Book Discussion: "The Jesus Family Tomb"

[tollbaby]

Welcome, Valerie, and thank you for your comments

[Charlie P.]

The powers at the helm of Discovery Channel have been involved in some serious in-fighting, these past three weeks - - a long story, as I've heard it, with lots of dramatic twists of plot. The book and film had some strong supporters at Discovery - and now, members of the scientific community are beginning to gather round the evidence and make some very supportive sounds. The patina fingerprinting method is now in its actual, first court case (with more relevant cases to come) - and the research continues here in New York. Many in the religious community are also beginning to calm down, and take a closer look. In calmer moments, they are moved by the fact that the evidence (the nematode anomaly, the fiber mold anomaly - and other biological anomalies in the Jesus ossuary [including the fact that "bone flakes" have turned out to be flakes of crystal, and not human bone at all) - is consistent with exactly what the Gospels said we should have found in the Jesus ossuary.

It begins to look as if this tomb may be prone to a history very similar to the Nag Hammadi Library (The Gnostic Gospels, sometimes referred to as the Nile Gospels) - from initial condemnation as a hoax, including claimms that the Gnostic texts had been forged outright - to calmer moments, and finally reflection, investigation, and a chancy balance of acceptance (the Vatican still considers all Gnostic texts heretical, even though Constantine's church historians record that the two books considered for inclusion as the last book of the Christian Bible - the Apocalypse of Peter and John's Book of Revelation - were both rooted in the Gnostic "heresy."

As for the current heresy: Yesterday, I received word from Simcha that the Discovery Channel plans to broadcast the full program - repeatedly.

Jabba Falwell and Bill Donahue (the latter being, in reality, far more level-headed and intelligent off camera than on) have both shot back with the talking point that had our team written about Islam instead of Christianity, there would have been threats to burn down our houses and to kill us. Well, there were (subsequent to Falwell and Donahue) threats to burn down our houses and to kill several of us (evidently from a rare, extremist Christian faction that believes every embryo is precious - but if it grows up into an archaeologist or a film-maker, we may have to kill it). The chief difference appears to be that when Islamic extremists threatened to burn book stores and kill author Salmon Rushdie, the book sellers did not back down - and yet, when Christian extremists threatened to bring lawsuits and to organize a pull-back of advertizers for Discovery Channel's "Planet Earth" series, Discovery Channel pulled "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" from broadcast so quickly that no one even remembered to change the program label on the bottom of the tv screen ("You are watching The Lost Tomb of Jesus" - while what you were really watching was a replacement program about real estate scandals in Moscow).

Within the last 24 hours, they at DC have developed the curious distinction of now canceling their further cancelations.

Oh, no - not again.

- - C.R.P.

[Zomboy]

I finished reading The Jesus Family Tomb and I'm IMPRESSED! Well done Charlie!

I believe that critics/zealots, once they calm down and read the book will be pariticularly impressed at Charlie's thorough application of the scientific method when he analyzed patina samples from a variety of tombs and concluded that 1) the James ossuary is almost certainly the missing one from the tomb and as a result, greatly changes the statistical probability of this being THE tomb and 2) that patina analysis is a new - and powerful analytical tool for archaeology (and now for forensics, according to Charlie's above post).

Charlie, I have a question related to patina formation. In the book, you mention the role bacteria play in patina formation. Is there any significance of the species of bacteria involved? I assume there would be a higher concentration of sulfur metabolizing bacteria in a tomb, cave that had a high percentage of trace amounts of sulfur than a site with low sulfur concentrations.

As each tomb was unique in the elemental concentrations of the patina samples, could the types, number and ratio of bacteria species (assuming that live cultures or their fossilized remains could be extracted) be an additional useful tool in identifying the uniqueness of a tomb and it's artifacts?

[ufojoe]

So, when Discovery shows the program again, will they show the
three hour version, including the original 45 minutes that were cut
out?

[Charlie P.]

Hopefully, Discovery Channel will show the whole program as originally filmed, and as originally scheduled to be broadcast, before they cut an hour, and replaced it with an hour-long hatchet job with Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor set up for a hatchet-job, complete with a pre-rehearsed soundbite calling Simcha's film, "archaeo porn."

As for the bacteria, this may be a variable, in addition to elemental spectra; but not enough is known about how subject the bacteria are to change over the centuries - whereas the mineral layers they leave behind are a far more permanent signature of a tomb's history. (I will say this much: there are microbes that would appear to have no business being in the tomb in the first place; and that's only the beginning of their strangeness). - C.R.P.

