Cracks in the Foundation:
Disclaimers from the Film's Own Experts
ON THE RECORD
James Cameron and Simcha
Jacobovici, the producers of the Discovery Channel film "The Lost Tomb of
Jesus," posted a challenge at the release of the film, that the scientists
and the academics should bring their skills to bear on the issue of this tomb
and the claims of the film and book. These after-the-fact challenges came in
place of open peer review, which according to some, should have taken place
before the film and book were released.
PART 1: THE PRODUCTION'S
SCHOLARS WEIGH IN
During the The Lost Tomb
of Jesus a number of specialists,
academics and scientists weighed in to say the following about the Talpiot
Tomb:
Renowned epigrapher Prof.
Frank Moore Cross read one of the ossuaries and said, ".... I have no
real doubt that this is to be read Yeshua and then Yeshua bar Yehoseph, that is
Jesus son of Joseph."
Professor Franois Bovon,
specialist in ancient apocryphal texts, stated concerning the role of Mariamne
whom he determined to be Mary Magdalene, (connected by the filmmakers with the
ossuary identified as "Mariamene" from the Talpiot tomb), "Mariamne
is the same woman as Mary of Magdala or Mary Magdalene in the synoptic Gospels
and in some non-canonical texts like the Gospel of Mary, Pistis Sophia,
etc."
DNA Scientist Dr. Carney
Matheson offered his decision concerning the DNA relationship between the
"Jesus son of Joseph" ossuary and the assumed Mary Magdalene ossuary:
"So for these particular samples, because theyve come from the same
tomb and we suspect it to be a familial tomb, these two individuals, if they
were unrelated, would most likely be husband and wife."
Forensic Scientist Dr. Robert
Genna stated, concerning the relationship between the "James the son of
Joseph, brother of Jesus ossuary and the "Jesus son of Joseph"
ossuary, were "consistent."
Paleontologist Dr. Charles Pellegrino exclaimed that the patina tests between the "James the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" ossuary and the "Jesus son of Joseph" ossuary were "A MATCH".
Statistician Prof. Andrey
Feuerverger's conclusions: "Based upon the assumptions given to me, the
odds are 600 to one in favor of this tomb being the family tomb of Jesus of
Nazareth."
THE FILMMAKERS CONFIDENTLY
RAISE THE CHALLENGE:
This, then, is the central challenge of the filmmakers, that additional experts to come to the table to (1) study and challenge their own assumptions that they gave to the experts (e.g., that they have substantiated that one of the ossuaries contained the remains of Mary Magdalene) and (2) study and test the statements made by their experts who went on to support, or apparently support, their claims (especially Feuerverger, Matheson, Pellegrino, Bovon and Cross). As we shall see below, in some cases, the support for the filmmakers assertions are not expressly stated by the experts themselves. But, rather the assertions are made by the filmmakers by extending the statements of the experts to make claims that they never intended to make.
There have been many who have
risen to the challenge and are presently working on papers that will deal with
the issues involved in various fields of research. These will be published over
the coming months.
There are also views that are
shared by certain scholars outside of the film that have typified the work of
the film as "archaeoporn" or "pimping the Bible." These are
unscientific typifications of the work that don't help the scholarly community
to move forward in response to the challenge of the filmmakers.
However, a rather telling
phenomenon is taking place already that actually may take the wind out of the
sails of some of these film producers. With the exception of the actual
filmmakers and authors themselves, just about every one of the experts who
appeared in the documentary has published an attack on the claims of the film
or, even more telling, a disclaimer on what they either said or were purported
to have said in the film.
Below is part of the growing
list of these statements by the specialists who appeared in the film itself
(with published sources included):
PART 2: THE FILM'S SCHOLARS
BOW OUT!
Kloner, who excavated the tomb in 1980 together with Yosef Gath and Shimon Gibson, was the chief archaeologist in the Jerusalem district. He published the final report on the tomb in Atiquot 1998. He was questioned in the film concerning his position on the tomb and was skeptical but admitted that if the filmmakers could produce the ossuary of Mary Magdalene, it "would be very interesting". Although his tone was one of disbelief.
When questioned if the combination of names found on the ossuaries of the Talpiot tomb was significant enough to identify it as the tomb of Jesus' family Kloner stated:
"It makes a great
story for a TV film. But it's completely impossible. It's nonsense." He
continued "'Jesus son of Joseph' has been found on three or four
ossuaries. These are common names."
