Blue Cord

The New York Times is reporting that a tablet entitled Gabriel’s Revelation, which dates from around the time of the birth of Jesus, contains an account of a three-day resurrection . The story, which has the needlessly sensationalistic title “Was Jesus’ Resurrection a Sequel?”, reports an interpretation by Israel Knohl that suggests the text predicts the resurrection of an individual after being dead for three days. As is always the case, the crux of the reading occurs in a break in the text.

The Times then states:

This, in turn, undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday.

Such a statement over-reaches the evidence by quite a bit. Even if Knohl’s reading is correct — and that is far from certain — all it shows is that someone else thought that a resurrection would occur after three days. It is not news that resurrection was a pre-Christian idea, and the fact that someone would connect it with a three day period is hardly surprising. Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days, and if the author of Matthew could make that connection (Matt 12:40) I am sure others could too.

Despite what the title of the article might suggest, the text in question does not report that a resurrection happened. It is merely predicted in the text. Although Knohl connects the text with Simon (a Jewish rebel known from Josephus), he doesn’t claim that the author of the text thought that Simon actually did rise from the dead. And the followers of Simon were certainly not willing to proclaim that message and change the world the way the followers of Christ did.

Obviously, the Times is follow the age old dictum: “If it sheds blood for your sins, it leads” (it rhymes in the original Greek). And of course they point to the Talpiot tomb and other ideas that they suggest challenge the truth claims of Christianity. But while the text sounds interesting (they don’t provide the full text) and certainly will add to our ideas about the thought-world in which Christianity emerged, it certainly doesn’t drive the final nail into Jesus’ coffin. (And even if it did, he could still get out.)

According to the Associated Press, Dunkin’ Donuts has pulled one of their TV ads which featured Rachael Ray. In the ad, Ms. Ray is shown hawking iced coffee while wearing a scarf that has a paisley pattern  resembling a popular style of kaffiyeh. The ads were pulled because some conservative commentators, such as Michelle Malkin, complained that kaffiyehs were “pro-Palestinian jihad and anti-war” and claimed the kaffieyh partakes of “violent symbolism and anti-Israel overtones” She has accused supposed anti-American fashion designers of popularizing the scarves, which she refers to as “hate couture”.

I have never heard of Michelle Malkin before. A quick perusal of her website suggests that she comes from that class of opinion mongers who deal primarily in sophistry. But whatever else she may be, she is certainly ignorant about kaffiyehs.

Kaffiyehs are ubiquitous in the Middle East. They are an immensely practical and versatile garment. They are worn by most men, with the exception of those who have adopted Western style dress. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all wear them, although they are less prominent among Israelis. The only reason some people in America identify them with the Palestinian struggle is because most Palestinians wear kaffiyehs. But kaffiyehs long predate the founding of the modern state of Israel and the beginning of the Palestinians resistance.

Most kaffiyehs are white with red, black, or green designs on them. The colors are the Pan-Arab colors that were used in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire in World War I (assisted by T.E. Lawrence, who wore a kaffiyeh). Palestinians are more likely to wear the black design, while Jordanians prefer the red.¹ The King of Jordan, an ally of the US, is often seen wearing a red kaffiyeh. The green kaffiyehs are usually only seen draped over caskets, as green is the symbol of martyrdom.

Some in the US during the 70’s and 80’s did try to turn the black kaffiyeh into a symbol of solidarity with the Palestinians.  They were only moderately successful, and today the kaffiyeh is mostly viewed as simply a fashion item. Most people wear them without intending any kind of political statement. And even if the kaffiyeh was always intended as a statement of support for the Palestinians, that is not the same thing as expressing support for terrorists. I support the Palestinian people, but do not condone terrorism.

In an article with the risible title “Mainstreaming Terrorism to Sell Donuts”, someone at ????????Little Green Footballs states:

Of course, the fact that terrorists and terror sympathizers explicitly say that the kaffiyeh is a symbol of Palestinian “resistance” doesn’t get in the way of their ignorant mockery.

The number of things wrong with this statement is legion. First, terrorists don’t claim that the kaffiyeh is a symbol of Palestinian resistance. It is some American’s who have tried to turn it into that. Second, voicing support for Palestine does not make one a “terror sympathizer”, no matter how much the author of that article may want to imply guilt by association. And third, just because a small number of Palestinians supporters claim that it is a symbol of Palestinian solidarity does not make it so. If someone wears a kaffiyeh to show support for Palestine, then for them it is a symbol of solidarity. If they don’t have that intent, it isn’t. And in no case is it a sign of support for terrorism. Ms. Malkin and the people at Little Green Footballs don’t seem to be able to distinguish between the Palestinians and a tactic employed by a small percentage of them.