[mayavision2012]

(I will say this much: there are microbes that would appear to have no business being in the tomb in the first place; and that's only the beginning of their strangeness). - C.R.P.

If these microcrobes "appear to have no business being in the tomb", would it otherwise be safe to assume that they are, however, indigenous to the local enviroment? Or is it looking as though microbes foreign to the general area might be involved? Once again, an intrigue to tease the brain.

[Mr. Titanic]

I just finished the "Jesus Family Tomb" book, and I must say it was more impressive than I would have ever expected it to be. Well done indeed. The only real problem I had with the book was the idea that I've never heard the name Mariamne before this book, and as a Catholic, I've never referred to the Virgin Mary as Maria. I call her Miriam. Aside from that, I thought it was really thought provoking, and the odds, even when reduced to 600 to one are worth considering. But I get the feeling that the "known as Mara" inscription justifies the Magdalene claim more than the Marimne part does. My favorite chapters were the DNA one, and those that spoke of Mariamne. But I especially loved the Patina analysis chapter, the end of that being a touching point in the book. Plainest ossuary, plainest cloth, and scripture speaking through physical evidence. It was... surreal, in a sense. Compelling nonetheless.

The conclusions had to be the best thing about it though. I love reading non-fiction for that reason, to see how the author(s) interpret the information, and how they gather more of it to justify the claim. It's great science. Also, going back and taking a look at the lives of these important figures of history was another valuable aspect of this find.

[tollbaby]

The only real problem I had with the book was the idea that I've never heard the name Mariamne before this book, and as a Catholic, I've never referred to the Virgin Mary as Maria. I call her Miriam.

depends on your area/language, I guess. I was raised French Catholic, and we had both Marie (not muh-REE, very close to how Mary is pronounced in English) and Maria during Latin masses. I'd never heard Miriam until I started doing research in English once I was an adult.

[laurie]

The only real problem I had with the book was the idea that I've never heard the name Mariamne before this book, and as a Catholic, I've never referred to the Virgin Mary as Maria. I call her Miriam.

depends on your area/language, I guess. I was raised French Catholic, and we had both Marie (not muh-REE, very close to how Mary is pronounced in English) and Maria during Latin masses. I'd never heard Miriam until I started doing research in English once I was an adult.

Anyone old enough to remember the Mass in Latin would probably also have learned prayers - the Lord's Prayer and the Hail Mary especially - in Latin. "Hail Mary" = "Ave Maria"

By the time I started kindergarten, I could recite all the Rosary prayers - the Credo, the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria and the Gloria - in Latin. We learned them in both English and Latin at the same time.

[Mr. Titanic]

Well certainly the Latin mass would refer to Mary as Maria, but you see I was speaking from the perspective of someone who learned mass in Arabic (as well as Aramaic, and some Latin). In Lebanon, which in Ancient times was a part of the Fertile Crescent just like Isael, they still refer to Mary as Miriam in mass. Miriam el Adrah - The Virgin Mary.

The Talpiot tomb, which according to this claim harbored the ossuray of the Virgin Mary is located in Israel. So if in the Middle East they still refer to Mary was Miriam even to this day, it doesn't make sense that the insciprtions read otherwise. I know in the Jesus Family Tomb book, Pellegrino mentioned that it could have been a nickname acquired from forein lands. But if it truly was, I'd have expected to hear it at least once in reference to the Virgin Mary when I went to Lebanon, or in Arabic mass. Aside from Latin mass, I've never heard Maria before.

And Mariamne is a different story. I've never heard that one period until now, which bothers me really. When you look at the layout of the book, the incription on the ossuary is introduced first, and then all of a sudden the fact that Mary Magdelene was actually called Mariamne is somehow discovered. It just seems as if neatly arranged to fit a set conclusion. I'm certainly not making accusations here of any sort, I'm just saying that for anyone else reading the book, it would at first glance seem that way.

[laurie]

Mr. T., you are (obviously) too young to remember the Latin Mass, but prior to Vatican II, ALL masses the world over were said in Latin. If you'd been born in the 1950s or earlier, whether in a Middle Eastern country, a European country, an Asian country, whatever, you would have learned and heard ONLY the Latin Mass, and the name "Maria" would mean "The Virgin Mary".