David Horowitz, The Jerusalem Post, February 27, 2007
Gibson was part of the team that excavated the tomb in 1980; he also drew the original plans of the tomb. He appeared several times as an expert eye witness to the discovery and the excavation. He stated he was very skeptical but was open to discussing the facts on the ground.
In an interview posted at http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/blog.aspx?id=2492
Gibson asserted:
"The idea that the
Talpiot tomb might be the family tomb of Jesus is the main thrust of the
television documentary made by Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron. They have
been very clear in interviews that they are not archaeologists but
investigative journalists and filmmakers. As such they have done a good job,
and I think with integrity and vision. They dont always make use of the full
gamut of archaeological knowledge, but thats to be expected. Hence, I would
say to people reading this interview that they should keep an open mind and not
get too emotional; after all, with all due respect to the filmmakers, it is
still just a television documentary. Personally, Im skeptical that this is the
tomb of Jesus and I made this point very clear to the filmmakers. When I
arrived in New York, I said to Cameron, Im skeptical; I dont think this is
the tomb of Jesus, but Im keeping an open mind. Ill be positive about things
I can be positive about, and Ill be very skeptical about things that deserve
my skepticism based on the knowledge Ive acquired over the last 20-odd years
in the field of archaeology. . .
"One could say that
if Jesus was indeed buried in Jerusalem, and I think we cannot doubt the
evidence as presented in the Gospels (I cannot really comment on the matter of
the resurrection), when the time came for the immediate family of Jesus to be
buried, including Joseph and Mary, and later James and other family members,
they had to be buried somewhere. And why not in Jerusalem? Hence, theoretically
I would say that while the tomb of Jesus was situated in the area of the Church
of the Holy Sepulcher, his immediate and extended family might have been buried
in a burial cave in the vicinity of the city of Jerusalem.
"I have to add that
the way I have separated the tomb of Jesus from the family tomb of Jesus is
not something that is done by the makers of the documentary. They actually see
the two as one and the same. Partly this is because of the appearance of the
inscription Jesus, son of Joseph on one of the ossuaries from the tomb, but
Jesus and Joseph were extremely common names at that time. And even if the
documentary makers are correct and this is the family tomb of Jesus, it doesnt
mean that the Jesus who is named on one ossuary is the same as the more
illustrious Jesus himself. Hence you could have two, perhaps even three Jesuses
within the same extended family, especially if this is a burial cave that was
used for a number of generations.
I remain open to the
possibility that there was a family tomb of Jesus in the area of Jerusalem,
with the tomb of Jesus (himself, ed.) situated at the traditional site of the
Church of the Holy Sepulcher. We need much more evidence before we can say that
the Talpiot tomb might be the family tomb of Jesus."
Dr. Zias was the chief anthropologist for the Israel Antiquities Authority at the time of the Talpiot tomb's discovery. He did not appear in this film but did appear 10 years ago in the previous film on the same tomb by British Television producers (which proposed similar claims).
In an interview posted at http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/blog.aspx?id=2492
Zias asserted:
Interviewer: Is it fair to say that ossuaries
like those found at Talpiot were used for more than one person?
Zias: More than one person! In fact, if
you reference Atiqot, 1992, Volume 21, you will find a report of a tomb that was
undisturbed in antiquity, which I excavated along with Varda Sussman. She did
the archaeology; I did the anthropology. In it was one of the most beautiful
hard stone ossuaries ever discovered. It says, This is the ossuary of Yehosef
Bar-Hanania. Along with Yehosef, another five people are in it. Thats the
reason the DNA stuff is just not evidence.
Interviewer: We dont
know whose DNA it is.
Zias: Exactly. I have to
laugh when they go and DNA an ossuary, and they say they found the remains of a
woman. Well, there may be two men and three women in there. When I say six
people, its bits and pieces of another five people. Its very rare to find an
ossuary with one person in it, even if it says Martha or Yehosef or
something like that. Out of the 15 ossuaries [found in that excavation], I
think three of them had at least five or six people in them. So, will the real
Yehosef stand up? There are 88 people in the tomb. Fifteen ossuaries, 88
people! And most of them obviously are not in the ossuaries. There are at least
four or five generations here. These folks are not a nuclear family; these are
all extended families. And another thing—theres a rule in Judaism that
you can be buried with whomever you sleep with. So, for example, two brothers
who may have grown up together, sleeping in the same bed; a husband and wife; a
mother with three kids who died before the age of five.
Interviewer: So on that
basis a husband and wife would probably end up in one ossuary.
