Jerry Coyne complains that a New York Time article failed to kowtow to his brand of fundamentalism.
The NYT article says:
//when Jesus is thought to have been alive.//
//Those involved in the project say it immediately brought to mind a biblical verse, Matthew 4:23://
//On top of that, she said, there was sufficient “circumstantial evidence” to assume that Jesus may have set foot there. //
//Maybe I’m carping a bit here, but shouldn’t there have been a caveat to the effect that “historians are divided about whether Jesus really did the things that the Bible describes”? And really, how much confidence do we have that Capernaum was “a known center of Jesus’ activities”? After all, how would it sit with Times readers if Manchester, New York was described as “the known place where the angel Moroni showed Joseph Smitgh the golden plates”?//
Is there any division among historians that Jesus existed or that he was involved in, you know, preaching and healing? Not that I'm aware of. Even Bart Erhman goes that far.
As for the Smith comparison, that would be spot on comparison if the article had said "Capernaum, where Jesus miraculously healed the sick" but it didn't.
What a moroni.
Update: Paul Leffingwell - a Facebook friend on Unbelievable nails it with this comment:
Coyne is mad that someone at the Ministry of Truth obviously wasn't doing their job and one-too-many credulous references to Jesus slipped into public print and the gullible proletariat might be unduly influenced.