I've been thinking about the Mariamne inscription, too. My thoughts are that "Mariamne" *might* be simply an abbreviation of "Maria M[agdale]ne" (Mary of Magdala), carved on the ossuary at a time when the Romans were in full power in Jerusalem and Latin was the official language. The person(s) who paid for and/or carved the inscription may have felt pressured to use Latin or face political consequences. Dangerous times.

And Latin abbreviations were/are very common - think of the sign on the crucifix: INRI. It is the abbreviation of the Latin for "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews".

Just my 2 cents.

[saralestes]

To Charles Pellegrino,

I just finished reading the book and am eagerly awaiting my copy of the DVD. As a scientifically-trained non-fiction book editor with a personal interest and an extensive layman's background in the central focus of this book, I found it to be a very mixed bag. It was clear that it had been pieced together hurriedly, and it was a strange mix of meticulous precision regarding the science and rather sloppy assertions regarding the historical context and literature in the field. (I suspect the book's editor did not have subject matter knowledge when editing the book.) The errors were not fatal, but in my opinion they do undermine the credibility of the work as a whole and are certainly regrettable. That being said, I think the project itself is a watershed discovery, sure to elicit much debate, and I am glad I did not have to put up with the politics!

The patina fingerprinting data was the most clear science and I found it very gratifying (thank you for your part in that, Dr. Pellegrino!). The DNA analysis was stunning as far as it went, but it pleads to have the other ossuaries sampled and analyzed also.

If I were to ask for only ONE more test, it would be a DNA analysis from the accretion on the bottom of the Maria ossuary. If THAT yielded a match with the Y'shua bar Yosef ossuary, then THAT would refute such Bible passages as Acts 1:9-11 and would strongly argue against a physical ascension. The expectation of a physical ascension for those who are alive during the end times is a belief that is held by many today -- not only by Christians, but also in the growing "new age" movement as well.

However, IF there was NOT a match between the DNA results of the Maria ossuary and the Y'shua bar Yosef ossuary, then all sorts of other possibilities enter the picture in this debate. One of the things the book speculates upon is the likelihood that the tomb had been entered by someone other than the family at least once, presumably by Templars. Maybe it had happened more than once, at different times over the life of the tomb itself.

One of the things that leapt off the page at me when I read the book (I connect the dots, too) was the fact that the inscription on the Y'shua ossuary was written in a fast cursive script, which implied haste in the labeling of it. If a body took a year to decompose, there would be no reason for haste in preparing the ossuary for the secondary burial of the bones. (For example, in our times, it often is a year before a headstone is placed on a grave, and it gives ample time to prepare the stone and the inscription.)

If there is NOT a match between Maria and Y'shua, the questions would then have to be asked, "Did someone place an ossuary in the tomb that contained someone else's bones?" and "Who had a vested interest in countering the reports of a physical ascension?" Several candidates come to mind, but the DNA test would have to be performed first or the discussion is moot.

If I could then ask for additional DNA tests, it would be to take samples from every ossuary in the group that yielded testable material. Since the mitochondrial DNA reveals maternal lineage, it would be interesting to see if ANY of the other ossuaries (marked or unmarked) could be traced as descendants or relatives of Maria on the one hand and Mariamne on the other. I have reasons to suspect that Y'shua and Mariamne had THREE children, not just one, but the only scriptural report that might relate to this is in the noncanonical Gospel of Philip, which is somewhat cryptic:

There is the Son of Man and there is the son of the Son of Man. The Lord is the Son of Man, and the son of the Son of Man is he who creates through the Son of Man. The Son of Man received from God the capacity to create. He also has the ability to beget. He who has received the ability to create is a creature. He who has received the ability to beget is an offspring. He who creates cannot beget. He who begets also has power to create. Now they say, "He who creates begets". But his so-called "offspring" is merely a creature. Because of [...] of birth, they are not his offspring but [...]. He who creates works openly, and he himself is visible. He who begets, begets in private, and he himself is hidden, since [...] image. Also, he who creates, creates openly. But one who begets, begets children in private.

No one can know when the husband and the wife have intercourse with one another, except the two of them. Indeed, marriage in the world is a mystery for those who have taken a wife.

.

I am curious as to what the basis was for saying that Yehuda bar Y'shua would have been 10 OR 13 years old at the time of the crucifixion. Can you help me with that?

I would like to know if there is a postal mailing address where I can send a list of the errors in the book or if I should post them here in this forum. Please advise.

