Pellegrino on Shroud and Tomb
More details are above and on other threads in this discussion group, related to the Talpiot Tomb. At this point, given the unique biological anomalies in fiber traces recovered from Jesus ossuary bio-concretions – (all consistent with the Turin fibers), and other evidence including consistent patina fingerprint, and a tentative date on one fiber collected on sticky tape from the Turin Shroud (bracketing 1st century AD) – to say nothing of the fact that that I would never have accepted the cuts for the C-14 tests allowed by Cardinal Pellegrino over 20 years ago (too many recorded cuts and reweaves during the past 400 years, in the permitted sampling corner) – I’m willing to give it a maximum probability ceiling of 50%, that the Turin Shroud (regardless of whether or not the image of the Turin man is a Medieval artistic enhancement over the blood stains), is real and is original with the Jesus ossuary.
Much more data is required, to either negate or confirm this. One random fiber that seems to date, by C-14, from the right period (the shroud being consistent with wool weaves from another Jerusalem tomb and with flax herringbone weaves from Masada fabric) has my attention. Very well, then. What we await is permission to date ten more fibers from random points on the Turin Shroud, along with some blood stained fibers to see if mtDNA can be recovered and matches mtDNA from the Jesus ossuary bio-concretions. Jesiuts and Franciscans, by the way, have been extremely supportive and helpful, during the past year, with research on the Talpiot Tomb and apocrypha related to it. Also on Turin.
By the way: in answer to lies that the drive-by Media machines have told you (and by this I refer, among others, to the inventor of the term, “drive-by media,” Rush Limbaugh):
Item: Most Americans believe that we scientists claimed to have found bones in the Jesus Ossuary (and a quote that someone created, originally, as a joke was falsely attributed to me: “Bones of Jesus found. Easter canceled”). In fact, I not only failed to find a trace of bone in the Jesus ossuary bio-concretions; but all fiber evidence is counter-indicative of decay products from a process of primary burial and decay. The only bone fragment recovered from a bio-concretion in this ossuary is consistent (based on extreme hemispherical curvature) with a metacarpal. Even if only coincidentally consistent with the blood image evidence of metacarpals popped loose from the Turin Man’s wrists like wisdom teeth, it is nonetheless hauntingly consistent with what crucifixion would have left behind (blood, skin, and metacarpals). The one definitive conclusion I am willing to stand by is that the Jesus ossuary was missing skeletal remains decayed from a body. That is, we are missing a body and all that appears to have been laid in the ossuary in the first place are two shrouds of unusual composition – again, one of them uniquely consistent with the Turin fabric (flax woven on a loom contaminated with cotton – and which has remained mysteriously un-invaded by black mold, and unoxidized, and supple).
Item: You have been told that scientists have “proved” the statistics and the patina evidence misguided and in fact wrong. False. Just do a Google search of scientific papers by me, Feuverger, and others, in peer-reviewed journals and in the January 2008 Jerusalem Symposium Proceedings. Indeed, patina evidence is beginning to stand up quite well through further tests, and even in court proceedings (including return of the James ossuary and Egyptian antiguities to museums in their governments of origin). NOTE: Thus far, no two tombs even in the same soilt types of the Jerusalem hills have cross-matching patina fingerprints. The only consistent approx 1000 year apatite patina phase from Jerusalem chalk followed by a terra rossa phase, thus far, occurrs on the fibers of the Turin Shroud (which is, in fact, consistent with approx. 80-100 years of exposure to terra rossa patina formation before it was finally removed from the Talpiot Tomb).
ITEM: As for the initial conclusion that Mariamne was the wife of Jesus and was really Philip’s sister, Mary Magdalene, revisions of this model based on new evidence, have been completely ignored, if not outright muzzled. Only half of this statement (Mariamene was Mary Magdalene and married to Jesus) is supported by the apocropha: the connection of Mary Magdalene to Mariamene. The recently provided Philip apocrypha (Vatican), combined with writings from Nag Hammadi (see James) and with the Gospels of John and Matthew, seem to rule against a marriage. Though the apocryphal Gospels of Philip describe a close relationship, they state clearly that, according to beliefs of the time, Jesus was never given authority (presumably by God) to be married and to beget. Instead, he preached adoption as a cornerstone of charity – and he “adopted a son unto himself and called him brother,” in fulfilment of a prophecy that, as he and James were adopted by Joseph (and in the Apocryphon of James, as James was adopted by Mary), Jesus was to adopt a son. This goes back also to the prophecy of Isaiah 53. The annointed one, if it was Jesus, was to be born through Mary’s line of descent (hence the two genelogies given by Luke – for Joseph’s line was cursed by the 550BC loss of Jerusalem to Babylon)… he was to be pierced overlooking Jerusalem, and from the place of his piercing he would behold his male heir (or seed). In Roman law, having an adopted son and calling him brother (or twin, or beloved disciple) would have made perfect sense. If a father was killed for sedition, the Romans killed adopted and biological children and grandchildren – but through an unusual quirk, they, alone among civilizations, allowed siblings to live. (The Romans recognized no distinction between adoption and blood – - remember, Tiberius was Augustus’ adopted son). This adopted son appears to bave been Didymos Judas Thomas, the “twin” of Jesus and the “beloved disciple.” So, we should expect to see an inscription reading, “Judas, son of Jesus.” (Didymos is Greek for “twin” and “Te-om” is Hebrew for “twin”). And finally, we were all a bit too Da Vinci-coded out, two years ago. Current conclusion: no marriage indicated between Mariamene (Magdalene) and Jesus, and an adopted son with what I should expect to see as non-matching DNA, if the evidence from the Talpiot Tomb remains consistent with ancient texts.
