Book Discussion: "The Jesus Family Tomb"

A well known polymath whose published works range far and wide, including (but not limited to) Archaeology, Paleontology, Astronomy, Space Propulsion systems, and Science Fiction.

Official Website: http://www.charlespellegrino.com

Moderators: Mr. Titanic, Charlie P., ed_the_engineer

Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera
Contact:

Post by Mr. Titanic »

Very thorough response saralestes, thanks for taking the time. I notice several valid points. Yes, I tend to completely embrace almost all Catholic beliefs, and take those beliefs seriously. The only true thing I've never been too fond of is confession to a priest, because I've felt I can talk directly to God myself, but that is a personal matter. Anyhow, I, much like yourself do find that more research is required and our quest for the truth is hardly complete.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera
Contact:

Post by Mr. Titanic »

Here is a reply from Charlie to a letter he received from Mr. Pfann's wife regarding his earlier article in the Jerusalem Post and the "Jesus Family Tomb."
Charles Pellegrino wrote:Dear Simcha: Received letter from Mrs Pfann. The facts are simple. Stephen Pfann cannot be brought before the administrative offices of his university, for academic fraud, because his administrative office is a post office box. The undisputed (and non-disputable) fact, is that Pfann's re-reading of the Mariamne inscription was actually a rewriting of the inscription, including the deliberate removal of joining punctuation marks between the two parts of the name, in order to repaint "Mariamne" as two different people. Moreover, he was writing about bones in the Jesus ossuary, and castigating us for this. He did not read before he commented - which is simply inexcusable for one who holds multiple press conferences and presents himself to the reading and viewing public of the entire planet (from MSNBC and CNN, to Time and the London Times, from Sydney to Pakistan and Spain) - and who presents himself as a legitimate academic, representing a university of world-class standing, with a real campus (you know, sort of like Tel-Aviv University).

Mr. Pfann is the one who ballyhooed the "University of the Holy Land" as if it were a major "campus." His words and actions invited further scrutiny. (In part because because Pfann's science was simply off the wall; and in part because his "bones of Jesus" comments raised a second red flag: He was clearly commenting about something he had not actually read. Real growb-ups [much less real scientists] don't do this.) One only requires fifteen seconds on Google to discover that Pfann's university teaches only about five courses per semester - in theology and the language arts, and that he has neither studied science, nor teaches it; nor are credits for his courses accepted at more than (by any standard) a very limited number of accredited universities around the world (he lists about two dozen). One does not have to spend many more seconds to find out that Mr. Pfann refers to himself as an Evangelist Catholic. The evidence is clear: Pfann speaks publicly as if he is a credible defender of scientific principles (while falsifying his scientific "evidence"); and he fails to tell the public that he is also a defender of the faith.

Stephen Pfann must be feeling pretty stupid, to not be sending the letter of protest himself, but instead to be letting his wife front it for him, attesting that they are really friendly decent people, that the act of doctoring evidence and presenting it in press conferences as science might just as well not actually exist, and that I am way out of line to be pointing out the smallness of his university, and making size an issue. Pfann made the size of his institution an issue the moment he called it a "university," and presented it to the multiple world press organizations as such, with the attendant images of largeness and credibility that the word "university" automatically evokes. Can Pfann name even one professor, besides himself, who works full time at his "University of the Holy Land?" The place does not even qualify as a ridiculously small "college," much less a "university."

And now, Stephen Pfann has run away and hid his face, getting others to whine for him, and to call his bad behavior irrelevant. He reminds me of a diabolical little schoolboy who has written something dirty on the board, and who has left to others, the task of cleaning it up for him.

-C.R.P.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera
Contact:

Post by Mr. Titanic »

Aulus: Here is a reply from Pellegrino regarding that article. A discussion about it has been started here if you'd like to get involved/comment.

Charles Pellegrino wrote:Few subjects have inspired more fury, irrationality, and misrepresentation than "The Jesus Family Tomb." The Jerusalem Post's 11 April, 2007 article, "Jesus Tomb Scholars Backtrack," is, by now, merely another typical example of this.

Once again, the often repeated line about "the bones of Jesus," from an ossuary, "contradicting the core of Christian belief," demonstrates not only a failure to comprehend the book (and the relevant scientific notes) that have been available for nearly two months; but, worse, they reflect a refusal even to read. Anyone who did read the material would have understood by now: I've found no bones in the Jesus ossuary; only fibers consistent with shroud material (along with a concretion-embedded micro-fragment of wood). The usual biological signatures of disintegrating masses of bone and even shroud-associated dissolution of flesh during primary burial, appear to be entirely absent in this ossuary - as if nothing were ever placed inside except a DNA-smeared shroud. This is, of course, consistent with what the Gospels and other early Christian texts say we scientist-types should have expected to find, all along (even if the explaination is considered to be rooted in Matthew's mention of a rumor that one of Jesus' followers stole away with the body, leaving behind only a sacred shroud). Several observers have asked me if the anomalies inside the Jesus ossuary's accretion bed are consistent with the resurrection story. If so, science can come only this far, and no farther. The rest is a matter for people of faith. (I'm an agnostic.)

In the Jerusalem Post, "epigrapher" Stephen Pfann claims that mathematician Andrey Feuerverger has backtracked with "a startling change of opinion," after Andrey stressed that his probability of 600 to 1 referred to the probability of this cluster of names arising once, by sheer chance: that is, a test based on the assumption that the cluster was not what it appeared to be; but was instead another family that came to have these same names by means of a remarkable coincidence. A change of opinion? No. What Andrey stresses is exactly what we described in the book: Our math was testing precisely this hypothesis. Andrey's statistics were based on probability curves; whereas mine were based on the specifics of population dynamics - by which a minimum of six cycles of the Jerusalem ossuary culture (600 years) would be required to produce the Talpiot Tomb's cluster of names, by coincidence, just once. Working from two different directions, we came to the same answers.

Pfann relies heavily on the tired, old claim that Jesus was a common name during the first century AD, much as Charles is a common name today, and Mary. When I ran the probability of me, Mary, her sister and the three childrens' names appearing together, in a close family cluster, by chance, the six names showed up only once in about 130 million tries (or 3 times throughout the entire population of the United States). By analogy, the number five, among Power Ball Lottery players, is as deceptively common as my name - and lottery numbers are governed by this same, disarmingly simple mathematics. Take any six names among the closest members of your family, and you will probably never, in your own lifetime, meet another family with the same identical cluster, or meet another family who has met such a cluster. This almost never happens.

This is why, off camera, when I was willing to bet "screaming man" Bill Donahue my royalties from our book if he could ever point to an archaeologically provananced tomb with this same exact combination of names (he didn't even have to replicate symbols, such as the "cross" and the star on the "Jesus, son of Joseph" ossuary), he did not want to take the bet. For all his fury, he's intelligent. He knew the math.

Much is being made of (and misrepresented about) the normal, scientific speech of doubt. Shimon Gibsin, James Tabor, and I were brought into this project specifically to explain this tomb away, to go at it "Doubting Thomas style" - even if, according to Simcha's instructions, he might not like the answers we brought back to him. Pfann's summation of the DNA evidence, as not proving anything, is a dishonest spin on what the test was all about. The DNA of Mariamne and Jesus was never meant to "prove" anything. The test was designed specifically as a disproof. A maternal match (mother and son, brother and sister) would have contradicted historical and scriptural accounts about the holy family, indicating that we were concentrating on the wrong tomb and all was coincidence. This (and other attempted disproofs) have simply failed to disprove.

With matters as important as the implications of a tomb such as this, of course we sound skeptical, and we continue to try explaining away this tomb with new tests, even if the most likely alternate explanations have fallen away and what remains begins to look, increasingly, like the genuine article. Pfann has taken Shimon Gibson's legitimate scientific skepticism (which has been consistent throughout), and mischaracterized it as "backtracking." He then paints us all as fools to believe that a name like "Jesus son of Joseph," and "Maria" and "Mariamne," and the others, could have meant anything in the first place. For analogy, if we had been in England, and we found an inscription that said, "Merlin," and near him an "Arthur," with a crown over the name - well, though we would approach it with doubt, we would be fools not to take a closer look.