[wolfspirit]

I just my copy from reserve at my local library. When I registered my reserve, I was 6th in line for 3 copies. There are now 23 people in line for 5 copies. (According to the library, estimated wait on a copy is 63 days).

So, hopefully I will read it this weekend.

Scott

[Mr. Titanic]

Mr. T., you are (obviously) too young to remember the Latin Mass, but prior to Vatican II, ALL masses the world over were said in Latin. If you'd been born in the 1950s or earlier, whether in a Middle Eastern country, a European country, an Asian country, whatever, you would have learned and heard ONLY the Latin Mass, and the name "Maria" would mean "The Virgin Mary".

I've been thinking about the Mariamne inscription, too. My thoughts are that "Mariamne" *might* be simply an abbreviation of "Maria M[agdale]ne" (Mary of Magdala), carved on the ossuary at a time when the Romans were in full power in Jerusalem and Latin was the official language. The person(s) who paid for and/or carved the inscription may have felt pressured to use Latin or face political consequences. Dangerous times.

And Latin abbreviations were/are very common - think of the sign on the crucifix: INRI. It is the abbreviation of the Latin for "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews".

Just my 2 cents.

Well, I suppose my age isn't quite in my favor concerning this argument, I will admit, but I do believe you've overlooked a few details Laurie. You see, although masses may have been conducted in Latin, I know for sure it was Aramaic in Lebanon and parts of Israel. I come from a long line of priests, and my uncle who baptized me held mass in Aramaic. I also asked my father who was raised in Lebanon, and he told me it was Aramaic. But back to the solid facts, I am referencing a different sector of Catholicism, the Meronite Catholics. You'll find on sites even such as Wikipedia, that "Maronites were originally Aramaic-speaking people. Since the 18th century AD, they have been Arabic-speaking, though, like most Lebanese people, their ethnic background is a mix of Phoenician, Assyrian, Ghassanids (Arab), Greek, Roman, and French Crusaders." During the Crusades for example, Christian warriors came into what was once the Fertile Crescent demanding that it's people convert to Catholicism, but they found out upon invading that already present there were Catholics! It also would make little sense that the Church of Lebanon would go from Aramaic (the Language of the Lord, who walked in their land) to Latin, and then back to the Aramaic that I eventually learned.

Check out this website.

Aside from all of that though, the prime point is when the Virgin Mary was buried, and the inscriptions on her Ossuary were etched in. Back when that happened, its safe to assume Meronite Catholics, the Vatican and all the rest of that didn't exist. It didn't really come into power, I think, until the Edict of Milan with Constantine, several centuries after the death of Jesus, and perhaps his mother. So there was no demand from the church then (since it didn't exist) that all Catholics must speak Latin during mass. So again, why would Latin wind up on the ossuary of the Aramaic speaking Virgin Mary, among other Aramaic speaking worshipers?

Also, if those that inscribed the ossuaries were under pressure to write in Latin, then all the ossuaries would have been in Latin. According to Pellegrino, Mariamne is a Greek word. The tomb itself was essentially a mix of names from different areas of the Mediterranean.

I really like your analysis of the Mariamne name though. It sounds like an interesting theory. But again, it just seems to perfect, because the book never claims it was an abbreviation, they claim her real name was Mariamne. Just as I'd say your real name was Laurie. That's the main problem. And it was said with absolute certainty, even citing Professor Bovon as the source (from Harvard).

It’s tough… I don’t know.

[laurie]

Okay, I'd forgotten about the Maronites. And earlier this evening (after I wrote my post) I was speaking to a friend whose parents were born in Lebanon, and he also informed me that they remember Mass being said in Aramaic before Vatican II. My mistake - apologies.

As for Mariamne, well, as I said, just my 2 cents. I've read enough archeology texts to know that archeologists have a way of complicating things that may be "not so complicated". Kind of like Freud's "Sometimes it's just a cigar."

[voralfred]

....I really like your analysis of the Mariamne name though. It sounds like an interesting theory. But again, it just seems to perfect, because the book never claims it was an abbreviation, they claim her real name was Mariamne. Just as I'd say your real name was Laurie. That's the main problem. And it was said with absolute certainty, even citing Professor Bovon as the source (from Harvard).

It’s tough… I don’t know.