If symbols worked the way these people claim, then any non-soldier who wore camouflage pants would be automatically supporting the Iraq War. While some people may wear camouflage to show their support for the war, I suspect that the majority of them simply have no fashion sense.

Of course, one could also criticize the cowardice being shown by Dunkin’ Donuts in pulling their ad because of meaningless complaints. Just because some Philistines want to politicize deep-fried dough does not mean the company has to allow them to do so. After all, one would think that selling millions of bagels a year would be enough to insulate them from the charge of being anti-Jewish.

1. I personally own a red kaffiyeh, which I bought in Jordan. I wear it when I work on archaeological digs in Jordan. [back]

I was flipping across channels tonight and saw that the Science Channel was covering the landing of the Phoenix spacecraft on Mars. It turns out it was a replay of the landing, which took place four hours earlier at 7:53 PM (EDT). The craft landed safely and appears to be working normally. It touched down in the arctic with the hopes of finding frozen water to study.

It is remarkable that space exploration has reached the point where we, as the general public, are mostly blasé about it. I follow space exploration, but have not kept up with it much in the last year. I was unaware that the landing was scheduled for today. I heard nothing about it on-line or through regular news channels, although admittedly I haven’t watched the news this weekend because of a visiting friend. But even if it shows up on cable news channels, it will not create a big stir.

This is so different than when I was a kid. I learned to climb out of my crib the night Apollo 11 landed on the moon. I have heard stories of this from my parents, who had friends over that night to watch the moon landing. It was a moment shared by the entire nation. I remember in grade school gathering in the gym to view the first shuttle launch. And I remember how full the news was when the Viking spacecraft landed on Mars.

But tonight, we landed on Mars and America yawned.

I just checked CNN. The main story on their home page is about tornadoes that touched down in Iowa and Minnesota. The Phoenix landing is mentioned in a sidebar. The FoxNews website has the tornadoes, a report about Hillary still being in the race, a California family that was murdered, and the Phoenix mission. I am not sure how all of those stories can be treated as if they were on the same level. I suspect the news channels will talk about Phoenix for a day or two, giving it thirty seconds in their hourly updates and showing cool pictures, and then they will let it fade into the background.

By the way, for those who have forgotten, the Mars rovers (Spirit and Opportunity) are still active on the Martian surface. Originally designed to be active for three months, they have now been active for four years and four months.

Meanwhile, reality TV continues its futile quest for signs of intelligent life on this planet.

While I was on Spring Break last week, I rented two movies that I thought might be good ones to use in an introduction to Bible class. I wanted to offer reviews of each here. This post will discuss the first movie, The Ten, while a subsequent post will review the other movie, The Final Inquiry.

The Ten is a rather quirky film. It is a set of ten short pieces, each of which is introduced by a narrator who is having some personal problems of his own. Each piece is related in some way to one of the Ten Commandments, and the narrator does his work with two huge stone tablets sitting behind him. I rented it because I thought it might be a good film to show to get some discussion going when I cover Exodus. Having watched the film, I don’t think I will be showing it in class.

The pieces turn out to be only vaguely related to the Ten Commandments. For example, “Thou shalt not kill” is a piece about a woman who falls in love with a ventriloquist puppet and steals him from his owner. “Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain” is about a virgin librarian who takes a trip to Mexico and falls in love with a man who she later discovers to be Jesus Christ, who has returned to bring about the end of the world but keeps putting it off because he is having a good time down on earth. The only part connected to taking the Lord’s name in vain is when she calls out his name during sex. The “Thou shalt not covet” scene involved two neighbors in a battle to see who could purchase more cat scan machines, while “Honor the sabbath” centered on a guy who liked to skip church and spend Sunday mornings hanging out with a bunch of naked guys while listening to Roberta Flack music.

The short stories are not really an attempt to explore the Ten Commandments. Instead, the Ten Commandments are little more than a gimmick to tie the stories together. Because of this, I doubt the film would provoke much discussion in a class room, or if it did I doubt the discussion would center on the Ten Commandments. And given the crude language and situations, I am not sure it would be entirely appropriate to show this in a classroom anyway. For instance, even though there is no frontal nudity, there are sixteen different men who appear in the credits only as “Naked Guy.”

The movie has a number of actors that are recognizable. Paul Rudd plays the narrator, while Winona Ryder is the woman who falls in love with the puppet. Other actors include Jessica Alba, Famke Janssen, Rob Corddry (from The Daily Show), Janeane Garofalo, Gretchen Mol, Oliver Platt, Jason Sudeikis (from SNL), Robert Ben Garant and Kerri Kenney (both from Reno 911).