Zias: Along with a few others. You have
to understand, these people did not understand anatomy. I mean, you find stones
in ossuaries, you find tree roots in ossuaries, you find parasites in
ossuaries—calcified parasite eggs. You find a lot of stuff. Its very,
very rare to find an ossuary with one person in it. That is really the
exception. Theres also no way of telling relationships. Just because it says
Jesus, son of Joseph, it doesnt mean that there is any relationship between
that and the ossuary that says Joseph. The ossuary that says Joseph may
have been two or three generations before him. Theres no way of telling. That
Joseph could have been an uncle, a second cousin, so on.
Professor Emeritus of Hebrew
and Oriental Languages, Harvard University
When asked in the film
concerning the "bar Yehosef" and then the "Yeshua" parts of
the inscription, Prof. Cross answered:
"This being quite
informal and this particular one quite messy."
After exhibiting a certain
amount of difficulty locating certain letters in the name, he was then asked to
articulate the full name. This time he said with some confidence:
"Theres an X here
before the name and then the name Yeshua then the fathers name is perfectly
clear, Je-ho-seph, the son of Joseph. I have no real doubt that this
is to be read Yeshua and then Yeshua bar Yehoseph, that is Jesus son of
Joseph."
However, afterwards, in
critique of this segment of the film, The National Review notes:
"Harvards Frank
Moore Cross, for instance, makes several on-screen appearances, mostly to read
the inscriptions on the ossuaries. The presence of Cross, a distinguished
scholar at a top-notch university, is meant to provide intellectual heft to the
program. Yet Jacobovici merely has him read the words on the ossuaries. As it
happens, nobody denies that they carry these names. But are they actually the
ossuaries of the son of God and his earthly parents? Jacobovici doesnt get
around to asking Cross, this eminent professor, for an opinion. So I did.
Heres how Cross replied in an e-mail:
"I am skeptical about
Jacobovicis claims, not because of a faulty reading of the ossuary which reads
yeshua bar yosep [Jesus son of Joseph] I believe, but because the onomasticon [list
of proper names] in his period in Jerusalem is exceedingly narrow. Patriarchal
names and biblical names repeat ad nauseam. It has been reckoned that 25% of
feminine names in this period were Maria/Miryam, etc., that is variants of
Mary. So the cited statistics are unpersuasive. You know the saying: lies,
damned lies, and statistics."
"For some reason,
Cross doesnt have a chance to say this on camera."
For more, see the full
article at the National Reviews
website: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWM4ZWI5N2M2ODc3OGRkNTlhZjUxNWJmNmI0NTNiMjg=&w=MQ==
Epigrapher, University of the Holy Land, was
called upon to read the inscriptions and examine the ossuaries for the film. He
notified the filmmakers that he had discovered different readings on at least
one of the ossuaries in the light of new photographs. He asked he asked that he
not be quoted and the filmmakers honored his request. Although the film says
otherwise, he was not assisting Steven Cox.
"Have the remains of
Jesus and Mary Magdalene been found on the outskirts of modern Jerusalem? Yes,
say James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici in their controversial new documentary,
The Lost Tomb of Jesus. They claim that the name Mariamene, more specifically
"Mary, the Master," was a key designation for Mary Magdalene. For the
filmmakers, the existence of an ossuary with this rare name, along with the
combination of names on the other ossuaries, clinches the claim that this is
the family tomb of Jesus. Without it, they maintain it would be difficult to
assert this claim. It was called the "Ringo" of the hypothesis, the
name that changes the combination "John, Paul, and George" from being
ordinary to being the "Beatles".
"However here are
Prof. Pfann's observations in brief:
*The original transcription
of the inscription was incorrect.
*The inscription does not
read Mariamene the Master, nor do the names Mariamene or Mariamne appear on
the ossuary at all.
*The inscription reflects
the writing of two distinct scribes who wrote in different forms of the Greek
script.
*Based on parallels from
contemporary inscriptions and documents, the correct reading of the inscription
is Mariame and Mara.
*The ossuary thus
contained the bones of at least two different women, interred at two separate
times: one named Mariame and the other Mara.
*No support exists for
ascribing the ossuary to Mary Magdalene.
Conclusion:
"The so-called
Mariamene ossuary contained the names and remains of two distinct
individuals. The first name on the ossuary, MARIAME, was written in the
common Greek documentary script of the period on the occasion of the interment
of the bones of this woman. The second and third words, KAI MARA, were added
sometime later by a second scribe, when the bones of the second woman Mara were
added to the ossuary. This scribes handwriting includes numerous cursive
elements not exhibited by the first scribe who wrote Mariame.