I note that we have been misquoted as rendering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre invalid, with this tomb. We have done nothing of the sort. About AD 40, the walls of Jerusalem expanded beyond the present location of the church. Once the ossuary caves were within city walls, Jewish law required that the ossuaries be relocated outside the city walls. The letters of Paul attest that James, the brother of Jesus, remained in Jerusalem for more than thirty years (until, according to Hippolytus, he turned the Jesus ministry over to "Mariamne," the woman apostle). According to Suetonius, and to archaeological corroboration in Pompeii and Herculaneum, Christians of the sixtys through seventys AD, included wealthy people able to afford tombs. Appropriately, it seems, the hill of the Talpiot Tomb overlooks both Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

Interestingly, Pfann quotes Francois Bovon (co-discoverer and translator of the Mout Athos "Acts of Philip"), commenting on the Discovery Channel's version of the film (not Simcha's version) - which, owing entirely to an advance campaign of protests, led by the likes of Jerry Falwell, was cut by a full hour, and then replaced by Ted Koppel's "equal time" to the voice of protest. Professor Bovon was commenting on a trunkated (if not castrated) film; and at the time of his statement, Bovon had no opportunity to read the book. He was not happy with the Discovery Channel version. Also, he was (and is) of the opinion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were never married. Still... Pfann went some considerable distance to avoid quoting Bovon in context, and to give the patently false impression that Bovon did not believe in any connection at all between Mary Magdalene and the "Mariamne" in the "Acts of Philip." Yet, in the final paragraph of the letter Pfann cited, Bovon summarized the Mariamne connection thus: "Mariamne of the 'Acts of Philip' is part of the apostolic team with [her brother] Philip and Bartholomew; she teaches and baptizes. In the beginning, her faith is stronger than Philip's faith. The portrayal of Mariamne fits very well with the portrayal of Mary of Magdala [Mary Magdalene] in the Manichean Psalms, the Gospel of Mary, and Pistis Sophia."

In a recent press conference, Stephen Pfann tried to further separate Mary Magdalene from the "Mariamne" of the Talpiot Tomb by presenting his new translation of the inscription, complete with photographs and a litany of forensic archaeological "howlers," including a doctored version of the inscription with key and plainly visible elements of the inscription's punctuation erased.

Though Pfann's lie crumbled within thirty minutes, major news organizations carried his "re-translation" around the world before the truth could even get its shoe laces tied. Somehow, the popular press bolsteried Pfann's credibility above all others, including University of North Carolona's Professor James Tabor, by mentioning prominently that Pfann was a professor at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem... as if this were Tel Aviv University, or M.I.T., or U.N.C.

In most universities, falsifying scientific data results in immediate action before a professorial disciplinary board. A mere, fifteen-second Google search by anyone at the Jerusalem Post, the London Times, or Newsweek, would have revealed that this was not a possibility at the University of the Holy Land because Stephen Pfann is the disciplinary board. He's the whole university. No classes in science or mathematics are taught there (though Pfann has presented himself to the entire planet as an expert in both). The only courses on the current catalogue are English, creative writing, foreign languages, and theology. (Pfann prudly advertizes that some foreign schools will accept exchange credit.) There is no campus. The "university" is run out of Pfann's house; and the Administrative Office address is a Post Office box. Professor Pfann describes himself as "a Catholic Evangelist."

There's a lesson here, somewhere. The chief difference between science and religion is that religion is based on faith, and science is based on doubt. (A good scientist learns to question virtually everything.) The scary thing, these days, is that Stephen Pfann is not at all unique: He speaks publically as if he is a defender of scientific principles; yet he tries to conceal that he is really a defender of the faith.

He lies; and he does so in the name of the founding prophet whose shroud just might have been found in the Talpiot Tomb - and who, according to the scriptures, went to crucifixion by the words, "What is truth?"

- - Charles Pellegrino
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera
Contact:

Post by Mr. Titanic »

Aulus: Here is a reply from Pellegrino regarding that article. A discussion about it has been started here if you'd like to get involved/comment.

Charles Pellegrino wrote:Dear Simcha: Received letter from Mrs Pfann. The facts are simple. Stephen Pfann cannot be brought before the administrative offices of his university, for academic fraud, because his administrative office is a post office box. The undisputed (and non-disputable) fact, is that Pfann's re-reading of the Mariamne inscription was actually a rewriting of the inscription, including the deliberate removal of joining punctuation marks between the two parts of the name, in order to repaint "Mariamne" as two different people. Moreover, he was writing about bones in the Jesus ossuary, and castigating us for this. He did not read before he commented - which is simply inexcusable for one who holds multiple press conferences and presents himself to the reading and viewing public of the entire planet (from MSNBC and CNN, to Time and the London Times, from Sydney to Pakistan and Spain) - and who presents himself as a legitimate academic, representing a university of world-class standing, with a real campus (you know, sort of like Tel-Aviv University).

Mr. Pfann is the one who ballyhooed the "University of the Holy Land" as if it were a major "campus." His words and actions invited further scrutiny. (In part because because Pfann's science was simply off the wall; and in part because his "bones of Jesus" comments raised a second red flag: He was clearly commenting about something he had not actually read. Real growb-ups [much less real scientists] don't do this.) One only requires fifteen seconds on Google to discover that Pfann's university teaches only about five courses per semester - in theology and the language arts, and that he has neither studied science, nor teaches it; nor are credits for his courses accepted at more than (by any standard) a very limited number of accredited universities around the world (he lists about two dozen). One does not have to spend many more seconds to find out that Mr. Pfann refers to himself as an Evangelist Catholic. The evidence is clear: Pfann speaks publicly as if he is a credible defender of scientific principles (while falsifying his scientific "evidence"); and he fails to tell the public that he is also a defender of the faith.

Stephen Pfann must be feeling pretty stupid, to not be sending the letter of protest himself, but instead to be letting his wife front it for him, attesting that they are really friendly decent people, that the act of doctoring evidence and presenting it in press conferences as science might just as well not actually exist, and that I am way out of line to be pointing out the smallness of his university, and making size an issue. Pfann made the size of his institution an issue the moment he called it a "university," and presented it to the multiple world press organizations as such, with the attendant images of largeness and credibility that the word "university" automatically evokes. Can Pfann name even one professor, besides himself, who works full time at his "University of the Holy Land?" The place does not even qualify as a ridiculously small "college," much less a "university."

And now, Stephen Pfann has run away and hid his face, getting others to whine for him, and to call his bad behavior irrelevant. He reminds me of a diabolical little schoolboy who has written something dirty on the board, and who has left to others, the task of cleaning it up for him.

-C.R.P.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera
Contact:

Post by Mr. Titanic »

Here is an exchange between a member from the discussion group (saralestes) and Charles Pellegrino, posted with permission, that addresses several details of the book.
saralestes wrote:Dear Charles,

Pardon the delay in my getting back to you. I am preparing a book to go to press and have little time to devote to other things right now. Here are the errors or problems I found in your book:

In the last paragraph of page viii, James Cameron wrote that the Shroud of Turin has been dated to centuries later. I agree with the questionable provenance of the Shroud, but there are two peer-reviewed theories about the error in the dating. See for example, http://www.shroud2000.com/index.html, http://www.shroudstory.com, and http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm.

The latter's finding of the existence of a "bioplastic coating" would have skewed the carbon results in just the same way as the detergent used to scour some of the ossuaries contributed to the chemical profile of the patinas you tested. Toward the bottom of the last article, it says that "Victor V. Tryon, PhD, assistant professor in microbiology and director of the university's Center for Advanced DNA Technologies, examined the DNA of one so-called "blood glob" from two separate microscopic shroud samples. He reported isolating signals from three different human genes by employing polymerase chain reaction, which can detect pieces of double-stranded DNA." It would be interesting to compare the genes he found with the ones that came up in your tests. That shouldn't be too hard to do!

I have to wonder why an ossuary existed for Y'shua if no body was found on Sunday morning. It IS possible that the Shroud was placed in that ossuary, later stolen by whomever entered the tomb and placed the skulls there, and somehow surfaced in the places and times we know about today. Comparing your DNA results with Tryon's might be very interesting in this regard. However, until and unless you get a "match" with DNA from the Maria ossuary, all you can say is that the blood from the Y'shua ossuary did or did not match the blood from the Shroud. It would take linking the blood[line] to Maria before you would be able to connect the dots in a more significant way.

On pages 1, 2, and 72, you state that the Gospels assert that Y'shua was crucified on a Friday afternoon, and you state that Miriam of Magdala went to the tomb on a Friday. What the Gospels say depends on the translation you consult. Also, Mark 14:12, 15:25 does not agree with John 19:14. In Mark, the "last supper" took place "On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed..." He was then crucified the following day, at "the third hour." In John, 19:14, at about noon of "the day of Preparation for the Passover" (erev Pesach) the discussion with Pilate took place and later that day he was crucified. (NRSV). Some translations say "Friday"; others say "the Sabbath," but there were two Sabbaths that week -- the ordinary Sabbath and the "high Sabbath" of Passover. Since the Gospels conflict between themselves, how can you accurately say that they assert that he was crucified on a Friday? In fact, if he DID remain in the tomb for "three days and nights" (as on p. 72) and was gone by Sunday morning, then he was probably crucified on a Wednesday. There is no absolute agreement on this, although the minority opinion chooses Wednesday over Friday for the day of the crucifixion. Simcha should be able to tell you more about "the day of preparation" for Pesach.

