The Rev. George W. Rutler takes on the New York Times in an article about the latest possible hoax, that “fourth century parchment translating a second century Greek text, claiming that there was a Mrs. Jesus,” in Crisis Magazine: A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity:
In 2002 The New York Times spent a lot of printer’s ink on a bogus ossuary reputed to be that of a “brother” of Christ. The “Times” as well as the Washington Post featured this on their front pages, although neither journal gives such publicity to huge events such as the annual Pro-Life gathering in the nation’s capital. Recently the same journal announced on its front page the discovery of a fourth century parchment translating a second century Greek text, claiming that there was a Mrs. Jesus. Shortly thereafter, the parchment was judged a forgery by Coptic experts. If a correction ever appears, it will be in fine print back in the shipping news section. Or at least on page 8 which is where, in the same week, The New York Times reluctantly reported Pope Benedict’s Mass for 350,000 in Lebanon—an event that astonished nearly everyone except our mainstream media.
As The New York Times generally gives the impression that anyone who takes the Scriptures seriously is archaic and arcane, there is an inconsistency in that newspaper’s affectation of interest in the Christology dormant in Abysinnian paleography. Since journalists often invoke pretentious scholarship to challenge the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and the Tilma of Guadalupe, the question begged is, “Why do these people suddenly become so credulous about phenomena that contradict Christian inspiration?”
The Mainstream Media Falls for the Latest Hoax: The Case of Mrs. Jesus | Crisis Magazine
To my mind, this proves to anyone who is even partially objective that the NY Times and the Washington Post are biased anti-Christian rags not worth the paper they are printed on, be that physical or electronic. And people ask me why I ignore these publications!
Father Rutler is right in drawing attention to what some dailies say in headlines and corrections that appear in “shipping news” sections. This is a worldwide phenomenon and the reason lies in the fact that sensationalism sells, so one just has to follow the money line to understand the rationale.
But it is not only newspapers that are involved in leaping before looking; books also come into the picture. Take one book on the so-called James ossuary, where Ben Witherington proudly announced that the Catholic Church would have to “rethink” the Virgin birth. As soon as another, even bigger, piece of sensationalism — the “Jesus Family Tomb” — came on the scene he distanced himself from what he had said previously by saying that James was buried elsewhere, that is, not in the tomb. It is clear that it is not the media alone that can be guided by prejudice.
It is not difficult to find serious scholars who have no dog in the fight. Many of the top and highly respected Israeli archaeologists believe in the NT accounts. Take, for instance, Dan Bahat and Amos Kloner.
Rev Rutler makes a good point concerning the sensationalistic seeking media. However his choice of hoax examples is a mixed bag, designed to suit his own apparently overly-conservative outlook. His assertion that Mgr Ronald Knox was the leading 20th century biblical scholar would seem to circumscribe his acquaintance with more knowledgable scholars than Knox, competent scholar ‘though he was. Whereas he castigates hoaxers he finds fault with, Knox’s hoax to Londoners that Big Ben was about to fall over seems to him to be a playful prank. Conservative that he is, he seems to be too prepared to accuse Teilhard de Chardin of involvement with the hoax of the Piltdown man, although this has never been proven.
By way of contrast, the Wellington diocesan newspaper Wel-Com October issue has just published on its p.17, Michael Peppard’s affirmative piece on ‘Jesus said to them, ‘My wife’ ‘, even though Peppard does not include in his article anything concerning the debate on the fragment’s authenticity. The piece does not appear on the Wel-Com’s web-site although other October articles are so shown. You can find Peppard’s piece on:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=20815, together with his various other comments supporting the fragment’s authenticity, along with various blog comments.
The point is that despite the Rutler’s and Peppard’s opposing views on this fragment, neither know yet whether the fragment is authentic or not, That has yet to be tested.
Nice surprise for Andy Weiss: When the sun next rises in your time zone, Sunday Oct 7, you’ll find the Google title has a nicely decorated header for Niels Bohr’s 127th birthday!
Father Rutler made a mistake by saying that the “Jesus’ wife” papyrus can be ruled out because although most experts seem to have dismissed it the tests have yet to be made. There are many magazines, including liberal Catholic ones, not known for material written by top scholars, who will continue to devote attention to this “finding”, may in fact support Karen King’s contention. Quislings within Catholicism are not uncommon and contribute to the slow downfall of the “fortress” that Malcolm Muggeridge wrote about. If the priest was so worried about what is being — and has been — announced all he had to do was to go to the right sources. He would soon learn that, whatever the result of the tests made on the papyrus, it makes no difference to Christianity.
Following on from my comment above, Rev Rutler is something of a hoaxer himself with his carefully worded insuations against Teilhard de Chardin. The hoax ocurred at Piltdown Common,in Sussex England following a series of discoveries there in 1910-12. It was one of the most successful scientific hoaxes ever perpetrated, and puzzled scientists for over 40 years, as it appeared to be an anomaly in the evolutionary chain, some referring to it as the missing link, Further genuine discoveries highlighted the anomaly, and in 1953 a close examination of the Piltdown remains showed them to be a modern cranium, the jaw and teeth of an orangutan, and the tooth of what was likely a chimpanzee, all fraudulently planted in shallow gravels. The fragments had been deliberately stained with chromium and iron sulfate, and the teeth subjected to artificial abrasion.
Identity of the perpretator remained a mystery, Suspects included the discoverer Charles Dawson, motive – seeking admission to Royal Society; a friend of Dawson’s – Samuel Woodhead; Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who lived nearby; Sir Arthur Keith prominent in museum circles. Teilhard worked with Dawson and was also a suspect; Rev Rutler says Stephen Jay Gould a palaeontologist was convinced of Teilhard’s guilt, but Gould only obtained his PhD in 1960, so could not have been privy to the identity of the hoaxer.
In 1996 two British palaeontologists examined contents of a trunk stored at the British museum in 1975, and discovered bones stained exactly the same way as the Piltdown remains. The trunk belonged to one Martin A C Hinton, keeper of zoology at British Museum in 1936. Hinton had worked with Dawson in 1912, and his requests for a weekly wage had been rebuffed. It seemed that Hinton had planted the bones to embarass Dawson, and had used the bones in the trunk to practise on beforehand.
So even reverend gentlemen such as Rev Rutler can poison the well, and besmirch the character of those whose theology they disagree with. But Teilhard leaves a better legacy than Rutler can ever hope to attain.