ITEM: most Americans have been told that this tomb contradicts the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Wrong. Even in the Gospel of John, this is indicated as only a temporary tomb. Only a decade after the events, the walls of Jerusalem expanded beyond the current location of ther Church and all ossuaries in those caves (which still exist, archaeologically, beneath the Church) had to be moved to new family tombs. The Tombs of Talpiot all have patios, by the way, just as described in Gosp. J.; and it should be noted that Talpiot is a hill overlooking the Temple Mount and overlooking nearby Bethlehem also – in the opposite direction. Most interestingly, the Discourse of St. John on the passing of Mary specifically states that Mary’s shroud was taken to a new family tomb in the hills outside Jerusalem. John also mentions two apostles who came to Mary’s death bed, at the ends of their own lives – Matthew from the west, and Didymos Judas Thomas from India. The Talpiot Tomb has ossuaries inscribed with the names of “Judas, son of Jesus” and Matthew, alongside Maria. Consistent, and compelling. Similarly compelling is that other close (and seemingly family related apostles) named in Disc. John as having died and been buried far from Jerusalem (including Philip) are not named in the Talpiot Tomb (bearing in mind, of course, that the tomb has a small minority of un-inscribed ossuaries).
ITEM: The media have taught Americans that the cross mark on the Jesus ossuary (and the cross in the chapel of Herculaneum’s “House of Justa”) cannot be what Christians think of as crosses – but must instead represent “mason’s marks” or something else, because the symbol of a Roman instrument of humiliation and execution cannot have become sacred in the first century. Really? The evidence from the Jesus ossuary points to a missing body (to me, Ocham’s razor points to a body thief, evidently without the knowledge of the apostles – see Matthew’s last chapters). If the followers of Jesus believed very early that Jesus had defeated the cross and turned it into an symbol of triumph over death – well, of course it would have become as sacred as the two shrouds (sans body) placed in Jesus’ ossuary.
ITEM: In any case, as regards the Talpiot Tomb (and in particular the Jesus ossuary), a shroud or two there appear to have been, and much blood – but Jesus is not here. I am not religious – not at all; but the story that has been hidden by drive-by media types, is that we scientists of the Talpiot expeditions have found exactly what people of faith said we ought to have expected to find all along.
ITEM: The drive-by media have distorted James Cameron and Simcha Jakobovici into cartoonish shadows of themselves, and depicted both as wandering idiots. Simcha and Jim are in fact two of the most polymathic thinkers I have known anywhere on the planet. Of course we don’t always agree but that in itself is always, always fascinating. For a start, Jim is a damned good designer of propulsion systems, deep ocean robots, and mars landing systems. And for a scale of intelligence, no one will deny that deep-ocean explorer Robert Ballard is a true genius. I’ve sailed with him. He’s not on my list of the top 20 brilliant minds I have known. Jim and Simcha are. (In fact, Jim and Arthur C. Clarke are both ahead of Stephen Jay Gould, and that’s saying a lot [note that death does not remove one from that list])
ITEM: The drive-by media have stated time and again that the mockers of this tomb – and most notably Dr. Joe Zias (definitely not on the list) – are level-headed and honest archaeologists acting without bias and from nothing except legitimate scientific skepticism. Truth time: When the wife of Dr. Gat, the discoverer of the tomb, stated at the January 2008 symposium that her late husband had known at once that he’d stumbled upon the tomb of the Holy Family but wanted to bury the find because he was afraid of precisely the kind of mockery we have seen (and perhaps worse), I received the following from rational Dr. Zias: Begging my assistance, while dismissing Mrs. Gat’s statement as originating from an unbalanced and manipulated widow, he attached a picture of an ossuary, along with the caption, “On his throne.” It was a photograph of an ossuary from the tomb, inscribed with the name, “Jesus.” Dr. Zias had photographed it mounted on a toilet, in what appeared to be an unusually dirty gas station bathroom.
On this subject, more scientific findings shall be published. More and more of them.
- – Charlie Pellegrino