At the bottom of page 72, I don't feel you are on solid ground in stating that the writer of Matthew made a mistake when he said the stone was sealed. This was not an ordinary Jewish burial; this was the burial of a highly controversial person, and the furor you are experiencing over your book and the tomb is just another example of the kind of emotions that were running rampant 2,000 years ago. Y'shua was a very radical and controversial person in his time, and there were factions that would have wanted to discredit him in any way they could. It makes total sense to me that extra precautions -- including sealing the stone -- would have been taken, for exactly the reasons stated in Matthew. It would have required a seal to make sure that there had been no tampering with the tomb.

Your speculation on the top of page 73 assumes the pre-existence of a "family tomb" existing at the time of the crucifixion. How do we know that the original tomb (ostensibly belonging to Joseph of Arithmea) was not the tomb you found? There is no indication that the "Jesus family" was rich, and according to your book, only the rich had these rock tombs. DNA tests from the Matias ossuary might shed some light on this if compared with DNA tests from the Maria and Mariamne ossuaries. You know with some degree of confidence when Maria and Mariamne died. You also know that the practice of secondary burial was very short-lived. I don't think there is a great likelihood that the "Jesus family" had their own tomb BEFORE the crucifixion. I do think it's quite possible that the tomb you found originally belonged to Joseph of Arithmea -- a rich man, according to the Gospels -- and he then had to create another for himself.

On page 75, you state that the name Jesus appeared 9 percent of the time on the 233 inscribed ossuaries cataloged by the IAA. I think that the name "Jesus" probably did NOT occur at all on any of those ossuaries. It would be far more accurate to say that the name Y'shua (or Joshua) was the name found. I think it's important to maintain the distinction between what was actually found written and what people have come to think as a result of repeated translations of the text. His name was, unequivocally, Y'shua bar Yosef (transliterated). Since you are writing for an English-speaking audience, it seems to me that you need to be consistent and not talk about the frequency of the Greek name (Iasos) that never appears on any of the ossuaries you mention. You are specific that Mariamne is a Greek spelling for Miriam and that Maria is a Latin spelling for Miriam. I think it would be much more clear if you stated that the frequency (9%) refers to the name Y'shua or Joshua. You refer to Simcha by his given name; you don't call him "Simon"(Anglicized) or "celebration"(translation) As an editor, I think this point is something that needs to be made more clear and not to simply bow to people's ignorant repetitions of errors carried down through the centuries.

On p. 79, regarding the inscription on the "Matthew" ossuary, the letter "Hey" represents the CONSONANT "h," not the VOWEL "a."

On p. 97, it is clear to me that the directive "Change thy woman's aspect" is an instruction to Mariamne to dress like a man, not change her summer dress. From what little I know about Greek culture back then, women were regarding even less than they were among the Jews. In order for Mariamne to be respected as a teacher in the Greek communities, it would be necessary for her to appear as a man, not a woman. This is still true to some extent many centuries later. (e.g in the movies, "Yentl" and "She's the Man")

On page 105, you assert that not even the non-canonical gospels refer to a child of Jesus, but then how would you interpret the "son of the Son of Man" reference in the Gnostic gospel of Philip.

The last comment I have to make is that for me, you have been too speculative in trying to account for the Yehuda ossuary. DNA results are definitely needed on the Yehuda ossuary AND the Maria ossuary for you to be on more solid ground in your thinking on this. In fact, the greatest weakness I find throughout the book is the amount of speculation you and Simcha engage in. James Cameron's summary in the foreword sums it up well. A lot of "myth" and very little evidence. And yet, there is no question in my own mind that "Jesus" lived, had children, was resurrected and physically ascended. That may have to await his "return" for sold "proof" but in the meantime, you have opened a door on a worthy investigation. Get more science and engage in less speculation and you will be on the right road.

Time will reveal the truth of all things.

Sincerely,
-Saralestes
Charles Pellegrino wrote:Dear "Saralestes," If a relatively recent biplastic (that is, organic carbon) coating was involved in the Shroud of Turin sample, then you are right and of course the carbon dating would have been significantly skewed toward a younger age. Certainly, it would be interesting to compare DNA from the Talpiot Tomb's "Jesus" ossuary (which appears to originate with bioconcretions around fibers). A question arises from the fact that the Turin shroud is inconsistent with the plain, almost burlap-like cloth from the equally plain "Jesus, son of Joseph" ossuary. Nothing precludes two shrouds (as appears to be the case in the Mariamne ossuary: one of linen, and a cloth of cotton). If the Turin shroud "blood stains" and the Talpiot "Jesus" DNA produce a match, this would indeed be interesting.

Thus far, the evidence is consistent with only a DNA-smeared shroud being placed in the Jesus ossuary. Perhaps this is also consistent with a tradition of shrouds or robes related to the crucifixion, going back to the beginning.

The inconsistencies between the Gospel accounts: These are often viewed as evidence that they were written a century or more later, from the "song stories" of illiterates whose tales mutated over time. However, the evidence for widespread literacy seems to be the Roman world's norm - at least from the archaeological perspective of Pompeii's lesser known but far better preserved sister cities, giving us a different view. Even Herculaneum's household slaves could generally read and write, and keep the accountant's books. I think the Gospels, in their first drrafts, were actually penned much nearer to the actual events than the modern churches suppose. When all eyewitness accounts tell the same exact story, even when the vantage points differ, that's when (CSIs, for example) begin to suspect that the story has been rehearsed. That the Gospels disagree or even contradict each orther is more akin to what makes one wonder if, for example, any four witnesses at the sinking of the Titanic were actually at the same sinking, even with regard to whether or not they saw the ship go down in one piece (the contradictions were never settled until forensic archaeology arrived on the scene). The four Gospels must have become very sacred, very early. This is why they would not have been extensively edited, a century or more later, all of them to tell the same identical version of the story, from beginning to end. As for New Testament disagreements over the dates of events (was the Last supper on a Wednesday, and was the crucifixion really on a Friday?), these are discussed in depth, in James Tabor's "The Jesus Dynasty."

On the sealing of the Tomb, and on the location of the Talpiot Tomb contradicting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Simcha and I have a healthy disagreement over this. The traditional location of the primary burial site is indeed the place known, archaeologically, to have been a pit for the incineration of refuse. The pit's walls were lined with ossuary caves. By about AD 40, the city's walls expanded beyond the caves (which were formerly located outside the older Jerusalem walls) - and, owing to ritual laws, any ossuaries in the tombs would have been moved to locations outside the new wall boundary. Relocation would have uccurred under direction of James, the brother of Jesus, who continued the Jesus ministry in Jerusalem (according to the letters of Paul) for more than thirty years, after the crucifixion. So, the Talpiot Tomb hill - which overlooks Jerusalem and Bethlehem - neither contradicts nor diminishes the significance of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The AD 30 events described in the New Testament could have (and in fact likely did) occur under or near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

I agree with you on the Joseph of Aramethia site originally being an emergency burial (just as described in the Gospels) by a rich man - interestingly, in accordance with the prophecy in Isaiah 53. There is, of course, no reason why Joseph of Aramethia (a significant follower of Jesus, under James) should not be in, or near, the Talpiot Tomb (if one is permitted to speculate about him).

Page 75: Here, we are translating the actual Hebrew letters into the more familiar names known to English-speaking people, from Hebrew, to Greek, to English: "Y'shua... Joshua... Jesus." As you rightly point out, sometimes this can be linguistically awkward for readers, and we must find a better way of saying it.

Page 79: Matthew. The inner surface of the Matthew ossuary was literally Greek to me. The letter in question was, to me, a lower case "alpha." This secondary inscription was very raw. The primary experts were readers of Hebrew, not Greek. A "raw-shock" test, perhaps. You may be right.

Page 97: Mariamne. Another resonance with the "Mara" inscription, punctuated in such manner that this woman can be read simultaneously as male - just as in the last passage of the Gospel of Thomas.

Page 105: Your reference to the Gospel of Philip - I've never read it in that context, believe it or not. The surrounding passages read just like some of the long and muddled paragraphs in the Discourses of John, or the Revelation of John, or the Gospel of Judas: completely muddled and seemingly referring to ideas that only someone 2000 years ago could understand (either that or they appear to have been written by a drunk) - - and then, suddenly, we find beautiful nuggets embedded in the most incomprehensible passages. The phrase you point to seems typical of this pattern: something that would normally jump out at you, were it not embedded (code-like), dead center in the sort of gibberish that inspires an inattentive boredom: "son of the Son of Man." Now, this is something worth a lot more thought.

