Illustrating the Problem

I know that I should leave the story alone, but perhaps I may draw attention to at least one element in the reports that illustrate the problem with Simcha Jacobovici's absurd claims to have found the nails that crucified Jesus.  Time Magazine's report features this statement:

The Nails of the Cross dwells on 1st century non-Gospel writings that portray Caiaphas as an eventual follower of Christ.

Now it is of course possible that the Time reporter has misunderstood something in the documentary, but I would not be surprised if this kind of nonsense is present given that the Lost Tomb of Jesus website features several clams of this kind that are demonstrably false.

So let us be clear.  There are no "first century non-Gospel writings that portray Caiaphas as an eventual follower of Christ".  In fact there are precious few first century sources that mention Caiaphas at all.  He appears by name in Matthew, Luke and John (and arguably as the unnamed "high priest" in Mark 14) and he appears twice, briefly, in Josephus's Antiquities 18.  As far as I am aware, that is it for the literary record.   In none of these, nor in any other writings from the early centuries does Caiaphas become a follower of Christ.

Indeed the scarcity of the literary record on Caiaphas draws attention to one of the many other difficulties with the claim about the nails, that Caiaphas was only associated with the crucifixion of one man, for example here:

Caiaphas, infamous for the crucifixion of only one man, could have asked his offspring to place the nails in his ossuary, speculated the filmmaker.

This idea, of Caiaphas's infamy in relation to Jesus, is a feature in most of the articles that have been written about it. But we simply don't know anything about other crucifixions that Caiaphas may or may not have been involved with. Josephus does not associate him with any crucifixions, but he does not associate him with anything much at all. And I'd have guessed that the Romans crucified other Jews in Judea in Caiaphas's time as High Priest too (c. 18-36).

And in fact our sources, meager as they are, do mention two more crucifixions carried out by the Romans while Caiaphas was high priest, of two men (brigands, insurgents) along with Jesus (Mark 15.27 and par.). I think it is historically naive to imagine that these were the only three crucifixions carried out in the eighteen year period from 18 to 36, while Caiaphas was high priest.

That is just for starters, and already treats the claims with more respect than they are due.

How should scholars react when ludicrous claims are made?

Jim West draws attention to some extraordinary comments made by Simcha Jacobovici in the Jewish Chronicle Online, My Nails Were From Jesus' Cross, in which he responds to the derision with which his claim has been met:

Mr Jacobovici reacted by telling the JC: "The minute someone says anything significant about the New Testament, the immediate response is to scoff, not to study it." He believes experts prefer to avoid making bold claims relating to the New Testament because it brings them under such intense scrutiny - and they resent it when others do so.

Perhaps, then, I should illustrate our difficulty. In 2007, Jacobovici made a documentary in which he claimed to have located the lost tomb of Jesus, in Talpiot, Jerusalem. Many of us spent a great deal of time patiently, carefully and calmly researching the claims and explaining why they were found wanting. As one element in that enterprise, I perhaps stupidly took it on myself to try expose a series of errors, inaccuracies, false statements, sensationalist claims and nonsense on the Jesus Family Tomb Website.  I labelled the post Jesus Family Tomb Website: Errors and Inaccuracies and listed seventeen of these, with explanations of where the problems lay.  There was no scoffing, no ridicule, no derision, just a calm and patient explanation of errors and inaccuracies.

It is now over four years since that post appeared and to this day every single one of those errors and inaccuracies remains on the Jesus Family tomb website.  Two years ago, I again drew attention to the post and the errors, with some reflection on our failure to make an impact.

What I think this illustrates is that it is outrageous for Simcha Jacobovici to suggest that scholars immediately scoff at his ideas without examining them.  On the contrary.  If anything, our mistake is that we spend far too much of our valuable time attempting to react in a scholarly fashion to material that would be lucky to get a passing grade if it were submitted to us by one of our students.

Since the careful, detailed and patient attempts at engaging appear to make no impact whatsoever, I think it is entirely reasonable that this time we react with the ridicule that the claims deserve.

Simcha finds crucifixion nails but has a screw loose

Simcha Jacobovici, well known as the discoverer of the Jesus Family Tomb in Talpiot, has come forward with a brilliant, self-parodying April fool's joke in which he hilariously claims to have discovered the nails used to crucify Jesus!

If only it were 1 April, and if only Jacobovici had that degree of self-awareness.  Alas, he appears to be serious and alas, the media happily report the story, with pictures of Simcha proudly but earnestly showing the nail to the camera.

This one really is breathtaking. I suppose the major encouragement here is that it could go beyond self-parody, encouraging the public to treat this kind of "archeoporn" (Jonathan Reed's term) with the ridicule it deserves.

As usual, Jim West was on the case first and Robert Cargill has some entertaining and spot-on comments. Jim Davila gathers this together with several other extraordinary stories to declare 12 April Bizarre Historical Claims Day.

I wonder if Jacobovici got the idea for the latest documentary from this scene from Black Adder?