Moderators: Mr. Titanic, Charlie P., ed_the_engineer
, my right brain from the time I heard of this tomb in Talpiot sent signals to my heart of hearts and continues to tell me that there is something of a Truth in this discovery. Not a scientific observation to be sure, but something I feel deeply. Will this prevent me from maintaining objectivity in the debate? No.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
Something dirty on the chalk board!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.