On the "Judah, son of Jesus" ossuary itself: DNA tests from the porous bottom of the ossuary are now technologically feasible (three years ago, our project was technologically premature). Permission to conduct these tests has also begun to appear feasible. Curiosity is beginning to run high among archaeologists in Israel, and a scientific symposium focused specifically on the Talpiot Tomb is in the planning stages, with government approval (from the Israel Antiquities Authority) appearing likely.

- - Charlie Pellegrino
Note: Saralestes' name is replaced with her username for identity protection. I can paste the true name in the reply if requested from the author.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera
Contact:

Post by Mr. Titanic »

Here is some more news received today regarding the Jesus Family Tomb and its airing on the Discovery Channel:
Charles Pellegrino wrote:We have now received more details about what happened with the Discovery Channel avalanche. Prior to the March 4 broadcast, some 40 million Emails of protest had been received by D.C. At literally the last minute, the executives there (fearing a threatened boycott of products advertised on D.C.), decided to placate the protesters by having an hour edited out of the film, and replacing that hour (in the name of providing "equal time") with the Ted Koppel's hour of verbal gang rape - a term not even slightly too strong, in the context of a prepared statement calling my friend's film, "archaeo-porn."

Evidently, this "equal time" concession turned out to be next of kin to trying to placate Hitler by giving him more territory. As the number of Emails from "angry Christians" exceeded 100 million, and began to exceed even the number of Christians living in America, the Discovery Channel decided to pull the entire program from all future, scheduled broadcasts.

This was a first, in American history. A channel's highest Neilsson rated program in nearly two years was, buried while it was still climbing the charts.

Discovery Channel executives did not begin to suspect that they were being duped by an Internet hoax until the number of angry Emails climbed, during subsequent weeks, toward 600 million - exceeding the population of the entire North American continent. An investigation quickly revealed that a program for generating 10,000 copies of a letter with 10,000 new Email addresses, from a single entry, had been used. As it turned out, all of those Emails threatening product boycotts had been generated by as few as 300 people.

A similar massive, Internet attack appears to have been launched against book sellers, and even against places where members of the Tomb team are known to teach and work.

This is the first time, ever, that an organized Internet assault has been used successfully in an attempt to determine what Americans and Canadians should be allowed to see, and to read.

And, as it turns out, there were only about three hundred people who felt strongly enough to act on a belief that a a film and a book should be completely silenced out of existence. As has been explained to me, the major networks have been used to this, for about three years. The same tactic was revealed in the attacks against "The Path to 9-11," which was aired in 2006. Discovery Channel had never encountered this before, and believed, for a time, that the threat was real.

I am assured, now, that the entire three hour program will be aired, in a few weeks, as originally filmed and edited.

- - Charles Pellegrino
Charlie P.
Professional Wordsmith
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Charlie P. »

Perhaps the strangest event, with regard to the relentless attacks against the JFT film and book, has been an uncanny sense of Deja Vu. Time and again, I have heard the same arguments and even the same slanders that were brought to bear against evolutionary biologists during the early 1980s. Overseas, some of us were even brought before "ad hoc tribunals."

It sometimes seems as if the same old court and tribunal documents have been brought out, and dusted off. I've never encountered before, until now, "book reviews" by people who, when called out for errors indicating that they never even read the book in the first place, before reviewing it, responded undulgently that they were "proud" not to have read it - because they already knew from the stench that it was rubbish.

Another old, old trick seems to be the quotation of inflammatory paragraphs that do not exist in the work itself, and then to base their criticisms upon their own invented passages. It's not the sort of marksmanship that requires any skill: It's simply a game of fitting the arrows into the holes the accuser makes for them. Even the phrase "archaeo-porn" seems not particularly original. In 1982, Wellington's "Church Lady" referred to the embryonic science of ancient DNA studies (as now applied to this tomb, and in this same month, by Mary Schweitzer, to therapod dinosaur DNA) - as an affront against God, and as "geo-porn."

Though the possibility of remarkable coincidence is still at large, it is necessary to keep a sense of humor about the curious echoes. Consider the following blast from the past:

Critic "Sherlok," on the Jesus Family Tomb, 2007: "The research is largely based on assumptions rather than facts and requires a significant amount of faith in order for one to actually believe. I for one don't have such faith, sorry, but I'll stick with facts not fiction."

Rev. Jerry Falwell, through the Institute of Scientific Creationism, 1982: "The theory of evolution is largely based on assumptions rather than facts and requires a significant amount of faith. I, for one, do not have such faith. The belief in [Darwin's theory of] evolution is a matter of faith. Darwinism is a religion in its own right. And not science. Scientific Creatonism deserves equal time [in our schools]."

About 1985, when my book "Time Gate" was published, and when "Darwin's Universe" went paperback, Rev. Falwell had said that the only way I could be saved was if I found Jesus.

Well... I've done that... sort of...

Why can't we be friends now, Jerry?

- - Charlie P.
Last edited by Charlie P. on Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Post by saralestes »

Charles Pellegrino wrote:

I am assured, now, that the entire three hour program will be aired, in a few weeks, as originally filmed and edited.

- - Charles Pellegrino
Will a full-length DVD be released, as well, restoring the deleted portions? (I don't currently have TV and don't want to sign up for a year at $40 a month just to see one program.)
Charlie P.
Professional Wordsmith
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Charlie P. »

The DVD version does indeed have the full, original version of the film. It is, by far, the better version. - C.R.P.
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Post by saralestes »

It appears that there are now TWO DVD versions. I just received the one I ordered from Discovery.com; it has a running time of 92 minutes and no "special features" or bouns materials. Amazon.com is accepting pre-orders for the "Director's cut" version, which has a running time of 105 minutes. plus 80 minutes of "bonus material." I am returning my copy of the Discovery.com version for a refund and will order the second version, which is scheduled for release on April 24.

I did watch the Discovery version tonight, and I can see why some people who saw the show or read the book got in an uproar about "Jesus's bones." In one of the early shots, the Jesus ossuary is portrayed with a skull inside of it and clearly identified as being the Y'shua ossuary. In the book, when Simcha is describing his first experience with the Y'shua ossuary, he says he sneaked a peek inside and saw human remains inside of it. However, elsewhere he says that all of the bones were removed from all of the ossuaries and reburied in a common grave set aside for such a purpose.

I think it is unfortunate that the spin about the body POSSIBLY being spirited away took things off course. In the movie, it was shown as if it were fact (in the dramatization). It was clearly implied that the body had been taken from its temporary placement in Joseph of Arithmea's tomb and placed in the "family tomb" before Mariamne came to the empty tomb on Sunday morning. It also implied that Y'hua's body had been left behind and was carried from one place to another, yet according to what Dr. Pellegrino has said, that does not jibe with the lack of evidence of bones or decaying flesh having been in contact with the shroud fibers found in the Y'shua ossuary.

The DVD clearly states that only two days had passed between when the body was laid in the original tomb and when Mariamhe came to see the empty tomb, and it also implies that the family had a tomb elsewhere at the time of the crucifixion, even if the ossuaries were later moved outside of the city walls in 40 AD, as Pellegrino has stated. Something does not ring true with the idea that the FAMILY had a pre-existing tomb at the time of the crucifixion. There is no evidence that they were wealthy enough to have had one prepared ahead of time. The accounts of the crucifixion seem to indicate that events unfolded within the course of 1-2 days between the time of the "last supper" and the crucifixion itself. It was also stated that Joseph had probably been buried in Nazareth, so if the family HAD a tomb at the time of the crucifixion, it would not have been in Jerusalem.

I also noticed that the second tomb was far less spacious then the "Jesus family" tomb, which again raises questions about when the latter was dug out of the rock and by whom.

I am pleased to hear the IIA is moving toward more cooperation with further tests and analysis. In the DVD I just saw, there was an inscription in the family tomb, and I would like to know what it says. The film also stated that the Yehudah bar Y'shua ossuary was that of a child. In the book it said it was smaller, and in the book it also said he would have been 10 or 13 years of age at the time of the crucifixion. I would like to know more about that, in more detail. How was his age determined?

In this DVD, it said there were four ossuaries that were quite ornate and did not have any inscriptions. (I think that in the book, it said there was one like this.) I am reasonably sure that Y'shua and Mariamne had three children -- a boy, a girl, and a boy, in that order. Also, if Yehudah bar Y'shua was 10 or 13 years old at the time of the crucifixion, then Marimane's relationship with Y'shua had been going on for at least 11-14 years at the time of the crucifixion, which certainly could have produced more than one child between them. If he was 33 years old when he was crucified, then he was with her by the time he was 22 at the most conservative estimate. The gospels are silent about his life between the ages of 12 and 30.