On this Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariamne
it says quite plainly that Mariamne is one alternative spelling (Koine Greek) of Miriam or Mariam or Maria (or Marie or Mary, but the latter are of course too recent). Several Herodian queens of princesses spelled their name that way. So I'd say that Laurie's assumption is a bit farfetched. It makes a lot of sense for the book not to claim that the second "m" or the "ne" have anything to do with "Magdalene", but just that it was the particular spelling that was favored by this particular "Mary".

Edit: as an afterthought, there is a furhter argument against the "abbreviation" theory. in such a complex religious, cultural and political environment ,a lot of reasons could be imagined t owrite a name in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, in the alphabet of the language chosen, or translitterated in a different one (i. e., Miriam in latin letters or Maria in hebrew letters, etc etc.) But once you start with one, it would make sense to keep it, so if we assume Maria, from the latin, the abbreviation should be Mariamna, for Maria M(agdale)na, not -ne.

[tollbaby]

Laurie was not assuming, voralfred, she was speculating. There's a difference, and please be careful of tone when speaking to or of other members.

[voralfred]

and please be careful of tone when speaking to or of

What about my tone?
I did not attack Laurie at all! I do hope she did not take it as a personal thing!
What I saw, is that MrTitanic was seriously considering this as an "interesting theory" to the point of wondering why it had never been proposed in the book. Though I have not read the book and thus do not have myself an opinion on its main thesis, I thought I could ease MrTitanic's (who likes the book but was surprised by the absence of the "abbreviation theory") feelings about that: not claiming this theory is a plus for seriousness of the book; a scholar specialised on middle eastern names that would have made this hypothesis would have looked very weird to me. Coming from Laurie, who does not profess being an expert, it was perfectly natural speculation. The whole point of my post was about its absence in the book.

Just in cas I am misunderstood once more: on the identity of Mary Magdelene and Mariamne I do not have yet any opinion at all, whether positive or negative. But provided the connection is based on "outside" arguments, the Gnostics, for instance (in the sense of: if they said so centuries later, it is because they based themselves on some old tradition, I am not making such an anachronism as assuming a gnostic connection that early), or any other historical argument, provided it is precisely not the "abbreviation theory". That I would consider as very weird coming from a scholar.

[tollbaby]

So I'd say that Laurie's assumption is a bit farfetched.

That was quite condescending, and I'd appreciated it if you'd be a bit more careful when choosing your words in future. This is not a debate. Should you wish to discuss this further, it will NOT be done on Dr. Pellegrino's forum, but in PMs or in the forum suggestions thread, where it would be more appropriate.

[ufojoe]

Interesting theory, Laurie. Never thought of that.

On the condescending aspect? Sorry but I have to speak up.

I didn't feel his post was condescending. However, if we're going to flag posts for their condescending content, then why didn't anybody say anything when a bevy of condescending posts followed my initial post on Cydonia? Seems like a double standard on this board, depending on who is doing the condescending...

My Cydonia post here:

viewtopic.php?t=115288

By the way, I am used to that kind of response to many things that I post about. And since that initial back and forth, I have had some nice exchanges with Brad and the others. I'm ok with their posts but would like to see consistency with the mods...

[Mr. Titanic]

Yes, let’s please take that discussion to PM, Thanks Tollbaby.

I appreciate your input Volalfred, but I was already aware of that. As I mentioned above, the book stated Mariamne is a Greek version of Miriam. But look at who is cited in that Wikipedia article, the same source the book used, Dr. Bovon of Harvard. It wouldn't surprise me if that article was posted after the book was released, either. Don't forget my question (that Laurie put forth a good theory in response to) was why it wasn't in Aramaic. It clearly can't be a nickname from foreign lands, because the book says with absolute certainty that Mariamne was her REAL name. It seems too perfect.

Also, Laurie like all of us who are not professionals in this subject matter, is just trying to connect a few dots. No assumptions here, just theories.

Okay, I'd forgotten about the Maronites. And earlier this evening (after I wrote my post) I was speaking to a friend whose parents were born in Lebanon, and he also informed me that they remember Mass being said in Aramaic before Vatican II. My mistake - apologies.

As for Mariamne, well, as I said, just my 2 cents. I've read enough archeology texts to know that archeologists have a way of complicating things that may be "not so complicated". Kind of like Freud's "Sometimes it's just a cigar."

No problem Laurie, I still like that you too are thinking of theories to explain this. Two (or even three -Volalfred) minds are always better than one. I too know Archaeologists complicate things; even Dr. Pellegrino admitted that in Unearthing Atlantis. I'm just worried that we are forcing a piece of the puzzle in a spot where it doesn't belong, just so we can complete the picture. You know? At this point possibilities are endless.