The DVD cover has a quote from the Chicago Sun Times that called the film “Uproariously Funny!” That is apparently a Chicago idiom that means “mildly amusing in a crass sort of way.” I can forgive the film for not inspiring deep thoughts about the Ten Commandments, but the least they could have done is make me laugh. Instead, while I found myself vaguely interested in some of the skits, for most of the film I just sat there wondering how such good actors could have let themselves be attracted to such a bad script.

An article in this week’s Time entitled “A Lead on the Ark of the Covenant” reports that Tudor Parfitt claims to have found the ark of the covenant (or at least its replacement). Now as any good scholar knows, the ark was found back during World War II by Dr. Henry Jones, Jr., and now resides in a warehouse somewhere in Washington, DC. But according to Parfitt, the ark is actually in Zimbabwe.

As with any decent story related to the Bible, Time exhibites a good deal of ignorance concerning scholarship. In the second paragraph, they include this summary of scholarship:

Scholars debate [the ark of the covenant’s] current locale (if any): under the Sphinx? Beneath Jerusalem’s Temple Mount (or, to Muslims, the Noble Sanctuary)? In France? Near London’s Temple tube station?

No serious scholar I know has ever put forth any of these theories. It is only amateurs and treasure hunters with more imagination than evidence who support such ideas. Yet Parfitt cannot be classed with such dilettantes. In the 1980s, he isolated a link between the priestly lineage of the Jews and a tribe called the Lemba in Africa. The Lemba claimed to be a lost tribe of Israel, and genetic evidence suggests that there just may be a connection.

Parfitt claims that the ark of the covenant is somehow connected to a drum-like object called the ngoma lungundu that the Lemba have. The article lists a number of similarities between the ngoma and the ark, including the facts that both are holy, both are carried on poles, and both emit fire against God’s enemies.¹ The main problem, however, is that the article he found does not match biblical descriptions of the ark.

What he has found is a drum. It was a drum that was sometimes used to carry sacred object, but still a musical instrument. And this is a far cry from the ark. The ark is never mentioned as having any musical qualities.² He also notes that this drum was used as a type of cannon. But the ark of the covenant is never depicted as a weapon. It goes before the people in battle, but as a way of invoking God as the divine warrior. The ark is the throne of God, so taking it into battle means that God goes into battle with you as it clearly states in 1 Samuel 4:1-4. And in the only two battles in which the ark is mentioned — Joshua 6 and 1 Samuel 4 — the ark is not physically taken into the battle. At Jericho, the priests carry it around the city, while in the battle at Ebenezer the ark is in the Israelite camp.

In addition, the ngoma found by Parfitt is carbon-dated to 1350 CE. And Lemba ledged asserts that 400 years ago the ngoma destroyed itself and had to be rebuilt. Yet Parfitt persists. He states:

There can be little doubt that what I found is the last thing on earth in direct descent from the Ark of Moses.

He is right — there can be little doubt. What there can be is huge amounts of doubt. It takes assumption after assumption and leap after leap to arrive at the conclusion Parfitt reaches. The artifact he describes has only superficial connections with the ark of the covenant. Perhaps the Lemba are a branch of the tribe of Levi, and perhaps they built their own type of ark after fleeing from Jerusalem in 587 BCE. But the ngoma has so few similarities to the ark of the covenant that it is untenable to think that this tribe possessed the ark of the covenant at any point in their history.

A quick search of the Internet shows that ngoma drums are common in southern Africa. According to the Mukondeni Art Gallery in South Africa:

This drum, when beaten with a human hand, caused enemy armies to fall dead at the sound of its mighty voice. At present all royal houses, as well as the homes of the more junior chiefs still possess one or more Ngoma drums.

The Mukondeni Art Gallery even has a picture of a ngoma lugundu on their site. While the article in Time seems to suggest that Parfitt has discovered a one-of-a-kind artifact, ngoma are in fact rather common. The reason that the Lemba have such a drum is that they are a part of southern African culture. The similarities to the ark of the covenant can be explained more easily by positing a sociological coincidence than by assuming a historical connection with the ark found in the Bible.

Parfitt has a forthcoming book on this subject entitled The Lost Ark of the Covenant: Solving the 2,500 Year Mystery of the Fabled Biblical Ark. It will be available this coming Tuesday (February 26th). The History Channel will be also airing a special based in part on Parfitt’s work. The show, called The Quest for the Lost Ark, first airs on March 2.

1. It should be noted that nowhere in the Bible does it claim that the ark shot out fire in battle. That part of the story comes from oral tradition. [back]
2. Parfitt notes that David danced before the ark and the ark is frequently associated with trumpets, but neither of those are evidence that the ark itself is a musical instrument. [back]