Neither the book nor the DVD showed where the specific ossuaries were located in the tomb before they were moved. I could see the drawings of the tomb, but in the book and the DVD, it is impossible to see the numbers written on the ossuaries, and there is no information as to what ossuaries were placed together. I think that is something to be considered, too.

My own "hit" on seeing the chevron over the circle/dot on the front of the tomb and the other two ossuaries where it was also seen causes me to think it represented the physical ascension attributed to Y'shua.

I think it was unfortunate that the crucifixion portrayal repeated the error of placing the nails in the palms, instead of the wrists, and then compensating for that anatomical impossibility by wrapping rope around the wrists and forearms to support them. When image on the Shroud of Turin was first discovered, photographed and studied in modern times, the first person to comment on what it showed was a pathologist who did some experiments with cadavers. He found that nails in the hands would not support the weight of the body. The nail wounds in the wrists of the Shroud image, taken together with the position of the thumbs indicated how it would have had to have happened. Other data fell into place after that, such as the particular weave of the linen having only been done around that time, the pollens on the surface came from plants that only grew in that geographical area, etc. etc.

My "passion" about "Christ" is not about his suffering, but is focused on his physical ascension. I personally believe that he did ascend, and that his demonstrated victory over death was the real purpose of his life. The rest -- about dying for our sins -- was added by others later. Just my personal opinion and belief. There will be no "proof" of this until he comes again and takes us up to be with him.

As for being an agnostic, Pellegrino, Wikipedia defines that as follows: "Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism." As a scientist, you HAVE to be an agnostic! These things are not provable on faith alone, and in fact science cannot prove anything with certainty. Like I said, it will only be "proven" to those who are "taken up" to be with him, and to anyone else, it will remain unproven.

I am very glad that -- despite the flaws -- the book has been opened on this investigation, and it will be interesting to see what new information and data emerges from further study and experimentation.
Charlie P.
Professional Wordsmith
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Charlie P. »

I was not aware that Discovery Channel was offering only the version of the film with one third of it actually cut out - as happened literally at the last minute, under pressure of protests. The sequences weren't cut out in any specific order, or for any specific reason. It was done all in the name of calming the more than 40 million advance email protesters, by giving them "equal time... equal representation," in the Ted Koppel fiasco hour. The longer version is, in my opinion, the superior version.

On the "bones" - In January, as the book was being put into its final form, Simcha and others still believed that the "biological residue" still included flakes of bone, inside bio'concretions (bacteria-generated mineral beds) in the bottom of the Jesus ossuary. Simcha had sent me actual samples of "bone" from the Carney Matheson (DNA lab) sample base; and these turned out to be mineral formations - some of them involving crystalization around fibers. I had written a whole chapter about these findings; and through our internal peer review committee, it was decided in January that these results were still too preliminary to be published, and required more testing. However, in the book version, Simcha changed the phrase from "bone fragments" to "human remains" - and later to "biological residue" - which finally became the agreed-upon term, at the time of the February release of the book, and at the time of the news conference.

The investigation continues, of course. While bone chips and other biological signatures of a body continue to be found in the Mariamne bio-concretions (and in all other ossuary bio-concretions), the Jesus fibers are pristine and I am unable to find traces of bone. This does not mean that I will not eventually find a micro-fragment of bone, in situ, inside a concretion (at which point, we will know that there was probably a skeleton in the ossuary at some point in time - but the nematode anomaly alone, will be an indicator that someone [the terra rossa people] probably removed the larger mass of bones [skull, femurs, etc] before the nematode-rich terra rossa soil flooded the tomb). This is all it will take: a single, half-millimeter diameter chip of bone. The search continues.

What puzzles me is how completely undegraded the fibers inthe Jesus ossuary are. And yet they are only traces of the cloth that should have been inside that ossuary when the tomb was discovered, in 1980. No full shroud is present. I've also found a microscopic fragment of in situ fiber that looks as if it could be flax (meaning, possible traces of a different type of fiber than the burlap-like fiber found elsewhere in the "Jesus, son of Joseph" ossuary). A purple-dyed animal fiber (consistent with first century urine assisted dye processes) has also been found in the Jesus ossuary concretions - a purple fiber inter-weaving perfectly consistent with certain ancient rabbinical traditions. There might have been two types of cloth, two types of shroud material. This is consistent with what we found in the Mariamne concretions: a fiber of the same type as found in the Jesus ossuary (burlap-like), along with fibers of flax and cotton - suggesting either three shroud types, or a shroud interwoven with cheaper, plainer materials. Several pieces of cloth may be indicated.

Since the Jesus ossuary fibers show no signs of degradation by black mold and other promoters of decay, there should have been a complete shroud inside the ossuary when it was excavated; but no shreds of shroud, even, are reported. (Reports persisted until 1996 [see, for example, the London Times Easter issue, "The Tomb that Dare Not Speak its Name"] - that between one and three of the ossuaries were empty.) There should have been plenty of shroud material for the excavators to find, when the tomb was discovered. (NOTE: Amos Kloner is often quoted, these days, as saying there were as many as thirty bodies in the tomb - but he has been misquoted: He wes referring to the usual number of bodies that a tomb of this size was known to contain.)

Now, here's where things begin to get a little more interesting. The Vatican response is no longer as condemning as the Greek Orthodox Church (I would have expected the opposite of this). About a year ago, an old friend and teacher who happens to be a Jesuit (and who ranks among the top 20 in great minds I have known), pointed out that about AD 900, when priests did get married and have families, the idea of Jesus having a family was not foreign to them. The change came later, when Rome realized how much money and land was being lost to inheritance by priestly children - and by AD 1100 Jesus and the apostles became increasingly celibate, pre-Constantine examples of priesthood). It was always understood that in dangerous Tiberian-through-Claudian times, if Jesus had a family, it would be spoken of only in code. Indeed, the two grandsons of "Judas, not Iscariot - the brother of Jesus, also known as Didymos," were called before the emperor Domitian, and asked about their ancestry through Jesus to King David. Fr. MacQuitty said that if these grandsons were in fact descended from Jesus, "then of course, his wife would have been Mary Magdalene." Fr. MacQuitty did not know, yet, about the ossuaries - and my own suspicion about the "Judas, son of Jesus" ossuary, had already pointed toward the apostle known as "Didymos Judas Thomas," as the young, "beloved disciple" and the second Judas, at the table of the last supper, in the Gospel of John. When I asked the priest, "hypothetically," if we found a tomb with the family of Jesus in ossuaries, whose name he would have expected to see on an ossuary of a child, he said the most likely would be "Didymos Judas Thomas, son of Jesus." Didymos was Greek for "twin;" and Te-om was Hebrew for "twin," so he suspected that the inscription might actually read, "Judah(s), son of Jesus."

Now, about a month ago, when I said that the results, so far, were consistent with only a DNA smeared shroud being placed inside the Jesus ossuary (with carbon and other trace elements peaking in the right places, adjacent to the fibers, to suggest blood as the source of the DNA), there were immediate snipes from certain high-ranking Catholic councils, saying that there was no way that Jesus would have left mortal remains behind - such as blood or DNA. At this time, I had already seen some of our team members receive multiple death threats, at the instigation of Rev. Jerry Falwell and others like him, and I was through being polite. I responded that if people in Rome truly believed this, then they "should take that Shroud of Turin, there, with its five venerated blood stains, and make a mop out of it."

(After that, everyone on the team received death threats - except me: Jim Cameron attributed this to the "dreaded Pellegrino shock cocoon improbability field effect," and he has speculated that when the first terrorist car bomb nuke detonates in New York City, it's meant for me: "You'll certainly be there, that day. But don't worry, Charlie. You won't get hurt. You'll be walking around with your camera and note book, saying, 'Oh, there's evidence of a fine surge cloud effect - and there's another skyscraper collapse column, and another shock cocoon...'")

So, now I continue to wonder what happened to all the cloth that should have been inside the Jesus ossuary... and the only likely answer lies with the people who intruded, about the time of the first crusade, and let in the terra rossa soil ("the terra rossa people"). That's when the symbol from the tomb's antechamber began spreading throughout Europe, along with stories about a sacred shroud. The people from Vatican Hill, meanwhile, are as curious as ever, now, about the five blood stains on the Shroud of Turin. It has also been brought to my attention, this past two weeks, that there are several viable explainations (now confirmed by at least two credible scientists) for the relatively young carbon-14 dates on the Turin Shroud.