Ufojoe: How does Cydonia have anything to do with this topic, if you don't mind me asking? Your thread has nothing to do with Dr. Pellegrino or any areas of research he is involved in. It is with my grace that it still exists on the forum, and existed long enough to receive replies at all. If you feel that posts are condescending in a thread that doesn't belong here, as I surely don't, you could have always taken that to PM. Also, please don't, in off-topic posts especially make accusations and assumptions about the moderation team. We try to regulate the forums as we see fit and fair.

[ufojoe]

Ufojoe: How does Cydonia have anything to do with this topic, if you don't mind me asking? Your thread has nothing to do with Charles Pellegrino or any areas of research he is involved in. It is with my grace that it still exists on the forum, and existed long enough to receive replies at all.

It has nothing to do with this topic. Just pointing out what I thought was the mod double standard, IMO. But you already answered that. If I have an issue, I'll take it to PM. I won't bring it up again.

Nothing to do with any areas of his research? Then why have a topic on the message board that includes Space Exploration? I posted my original comments there.

From CP's website:

Work in progress:

Scientific activities are now focused on medical research - particularly immunology as regards deep bacterial infections and cancer. Secondary research area, robotic space probes for exploration of subsurface seas, Europa, Titan.

I don't think it's too far a stretch to talk about the surface of another planet in our solar system that 30 or so independent scientists/researchers think could be home to artificial structures. A robotic space probe is what I want for Cydonia. It's related 100%. Whether others are open to the possibility should be irrelevant to my being able to post it. Shouldn't have anything to do with your grace.

Sorry for going off topic. But you asked. And I didn't mind answering!

[Mr. Titanic]

You are not discussing the surface of another planet at all Ufojoe. You are playing the "What-if" game with the possibility of extraterrestrial life on Mars. I don't classify that as having anything to do with Pellegrino, or his subjects. And of the thirty or so scientists participating in that field, I didn't notice Dr. Pellegrino's name anywhere. I'm not impressed with the loophole. We already know Cydonia exists; Pellegrino is concerned with discovery and expanding our knowledge of space. Your argument for further exploration of Cydonia is what, ET? I'm afraid that won't cut it, not with other realistic theories to prove why that structure exists out there.

Once again, you've managed to drag this thread off topic, as opposed to say, taking it to PM? My question was rhetorical, and now I think it's time to quote what a wise moderator once said, earlier in this thread: this is not a debate. Take it to PM.

Any further replies from me in this thread will pertain to this topic. I apologize for the side discussion. If any other members have opinions to express about this particular issue, please feel encouraged to PM me, my inbox is always open.

[Charlie P.]

Charlie here - just jumping in for a few quick replies:. On the Latinized Maria - The #11 House in Pompeii has the prayer to "Maria," identified by a people who call themselves "Christianos." (It's a very interesting and poetic prayer, acknowledging power and responsibility going hand-in-hand - that emerging Christian strength could simultaneously be a great weakness). According to the Canonical Acts and Letters, Paul resided and preached at Puteoli before he went to Rome. He was on the Bay of Naples in one of Pompeii's next door neighbors, barely more than a decade before the Prayer to Maria was preserved, in AD 79.

According to the Discourse of St John, Maria, the mother of Jesus, died in Jerusalem shortly before the Romans burned the city in AD 70. Jerusalem, like Pompeii, was a multi-national crossroads of trade, with its official government language being Latin since the time of Claudius, but with many languages being spoken (which is consistent with a tomb from the period in which we find a Latinized Mary written in letters of the Hebrew alphabet, along with a name inscribed in Greek). Like 1st century AD Jerusalem, many languages are spoken in Manhattan today, though English is the official language. In one of our own family cemetaries, near Manhattan, American-sounding names are written in English, Hebrew, and Chinese characters. Moreover, we should expect to find inscribed ossuaries in a first century AD setting under Roman power: The Jews of the period had a long tradition of education - and so, evidently (albeit more recently), did the Romans. Today we are blinded by the relatively recent emergence from a Dark Age in which a Medieval monk in Scotland, with access to only 200 books, was the most learned man in a whole country. The evidence from Pompeii's lesser known but infinitely better preserved sister city of Herculaneum suggests that the majority of the population throughout the Roman world, like most of the world today, could read and write.