"In view of the
above, there is no longer any reason to be tempted to link this ossuary (nor
the ambiguous traces of DNA inside) to Mary Magdalene or any other person in
Biblical, non-Biblical or church tradition."
I was reluctant that my own initial observations
should be included in the film, since I had had gained access to better photos
and could check my observations against additional inscriptions.
Unwilling to incorporate
my more recent observations concerning the ossuaries, the filmmakers
respectfully removed the footage of my statements from the film. They did, however,
rename my role in the film. Initially, I was invited by them to make statements
on paleography and epigraphy, which I did. However, my final role seems to have
curiously and fictitiously become "assistant to Steven Cox, Forensic
Expert, which was far from the case.
For the complete paper
see: http://www.uhl.ac/MariameAndMartha/
Forensic Examiner and
Scientific Officer at Lakehead University's Paleo-DNA Laboratory and Associate
Professor in the Department of Anthropology
Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Matheson supervised the DNA
tests and interpreted the results in the film.
Dr. Matheson is quoted in the Scientific American blog:
"Finally,
Carney Matheson, whose titles include everything from mortuary archaeologist to
forensic examiner, conducted the DNA examination the film cites. Basically, the
filmmakers scraped a tiny amount of biological material out of the ossuary (or
bone box) labeled Jesus, and a tiny amount out of the one that they think
belonged to Mary Magdalene. Matheson then sequenced the mitochondrial DNA in
both samples in order to establish that whoever those two boxes once contained
was not related on their mother's side--in other words, they're not family.
It's a negative result that doesn't say much (and it begs the question - if you
were gathering material for testing, why not test the boxes that you believed
belonged to related people, such as Jesus and his mother, as well?)
"Matheson
had this to say:
The only
conclusions we made were that these two sets were not maternally related. To me
it sounds like absolutely nothing.
To read more, go to the Scientific
American blog for March 2, 2007 at http://blog.sciam.com/?blog=2&page=1&disp=posts&paged=2
CHARLES
PELLEGRINO
Paleontologist, Author
He was both advisor and participant in the film, and coauthor of the book with Simcha Jacobovici. http://www.ibdof.com/viewtopic.php?t=115197
"I have not personally had a chance to examine the
fragments studied by Carney Matheson at the Thunder Bay lab. They may in fact
be small fragments of bone. I can only speak for the material I have personally
examined. Not only have I (so far) encountered a complete absence of bone
material - but a complete absence of the usual biological signatures of bone
deteriorating in an ossuary (nematode traces, etc). Additionally, the fibers in
the concretion samples are inconsistent with what normally happens to fibers
during the year long period of primary burial (half of its mass is usually
bundles of black mold stems; whereas the Jesus fibers, though ancient and
enclosed by minerals, are pristine). If there were bones in the Jesus ossuary,
then the greater mass of bones that should have been there was removed by
someone, many centuries ago. We're still trying to explain this; but there is a
significant anomaly in the Jesus ossuary."
[Steven Cox and Charles Pellegrino were shown extracting various samples from ossuaries and commenting on what they were doing. Pellegrino brought the samples of the patina from the storerooms at Beth Shemesh to Dr. Robert Genna in New York for analysis. Director of the Suffolk County, New York State Forensic Lab. He was active in the film in conversation with Charles Pelegrino over the results obtained in the lab from certain of the ossuaries using a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) in conjuction with Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS).]
Although he had earlier pointed out the
consistencies between the readings from two of the ossuaries (i.e., "Jesus
son of Joseph" and "James son of Joseph and brother of Jesus",
from an unknown tomb) he later had to clarify his statement due to certain
misunderstandings that had been broadcast.
"The elemental composition of some of
the samples we tested from the ossuaries are consistent with each other. But I
would never say theyre a match No scientist would ever say definitively
that one ossuary came from the same tomb as another...We didnt do enough sampling to see if in fact there
were other tombs that had similar elemental compositions...The only samples we
can positively say are a match from a single source are fingerprints and
DNA."
The preceding is an excerpt from Ted Koppel
interview with Dr. Genna that had been broadcast following the film's
broadcast.
He exclaimed that the patina tests between the "James the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus ossuary and the "Jesus son of Joseph" ossuary were "A MATCH".
"Now: One thing I
must point out, about the film. When I exclaimed, in the lab, that it [the
James patina] "matches," I was acting out of excitement. I had fully
expected James not to match the Talpiot tomb at all. Forensically speaking,
when it comes to a method still under development, the word "match"
should not be included in narration or in narrative text (or in interviews).