I have explained that the DNA tests on Mariamne and Jesus, from this tomb, were designed as a disproof: If these two were maternally related (as, for example, brother and sister), the test result would have contradicted apocryphal and canonical scripture and divorced the Talpiot Tomb, at once, from the family we know in the New Testament (indicating that the assemblage of names, despite an only 1/600 chance [lower limit value] of occurring by sheer chance, had nonetheless arisen from a remarkable coincidence, in a family that just happened to have the same cluster of names, but was not related to Jesus, Mary, and Joseph). Again, the DNA tests were a test of disproof; they were never meant to prove anything. They simply failed to disprove this tomb.

However, if the blood of "Jesus, son of Joseph" should prove to be a mitochondrial match for the blood on the Shroud of Turin; then the evidenc in hand already, from the tomb, may just have the capacity for finally proving something. All that is necessary is a 1 millimeter length of a single fiber, from a Turin blood stain.

I, for one, will be very surprised if the Shroud of Turin is the missing cloth from the Jesus ossuary; but the DNA should give a difinitive "yes" or "no" on this - and either way, it cannot fail to be an interesting result. DNA, like patina layers and bio-concretions, does not tell lies.

Interestingly (and this appears to be a shift, from a month ago), I do not think we are going to be told, with regard to the Shroud of Turin: "Definitely not! We won't let you do this!"

I want to know. Don't you?

- - C.R.P.
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Post by saralestes »

I have always been curious by nature, and I have to say I very MUCH want to know many things about this particular discovery. In chaos theory, if I understand it correctly, it says that when you look at a big enough picture, all of the pieces sort out and fall into place. When one looks at too small a picture, it's a little like looking at a French impressionist painting too closely. One only sees details (dots or strokes) and not the overall image. When Simcha connected the dots, he was opening the door on a much larger picture. It is MY guess that a number of possible "fruits" will come out of this, despite the resistance from those who are heavily invested in the status quo.

I have followed the unfolding Shroud story for many, many years. I believe that it IS the Shroud that encased Y'shua following his crucifixion and that the IMAGE on the Shroud was created by a photon burst when the speed of the electrons in the atoms of his body reached a certain velocity and jumped orbitals, similar to the images that were left in Japan following the detonation of the first atomic bombs. The theory that the image was caused by the volatile substances (amines) arising from the salves and herbs applied to his body doesn't hold up when you look at the stereoscopic nature of the image itself. It also doesn't fit with the story that his body hadn't yet been prepared for burial when it disappeared. The image is only on the surface of the fibers and was not laid down by any form of pigment, dry or wet. It looks a lot like a scorch of some kind.

There was a clear relationship between the distance of the cloth from the various contours of the body and the patterns of the image itself, indicating the effects of a burst that fell off quickly with distance, such as radiation does. Then the question arises as to what would have caused his electrons to increase in speed, and I suggest that there was an external source of energy supplied to his body. I have my theories as to the possible source of that energy, but they are just theories, tied to my other theories, so I will let that "hang" for now and just say that the need to correlate the Shroud with the findings in this tomb and with the other ossuaries of the Judeao-Christians (the chevron and dot marking, for example) is becoming more and more clear, and perhaps at the end of the day, HISTORY will indeed be "rewritten" and come closer to the truth.

The purple-stained fiber suggests to me that Y'shua might have been buried in his talis (Jewish prayer shawl), in addition to whatever else was involved. This would definitely fit with his being a rabbi and his survivors and supporters being observant Jews. It might have been placed outside of the shroud. There are no purple stripes on the Shroud of Turin that I am aware of.

One Shroud researcher identified cotton fibers in the linen Shroud of Turin, and it did occur to me that perhaps there was an inner wrapping of flax and cotton and an outer wrapper of the fabric you identify as burlap.

Yes, I most definitely want to know more -- as much as can be determined from ALL of the evidence, ALl of the ossuaries, and what the inscription is inside of the tomb that was shown in the movie. It takes time to sift through the evidence and much tact and diplomacy to bring about the cooperation of others who are needed in the investigation, such as the Vatican, but hopefully with time, it will all sort out.

Jerry Falwell is a modern day Pharisee, and has the same ability to stir up his followers as they did back then. It's like we are revisiting those times again, only dressed in modern clothes.
Last edited by saralestes on Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Charlie P.
Professional Wordsmith
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Charlie P. »

When I debated Falwell, as angry as he appeared to be, I remember being completely distracted by all the new folds of chin and neck tissue he had grown, since his public burning of my book, "Darwin's Universe," a quarter century ago. I'd never seen a neck such as that - not since George Lucas. When I came home from the studio, my son Kyle summed it up thus: "Daddy? Why was Jabba [the Hutt] Falwell yelling at you about bones?"

About the material from the Jesus ossuary, Simcha was the first to make the connection with regard to the purple fibers - and the possible cotton transfer fibers in the Shroud of Turin have become another interesting congruence with the Mariamne fibers from our tomb.

I've always felt that the image on the shroud of Turin was most consistnt with the sort of image that can be created (or could have been created, given Renaissance technology) using a heated bronze statue. If new tests should reveal a first century AD age, and if electron microprobe analysis (which is not destructive to the fibers) should reveal that any surface at all, on the Shroud of Turin, was exposed for any number of centuries to the Talpiot Tomb's patina environment; and if the DNA should match - then, of course, I will have to change this vew.

Though I do not think it likely (for I believe the Shroud of Turin to be a Renaissance artifact), a convergence of the Turin Shroud with the first century and the Talpiot Tomb would be cause for rethinking almost everything. Indeed, maybe everything. Sort of messes up one's whole universe, eh? (And wouldn't that be exhilerating?) - - C.R.P.
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Post by saralestes »

If your "statue" theory is correct (and that poses other problems for me), then how did it happen to go against every other Renaissance depiction of the nail holes in the hands instead of the wrists? Even with Renaissance knowledge of anatomy, it took a modern day physician to discover that nails in the hands wouldn't have supported the weight of the body. And then, where is the statue? Melted down?

I find it amusing that so many people are wiggling and shouting to hang on to their present beliefs, on all sides of the equation. I can totally empathize, because MY beliefs were totally shattered when I had that first (of many) Christ encounter(s). Only someone raised as a traditional Jew could understand the depth of the taboo against even considering that Y'shua was the real Messiah. I suspect Simcha has to deal with this challenge, also, which is why I think he went down the road of the body being moved by the disciples, rather than to seriously consider that this was the Messiah and he physically ascended.

It may seem like it's not relevant, but when it comes to beliefs, you might find it interesting that in the Old Testament, everywhere you see the word "God" in English, the underlying Hebrew is "elohim" which is plural and means "gods." Likewise, everywhere you see the word "Lord" (referring to God, not local landowners), it is Adonai, which is plural, meaning "lords." The translation of Genesis 1:26 is the only place that preserves the plural meaning: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." Every time in my life when I questioned something like this, I was pushed aside with explanations that didn't wash, such as the plural meaning the "royal 'we'" denoting whatever that is supposed to mean. I don't think so!

There is so much of what people have been taught that is the creation of men, not God, and all of that really needs to be examined in the light of truth, in my opinion. My examination and search for these particular truths was sort of forced on me by that first Christ encounter, which I could not bring myself to deny. Since then I have had many, many "mystical" experiences and physical demonstrations that have taken me further and further into the mystery of it all. Modern physics, particularly the findings about quarks and Bohm's holographic theories, have provided rational explanations for many of the things I have experienced and been shown.

I did not consciously seek this. It came to me, and I remained open to examine it for whatever it is. When I was 10 years old and had first begun to study science, I observed a hidden order everywhere I looked. If one observes a watch, one infers the existence of the watchmaker somewhere in the process of the watch coming into existence, so in observing this underlying order to everything, I inferred the existence of the order-maker -- whom I have come to understand as an infinite field of self-aware intelligence that seeks to experience Itself through Its Creations. I no longer believe in a personal God, but science revealed the order behind the manifest creation, and I choose to believe in a Creator that is the source of it all. However, It is most definitely NOT a bearded man on a cloud, surrounded by cherubs! :-) One can then ask who created the Creator, and I really don't know. It's vast enough as it is!
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera
Contact:

Post by Mr. Titanic »

saralestes wrote: I suspect Simcha has to deal with this challenge, also, which is why I think he went down the road of the body being moved by the disciples, rather than to seriously consider that this was the Messiah and he physically ascended.
I applaud that observation, simply because I suspected the same thing while reading the book! That aspect played into my rating of it as well (see last paragraph) because it seemed that claiming theories outrageous to Christians (such as stealing away the body - which doesn't work in favor of this project) were considered as well as explored in depth if I recall correctly. I also wasn't sure what to make of the ending either, I found it very perplexing. I was on the verge of getting offended by the tone - just in the final chapter. Don't get me wrong, I was fond of how they used the star mark to end it, but I sensed indirect implications there, somehow. I get the feeling Simcha probably wrote that part, and support that with the mention of facts pertaining to Judaism (that I had not even known about before). I found the lack of bones in the Ossuary quite interesting, and proposed that perhaps wounds and blood stained shroud resulted in any DNA located along the accretion bed. There is a lot of information here that can buttress current Christian beliefs without the need to alter them.

