When even the New York Times, a paper not known for its support of those who believe that the Bible means what it says and says what it means, indicates that the upcoming "Tomb of Jesus" documentary is based upon sloppy science, history, and logic, you know that the show has to be really weak.

The documentary, which carries the seal of approval from its executive producer James Cameron (“Titanic”), has already caused some ado, however, with bold assertions that clash with conventional Christian doctrine. Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a son, Judah, according to the filmmakers. And all three were laid to rest in a family tomb that is now buried deep beneath a Jerusalem apartment complex.

And, of course, the filmmakers’ claim that they identified the burial remains of Jesus of Nazareth — including traces of DNA — suggests that he was not bodily resurrected, after all.

Maybe, or maybe not. The archaeological arguments are plausible but not persuasive: this is a breakthrough that relies more on “what if” than “here’s how.” And even an amateur can see that the ifs are stacked to support one hypothesis. But it is a fashionable one. Early Christian Gospels suggesting that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and a respected apostle in her own right, not a fallen woman, are the foundation of Gnostic studies by scholars like Elaine Pagels — as well as of the plot of the Dan Brown best seller “The Da Vinci Code.”

The filmmakers get around reasonable doubt with the twin pillars of cable documentaries: hokey costume drama re-enactments and state-of-the-art robotic cameras that see around corners and down dark holes. And to add a fillip of legitimacy, the Discovery Channel will follow the film with a panel discussion led by Ted Koppel.

The review here goes on to point out weakness after weakness, flaw after flaw, in the show's premise. That isn't to say that the paper endorses the resurrection or the divinity of Jesus, but rather that it recognizes the shoddy piece of work that is being foisted upon viewers.

My students have been hearing about this story in recent weeks, and quickly picked up the flaw in its argument when I offered this analogy. If I were to find a cluster of graves in Mexico City marked with the names Juan, Jose, Pedro, Miguel, and Maria, would that alone be sufficient evidence to indicate that the graves are those of a particular family? Their response was "Of course not -- those are real common names and so it could be a whole bunch of different families. You need more evidence."

And so it is with this documentary -- we likely have a family with a number of very common names, buried in a particular era. And yes, one of the men was named Jesus. The evidence does not, in and of itself, prove that he was THAT Jesus -- and the rest of the case then falls under the weight of a single unsupported assumption that constitutes th foundation of the argument.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Overtaken by Events, The Pink Flamingo, Renaissance Blogger, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Right Pundits, Random Dreamer, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, and Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.