"Match" is what you would say about a more developed method, with a
proven track record stretching back about seven years or more - such as
fingerprinting or DNA typing. At this stage, when discussing actual results,
you should be referring to an elemental spectrum that echoes the rest of the
tomb, or the James ossuary. Please use the term, "this is
consistent," rather than, "this is a match."...
See you later,
Charlie P.
To read the
entire discussion, go to
http://www.ibdof.com/viewtopic.php?t=114200&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50&sid=83b0284567be88a9c82e22485122350e
Forensic Scientist,
University of the Holy Land
With regard to the suggested match between the James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus ossuary and that of Jesus, son of Joseph, Mr. Cox notes:
"The ultimate
forensic decision which could be derived from the examination of the ossuary
samples that showed a consistent EDS spectra is as follows. The collected samples purported to have
been collected from the ossuaries, untraceable to source and unidentified in
orientation, indicate the ossuaries could have originated from the same quarry
from whence they were hewn. To
arrive at a an opinion exhibiting a unique common origin would require more
testing of known samples of ossuary stone from numerous quarry sites. This
would allow a database which would paint a more confident chemical profile than
what was done in documentary.
In a paper on the UHL web site, Steven Cox has cited a number of systematic errors and misinterpretations of results exhibited in the film.
OBSERVATIONS
OF ERROR
Underlying
logical errors
A conclusion was formed first through
speculation and conjecture, then facts were sought to support the preconceived
notion.
Speculation and conjecture are
converted into FACTS without supporting logic or confirmed scientific
methodology.
Sample collection errors
Sample contamination errors
Sample preparation errors
It should be very evident
at this point that the The Lost Tomb of Jesus (TLTJ) teams statement is, at
best, an overstatement of opinion based on limited fact, poor scientific
protocol, unresolved sources of error and shrouded in poor research. In my
opinion, one of the greatest tools a forensic scientist learns is not how to
operate an instrument. Rather, it is how to logically assess the weight of the
result derived from examining evidence or artifacts. In forensic work,
someones life hangs in the scales of justice. Be it a suspect or a victim of
crime, the result and the following testimony will effect that persons life
forever. So, a forensic scientist has to take making conclusions and opinions
very, very seriously. If this type of conservative and cautious reporting were
applied to the TLTJ documentary, the program probably wouldnt have gotten much
notice or, at best, it would have produced more responsible journalism."
To read the entire paper, go to http://www.uhl.ac/blog/
Professor of Jewish Studies, Free University, Berlin; made comments in the film on the ossuary names and their significance.
Afterwards, Prof. Ilan was
featured in the Scientific American blog
on the ossuary.
Of special
note was Tal Ilan, whose Lexicon
of Jewish Names was essential to the statistical calculation made by Andrey
Feuerverger, the U. of Toronto professor of statistics and mathematics who is
quoted in the documentary as saying that the odds that any family other than
that of the historical Jesus family would have the same names as that family,
and be buried in the tomb the documentary covers, are 600 to 1. In other words,
that number argues, the odds are slim that this isn't the tomb of Jesus. . .
In an
interview I conducted this morning, the scholar Tal Ilan, without whose work
these calculations would have been impossible, expressed outrage over the film
and its use of her work--"I think it's completely mishandled. I am
angry."
To read more, go to the Scientific
American blog for March 2, 2007 at http://blog.sciam.com/?blog=2&page=1&disp=posts&paged=2
Professor of Statistics, University of Toronto figured centrally in the film by producing statistics which provide the 600:1 odds against the possibility that the Talpiot tomb can be of any other family than that of Jesus of Nazareth.
Dr. Joe DMello, a
statistician from Chicago, pointed out
that Prof. Feuerverger had recalculated the odds and that the Discovery Channel fully dissociated the 600:1 odds
claim from Jesus.
(See Thursday, March 15, 2007, Post #5045 on Darrell
Bocks blog. Published here with Dr. D'Mello's permission.)
I am happy
to report that Discovery Channel has now removed ALL claims on its website that
the 600:1 odds have any specific bearing to the "Lost Tomb" being
that of the Jesus family.
You may recall that I had engaged in a discussion with Dr. Andrey
Feuerverger (the show's in-house statistician), and he and I agreed that
Discovery's original interpretation of the 600:1 odds on its site was
statistically incorrect and highly misleading to the public. For your benefit,
I am reproducing below the original wording and the new wording of three
changed paragraphs. Note that all references to the Jesus tomb have been
removed! Thanks again to Andrey and also to Discovery Channel for making these
changes happen!