Also, originally I knew (and meant nothing personal by this view) that Simcha being Jewish would result in suspicion. Why? Because I was one of the suspicious. When I was asking people about their views on a find that may have found Jesus' tomb, my question was answered with a question: "was anyone Jewish leading this excitation?" Of course, I answered yes, and then I'd stumble on the emotional responses. "Why don't they focus on their own Messiah, or lack thereof?" ... Things to that effect. While I don't appreciate inflammatory statements, I didn't really argue either, especially when I read claims about disciples moving the body in the book.
Charlie P.
Professional Wordsmith
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Charlie P. »

The statue explaination was never meant to offend anyone; it was proposed by others (when the possibility of pigments painted onto the Shroud of Turin image had been explained away by the lack of all pigment and brush stroke traces), and it is a hypothesis that needs to be explained away before more fantastic possibilities can be considered. The heating of a hollow, bronze statue, to produce the burned-in impression, is consistent with the evidence we have so far (so are some of the more miraculous explainations). In science, we approach such matters much as Doubting Thomas is said to have approached Jesus. We explain away the most possible; and then we try to explain away the next, most possible explainations. And when we have done all of this, what is left standing, no matter how impossible it may seem, just might be the truth.

The process is usually a matter of attempted disproofs (the testing of DNA from Mariamne and "Jesus son of Joseph" was an example of this: an attempt to disprove the tomb's connection to the Holy Family; and the match, instead of a mis-match, simply failed to disprove). Now, if the DNA of the Turin Shroud blood stains should match the Jesus of the Talpiot Tomb, the result, in this case, would be quite the opposite of a disproof, no matter how improbable I presently believe that result to be. But - oh, what a big "if" that would be. It would require a total rethinking about how that image came to be on the shroud. This simple DNA test could be the biggest, most beautiful "what if" in the entire history of archeaology.

I believe Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had his Sherlok Holmes character explain the principle of basing science on doubt in one of his novels - probably a little better than I have, above.

See you later,
- - Charlie P.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera
Contact:

Post by Mr. Titanic »

Charlie: For the record, I was referencing the theory of Jesus' bones being stolen or moved, and not commenting on the bronze statue. Also... it seems a resurrection at this point is just as possible as any other theory.

Anyhow, I have here a comment from Charlie regarding the latest input on Dr. James Tabor's blog, and the post itself below originally posted here.
Charlie Pellegrino wrote:The "backtracking" of the Tomb scholars is really news to me - and to Feuerverger, Gibson, and the other members of our team, who are still working with us on the Tomb project. It seems that the only way Mr. Pfann could come up with, in an attempt to call our discoveries a hoax, was to perpetrate a hoax, of his own creation. In the end, the accusers will fall under the weight of verifiable and reprocucible evidence. In the end, hard science, like time itself, will have its say. - C.R.P.
Dr. James Tabor wrote:http://jesusdynasty.com/blog

April 17, 2007
Those Backtracking Scholars

While I was in Jerusalem last week a story appeared in the Jerusalem Post headlined “Jesus Tomb Film Scholars Backtrackâ€
Last edited by Mr. Titanic on Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
injil
Bookworm
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:05 pm

Shroud of Turin

Post by injil »

The authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has had an increasing amount of support in the academic world. It has been shown that the areas used to test the C14 dating were actually from a corner that had been mended in the late medieval era and that the true age of the shroud is much closer to the time of Christ.

Also, the history of the shroud is becoming better attested. We have many clues from history that give us an astonishingly fresh understanding of the true nature of the shroud.

Our first clue is that the shroud was first attested to as a burial cloth bearing the burial image of Christ in Edessa, which is in the Middle East, around 544 CE. It was found in a niche of a wall, put there for safety possibly because the Persians had conquered Christian Jerusalem. Being of the Zoroastrian faith, they set to destroy churches and Christian imagery.

There is an astounding reference to the shroud found the the liturgy of the church in Spain in the sixth century. The part of the words of a prayer are as follows "Peter ran with John to the tomb and saw the recent imprints of the dead and risen man on the linens". A tantalizing clue to a cloth in existance with the actual burial image of Christ portrayed on it.

Later in the eighth century in Evagrius Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History, an oblong shaped shroud used for burial with the image of Christ on it is described in a book on religious images.

Another interesting piece of evidence arises around the year 755 CE. Pope Stephen III says that "Christ had spread out his entire body on a linen cloth that was white as snow. On this cloth, marvelous as it is to see . . . the glorious image of the Lord's face, and the length of his entire and most noble body, has been divinely transferred." Here again, suprisingly accurate description of the Shroud of Turin.

Our shroud is then moved to the capitol of the then Roman Empire, Constatinople. Incredibly, Gregory Referendarius of Constantinople, a religious leader at the time in the great cathedral of Hagia Sophia, described the cloth as a full length image of Christ with bloodstains brought to the city in 944 CE. In 1201 it is described thusly : “Here He rises again and the sindon [Shroud] ? is the clear proof ? still smelling fragrant of perfumes, defying corruption because they wrapped the mysterious naked dead body from head to feet’ Another startlingly accurate portrayal of the Shroud of Turin

There is rests until 1204 when a crusading army obtained the priceless relic, along with all the gold they could carry, took it to Venice. A Greek leader at the time lamenting to the current Pope the loss mentions the worst loss, a “ linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after His death and before the resurrectionâ€
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Post by saralestes »

Charlie P. wrote:The statue explaination was never meant to offend anyone; it was proposed by others (when the possibility of pigments painted onto the Shroud of Turin image had been explained away by the lack of all pigment and brush stroke traces), and it is a hypothesis that needs to be explained away before more fantastic possibilities can be considered. The heating of a hollow, bronze statue, to produce the burned-in impression, is consistent with the evidence we have so far (so are some of the more miraculous explainations). In science, we approach such matters much as Doubting Thomas is said to have approached Jesus. We explain away the most possible; and then we try to explain away the next, most possible explainations. And when we have done all of this, what is left standing, no matter how impossible it may seem, just might be the truth.


- - Charlie P.
I am in total agreement with you regarding the scientific approach as a process of considering all possible explanations and going through a process of elimination in order to declare the "last one standing" as the most PROBABLE explanation.

In order to evaluate this particular possibility, let's start with the theory that some unknown Renaissance sculptor had the required skill and KNOWLEDGE to create a life-sized (5'9''-5'11") bronze sculpture of the supine figure of a crucified man. All of his available reference material (paintings, sculptures, manuscripts, etc.) indicated that the nail holes were in the hands not the wrists, but his final depiction in the image was of the nail wound being in the left wrist, the right one being covered by the left hand.

He also had to know about the kinds of marks left by a Roman flagrum and apply them to the back in such a way that they depicted the blows realistically. He also had to know about the "space of Destot" and how piercing through that area would lacerate the median nerve, causing the thumb to flex into the palm. Our sculptor certainly had advanced medical knowledge for his time!

Next this Renaissance person had to obtain a 14.5'-long, 3.5'-wide length of linen cloth, woven in a Z-twist thread, 3-to-1 herringbone twill pattern that was only known in the Near East and Asia until recent centuries, and was also interwoven with cotton from the same area. Our sculptor now has to have extensive knowledge of regional textiles, as well as being able to obtain some of the right kind of regional cloth.

Once he had scorched the linen on the heated statue, he then had to apply the blood stains so that they would accurately portray venous and arterial blood flows at the proper angles that would have occurred while the body was hanging from the cross. Our sculptor now also has a complete knowledge of the circulatory system and has done extensive experimentation on blood flows over a body at different angles.

Next, he had to apply smudges of travertine aronite, a rare form of calcium that matches the spectral properties of a limestone substance found in caves near Jerusalem's Damascus Gate, to the feet of the image. Our sculptor now has intimate knowledge of regional soil types and happens to travel to Jerusalem to obtain his sample for his creation. While he is there, he also collects certain plants that only grow in that area and sprinkles their pollens onto the surface of the linen. These materials have been recovered from the surface of the Shroud, so our sculptor had to have put them there!