This also sheds some light on when the first editions of the Gospels (the canonical ones and such apocryphal texts as the Gospel of Thomas) were written as first drafts: very erly, it seems. Church teachings place the writing of the Gospels up to 120 years after the events in Jerusalem. Archeaology and the experiences of crime scene investigators raise questions about this universally accepted conclusion. The emerging widespread evidence of literacy even among slaves argue against such a gap between events and their first written drafts. Were church fathers writing their own drafts a century or more later, they would certainly have made sure the Gospels all told the same story, and ironed out the contradictions between the four canonical Gospels. Instead, they must have been compiling and editing much earlier texts, in which even the contradictions had long before become sacred, and widely known, and could not be altered without the alterations being noticed and criticized (as in the case of several verses added to the Gospel of Matthew, centuries after pre-existing versions were known and accepted.

I have always wondered about the glaring contradictions between the Gospels. Why did no one edit them in such manner as to make them conform? Among CSI's, and among historians and forensic archaeology types, who have taken the time to read original accounts from eyewitness participants at the Little Bighorn, Gettysberg, the Titanic, or Iwo Jima, one learns quickly that everyone is telling a different story, from a different point of perception. It's only when everyone at an event is telling the same story that you begin to suspect the accounts have been rehearsed, and may not be credible.

Interestingly, the Gospel of Luke seems to begin with an apology - which, in the modern vernacular, seems to say, we know all of this may sound very strange, but this is how it appeared to have occurred, to each of us.

At this stage in the investigation, I'm much more willing to believe that the Gospels were not written a century after the incidents described in and around jerusalem; but that instead they were written much nearer to what might be called current events.

One reviewer has pointed out mistakes in some of the chapters. Most of these are due to the fact that, after Discovery Channel moved the broadcast date back more than a month - from mid-April to March 4 - the publication schedule became what the publisher called "crash." That was putting it mildly. My agent has never seen a book go from firs-pass copy-edited manuscript to bound copies in only ten days, with only 12 hours from copy-edit to printer, with no intervening galley proofs. As a result, the two sets of author's copy-edit corrections never made it to the printer. Only one set was chosen, almost at random (because cross-referencing was judged "impossible" under a schedule reduced to hours instead of weeks) - and two whole science chapters literally vanished into the editorial vapors.

I'm assured that all the bugs will be ironed out in the future; but just in case the above writer has noticed a few glitches Simcha and I have missed - yes, Brad can give out my Long Beach address, and I'll acknowledge the pointing out of any corrected heresies that have squeaked by in the next edition. (Alternatively, you can write directly to me via Email through the discussion group).

See y-all later,
- - Charlie P.

[voralfred]

Don't forget my question (that Laurie put forth a good theory in response to) was why it wasn't in Aramaic. It clearly can't be a nickname from foreign lands, because the book says with absolute certainty that Mariamne was her REAL name. It seems too perfect..

As far as the question "Why", I think the simplest answer is "Why not?".

Pr. Pellegrino gave the answer in his previous post, I just extract it here from all the other considerations:

Jerusalem, like Pompeii, was a multi-national crossroads of trade, with its official government language being Latin since the time of Claudius, but with many languages being spoken (which is consistent with a tomb from the period in which we find a Latinized Mary written in letters of the Hebrew alphabet, along with a name inscribed in Greek). Like 1st century AD Jerusalem, many languages are spoken in Manhattan today, though English is the official language. In one of our own family cemetaries, near Manhattan, American-sounding names are written in English, Hebrew, and Chinese characters.
.

Conversely, Chinese-sounding names, or obviously Jewish names are often written in latin characters. It is all a matter of choice. In a complicated situation why each person takes a specific action is just... complicated.

Mariamne is not a "nickname from foreign lands", it was an accepted variant of Miriam/Maria adoted by a sizable portion of the population which was culturally strongly hellenised (ever since the conquest by Alexander the Great), too far from the "tradition" to want the Hebrew/Aramaic form and anti-roman enough to reject the latinised form. Just a personal choice (probably, not of the person in question, but of her parents: once you are given a name with a specific spelling, maybe it is not so easy to change it - or maybe you could, after all, if it is obvious that it is the same name, just alternate spellings; how hard could it be to change your name at that time?)

I still haven't read the book so I do not have yet a personal opinion on the identity of the "Mariamne" of the Talpiot tomb. I'm just saying that there could be a thousand reasons for someone to have Mariamne as her REAL name, and have it inscribed on her tomb.