I have thought many times about coming clean and telling the truth, but lacked the guts to do so. Everything I said I discovered is a hoax, planted by me and only me. (Statement on his website. H/t Cadre Comments.)The movie Bloodline and its surrounding claims received much publicity just a few years back. Was there any publicity at all around the admission that the thing was a hoax? What about the effects on people who believe this kind of thing, or the general impression left on the impressionable (which is a large number of people)? And, finally, does honesty or integrity require that the hoax should be reported by any purported news outlet that publicized the original hoax? Isn't at least a retraction in order?
Welcome to this blog. It contains my thoughts on our efforts to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. My current update schedule is once a week as time permits. Thank you for reading.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
"Bloodline" Discoveries Admitted to be a Hoax - Where were the headlines?
The movie Bloodline was the 2008 entry in the anti-Christian polemics series that we see many years around the anniversary of Jesus' resurrection. It was based on the work of an amateur archaeologist going by the name Ben Hammott. He has since acknowledged that his discoveries were a hoax.
I'd never heard of Bloodline before. And honestly, the website you linked is even more confusing. Probably best if it remained obscure.
ReplyDeleteThis was essentially an attempt to breathe new interest into the old chestnut proposed by Leigh, LIncoln and Baigent in the 80's (The books, 'Holy Blood and Holy Grail' and "The Messianic Legacy"), which were comprehensively exposed as bogus by the BBC (which had originally made materials supporting the works) and an excellent book by Richard Barber on the nature of the Holy Grail and the development of the story. It is sad that people tend to focus on the sensational than, for example, the recent discovery of a 1st century fragment of the Gospel of Mark - materials which clearly affirm the historical nature of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI'd love it if this kind of thing remained obscure. The more common thing is for the hoax to be publicized and lose its sense of source and pass into "common knowledge", but when it's discovered as a hoax, that's nearly hushed up.
ReplyDeleteI found out that the fellow who was behind the "Bloodline" hoax had changed his name before, and (in possibly related news) had been caught previously in a hoax involving the Loch Ness Monster. Seriously.
It disturbed me to read one of the comments that was attributed to one of the people working on the Bloodline movie, where they were joking about him seeming dishonest and looking like his evidence was fabricated. Here's what bothers me: if the filmmakers had reservations, why in the world did that not come up during the course of the project or publicity? Kind of makes you wonder.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Hi Howard
ReplyDeleteI keep hearing hints about this Mark fragment. I'm hoping for a photo and transcription, really. :)
Love that kind of stuff.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Have you seen this debate on the nature of the New Testament? http://ehrmanproject.com/
ReplyDeleteThe new 'Mark' material is revealed towards the end.
Pardon, it's been "one of those weeks" at work -- putting in 10-12 hour days every day. I think what I'm looking for is more along the lines of "photos and transcripts", though, when it comes to manuscripts or fragments. It's amazing how often they're misrepresented, and it's best to be able to fact-check. I'm not saying that any new discoveries have been misrepresented (yet), but just in general.
ReplyDeleteTake care & God bless
Anne / WF