Finally, if our sculptor was indeed able to accomplish all of the above, BEFORE the Shroud's FIRST PUBLIC EXHIBITION IN 1357 CE, what was his motive for doing so? There was certainly a lucrative market in antiquities and artifacts then, as there is now. However, it just doesn't seem that one person could have accomplished all of the above BEFORE 1357, even for a great deal of money, and done it so well that it would hold up to modern day tests, especially regarding materials like the pollens that aren't even visible to the naked eye. How likely would it have been that he was even THINKING about pollens to make it look more authentic?

What is the statistical probability of ALL of these factors coming together and resulting in this particular image on this particular piece of cloth, along with the particular substances that have been recovered? I'm no statistician, but it doesn't seem like the necessary KNOWLEDGE was even available prior to 1357 CE.

Certainly more science is needed, but for me, the "bronze statue" theory is not tenable. Maybe Dr. Pellegrino can tell me the odds of it being true.
Charlie P.
Professional Wordsmith
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Charlie P. »

I agree: having explained the other most likely explainations away, the bronze statue hypothesis is part of an increasingly less probable list of alternative explainations. It would have required a great deal of inventive knowledge, by someone living in the heart of the Renaissance. There is one person we know of who could have pulled off this stunt. Have you ever compared Leonardo's self portraits to the face on the shroud? Do you see what I see, and is it, or is it not, just a coincidence? - C.R.P.
JW Nugent
Bookworm
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:06 pm

The Family Tomb

Post by JW Nugent »

Modern (relative -no pun intended) take on the issue of family names. My family, for the generations going back to early 18th century Ireland and England, reuse the same names so often that one immeadiate family is indiguishable from another. It can be very difficult to determine lineage or generation through the names. Each immeadiate family might use the name Joseph over several generations so that you never know which Joe belongs to whom. Within this sphere is also the habit of they (those living contemporary to the time) know who their references point toward. Move down the line one generation and references become very confused. The entanglement of names is a common problem; one that neither proves nor disproves one relationship to the next. They know what they meant as did my family through the preceeding generations.

One point that gets overlooked is that these historic folks would have followed very normal practices for internment. For them, their day was as our day, is today. They weren't living in an active mystery or planning forward to project a future myth. The Jesus family lived as any family would then or now. Regardless of the motivations that followed through historic perspective their motivation was only to get by day-to-day; be it a normal day or one of personal tragedy. Maybe the mystery is lessened somewhat if you look at that family as just a family with a status and celebrity no more or no less than the circumstances of the time afford. Much of the turmoil in understanding is from intense and competing interpretation in retrospect and not in perspective of how normal beings act for their time. Look at the matter from the Jesus family point of view and their limitation of only knowing what was happening to them while it was happening and not as part of some vision or prediction of future history.
Observation is an important part of science; all that is required are your eyes and mind - an occasional notation allows the sharing of information and a uniform improvement in knowledge.
User avatar
mayavision2012
Apprentice Scribe
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Albuquerque NM
Contact:

Post by mayavision2012 »

I am currently reading "Reading Judas" by Elaine Pagels and Karen L. King. I just came across something that suddenly strikes me pertaining to:

Acts of Phllip states:
"...and the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...loved] her more than [all] the disciples, [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [...]. The rest of [the disciples ...]. They said to him 'Why do you love her more than all of us?' [/i]The Savior answered and said to them, 'Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.'
(Kiss indicates recognition).

Mark 14:44-46 states that Judas had:
...given them a sign saying 'The one I will kiss is the man.....So when he came, he went up to (Jesus) at once and said, "Rabbi!"
(kiss indicates recognition)

Could it be that when Jesus "kissed" Mary Magdalene "often", making the other disciples "jealous", that he was actually indicating her status as being THE one to recognize with regard to the teachings? Could it be that Jesus's remark about "when a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness", he is stating to the males in the group that as long as the "feminine" (Magdalene/"the light/one who sees") is rejected by them ("the blind" and by extension unincorporated into their own Being), they will be in darkness?
:?

Back to book reading.
Learn from the turtle, it only makes progress when it sticks out its neck.
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Post by saralestes »

Charlie P. wrote:I agree: having explained the other most likely explainations away, the bronze statue hypothesis is part of an increasingly less probable list of alternative explainations. It would have required a great deal of inventive knowledge, by someone living in the heart of the Renaissance. There is one person we know of who could have pulled off this stunt. Have you ever compared Leonardo's self portraits to the face on the shroud? Do you see what I see, and is it, or is it not, just a coincidence? - C.R.P.
Other people think they have "seen" a similarity between the face on the Shroud and Da Vinci's self-portraits. As I wrote in my previous post, the Shroud image already existed by 1357 CE, when it was first put on public display. According to the Wikipedia entry, Da Vinci lived from April 15, 1452 – May 2, 1519, or more than 120 years too late to satisfy your theory. The "bronze scultpure" explanation could not have occurred in the "heart of the Renaissance" because the image on the Shroud was already put on display at the very dawn of the Renaissance.

However, other people HAVE noticed certain features that are visible in the image of the face on the Shroud being replicated (albeit crudely) in icons dating as early as the 4th Century. As has been posted above, there appears to be more and more written reference to the existence of the Shroud from centuries before artistic ability had progressed to be able to produce an image like the one that is on the Shroud. I personally think the Shroud is a real artifact of Y'shua's physical transformation to an "immortal" body, and that the elimination of all other plausible explanations will end up with that "impossible" conclusion as being the only probable explanation, as fantastic as that may appear right now.
Charlie P.
Professional Wordsmith
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Charlie P. »

If the earlier references to the shroud, and the replication of the face from it hold up (and the evidence does seem to favor this), then of course the da Vinci facial resemblance is merely an interesting coincidence.

Not so coincidental is the clustering of identical names. In the Italian side of the Pellegrino clan, and even in the Russian Italian side, every generation has an "Aunt Rose," and a Maria. Indeed, every individual family group seems to have a Rose and a John (or Jack). On the Irish side, there is always a Pat and a John, and in each generation a Jane and a Hannah. Yet, still, even in the sorts of families where it is most likely for a repeating cluster to occur, it has never happened, when the mathematical requirement is for a cluster of SIX individuals from the core family (husband, wife, children - and if fewer than six in the core, next closest family member), truely indistinguishable clusters never have occurred. And when we move from the Pellegrinos and McAvinues to the rest of the country, the chances become even less probable - an acerage of 1/130 million, based on population dynamics. It's not mathematically impossible; but a cluster identical to my own core family probably occurrs only three times in the United States. James Tabor ran his own family - with similar results.

- - C.R.P.
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Re: The Family Tomb

Post by saralestes »

JW Nugent wrote:Modern (relative -no pun intended) take on the issue of family names. My family, for the generations going back to early 18th century Ireland and England, reuse the same names so often that one immeadiate family is indiguishable from another. It can be very difficult to determine lineage or generation through the names. Each immeadiate family might use the name Joseph over several generations so that you never know which Joe belongs to whom. Within this sphere is also the habit of they (those living contemporary to the time) know who their references point toward. Move down the line one generation and references become very confused. The entanglement of names is a common problem; one that neither proves nor disproves one relationship to the next. They know what they meant as did my family through the preceeding generations.

One point that gets overlooked is that these historic folks would have followed very normal practices for internment. For them, their day was as our day, is today. They weren't living in an active mystery or planning forward to project a future myth. The Jesus family lived as any family would then or now. Regardless of the motivations that followed through historic perspective their motivation was only to get by day-to-day; be it a normal day or one of personal tragedy. Maybe the mystery is lessened somewhat if you look at that family as just a family with a status and celebrity no more or no less than the circumstances of the time afford. Much of the turmoil in understanding is from intense and competing interpretation in retrospect and not in perspective of how normal beings act for their time. Look at the matter from the Jesus family point of view and their limitation of only knowing what was happening to them while it was happening and not as part of some vision or prediction of future history.
I agree with you on all points except that there WAS a certain expectation surrounding Y'shua during his lifetime and afterward. However, it is clear from reading Paul (who never experienced Y'shua BEFORE the crucifixion) that Paul expected HIS generation to be the "last generation," and that the "kingdom" was going to arrive before Paul's physical death. His expectations were not fulfilled.

As for family names, I don't know what the customs were among Jews around the first century CE, but it is the practice in modern Judaism to name a child after a deceased relative as a way of keeping their memory alive. They take the idea of dust to dust very literally, so passing on the name was their only way of preserving the previous life. In a large family, more than one child might be named after the same predecessor. Since the name Mathias (and its combinations) was common in Maria's family, if first century Jews followed the same custom, the Mathias ossuary could have been that of a child or cousin. It is not a given that Mathias was a predecessor of Maria's. It could have even been the name of a child of Y'shua's, except for the lack of the "bar Y'shua" designation.
Post Reply

Return to “Charles Pellegrino”