Now that Discovery Channel has backed away from its 600:1 odds claim (which
was the bedrock of its case!) that this was the Jesus family tomb, one cannot
but wonder what this show had to do with Jesus in the first place. With these
changes, the show, in essence, has now dwindled to a documentary on a
surprising cluster of names!
The following changes on the Discovery Channel website resulted from Prof.
Feuervergers recalculations, as noted by Dr. DMello.
Change 1:
"Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics & mathematics
at the University of toronto, has concluded a high statistical probability that
the Talpiot tomb is the JESUS FAMILY TOMB."
changed to
"Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics at the University
of Toronto, has concluded (subject to the stated historical assumptions) that
it is unlikely that an equally surprising cluster of names would have arisen
by chance under purely random sampling."
Change 2:
"Taking into account the chances that these names would be
clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the
odds – on the most conservative basis – are 600 to 1 in favor of
this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. A statistical probability of 600 to 1 means
that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600."
changed to
"Taking into account the chances that these names would be
clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the
probability under random chance of observing a cluster of names as compelling
as this one within the given population parameters is 600 to 1, meaning that
this conclusion works 599 times out of 600."
Change 3:
"A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery
Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1
in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family."
changed to
"A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is in the order of 600 to 1 that an equally "surprising" cluster of names would arise purely by chance under given assumptions."
FRANOIS BOVON
The filmmakers of The Lost
Tomb of Jesus and their advisers have asserted that Mary Magdalenes name in
the apocryphal Acts of Philip was Mariamne, and that this was also the
current and accurate name for the actual historical person of the first
century. They based this upon the important work of Prof. Franois Bovon of
Harvard University, who recently discovered and published the first complete
copy of the Acts of Philip.
However, Prof. Bovon wants to
clarify that he did not in any way state that the name Mariamne of the Acts
of Philip should be the linked to the historical Mary Magdalene of the first
century. In fact, the Acts of Philip presents the geographically improbable
assertion that the figure Mariamne was both the sister of Philip of Bethsaida
and of Martha of Bethany. In reality, Bovon proposed that this Mariamne, who
both evangelized and baptised, was the same character whose persona in time
evolved to become the fictitious Gnostic sage and evangelist, more closely
linked to the gnostic Mary of Magdala of
the Manichean Psalms, the Gospel of Mary, and the Pistis Sofia.
Based upon apocryphal stories
such as these, which speak of a close relationship between Mary Magdalene and
Jesus, and which give a high prominence to her in the early church, the
storywriters of The Lost Tomb of Jesus have surmised that Jesus and Mary were
married and even produced a family. Of these three assumptions—(1) that
the name of Mary Magdalene was not Maria or Mariam, as recorded in the Gospels,
but rather Mariamne; (2) that the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip is to be
identified with Mary Magdalene, though the Acts of Philip never says so
explicitly, and (3) that Jesus was married and fathered a child—none is
supported by any of the earliest records dealing with these individuals, namely
the canonical Gospels and Josephus.
For further reading
see, http://www.uhl.ac/blog/
See Bovons full disclaimer
on this issue at the Society of Biblical Literature Forum
http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=656,
which is quoted below:
As I was interviewed for
the Discovery Channel's program The Lost Tomb of Jesus, I would like to express
my opinion here.
First, I have now seen
the program and am not convinced of its main thesis. When I was questioned by
Simcha Jacobovici and his team the questions were directed toward the Acts of
Philip and the role of Mariamne in this text. I was not informed of the whole
program and the orientation of the script......
Fourth, I do not believe
that Mariamne is the real name of Mary of Magdalene. Mariamne is, besides Maria
or Mariam, a possible Greek equivalent, attested by Josephus, Origen, and the
Acts of Philip, for the Semitic Myriam.
Fifth, the Mariamne of
the Acts of Philip is part of the apostolic team with Philip and Bartholomew;
she teaches and baptizes. In the beginning, her faith is stronger than Philip's
faith. This portrayal of Mariamne fits very well with the portrayal of Mary of
Magdala in the Manichean Psalms, the Gospel of Mary, and Pistis Sophia. My interest
is not historical, but on the level of literary traditions. I have suggested
this identification in 1984 already in an article of New Testament Studies.
The fact is that any
scholarly challenge to their own premises, rather than being dealt with scientifically,
has been publicly dismissed out-of-hand by the core team members of the film.
It seems that the only participants in the film that are
left supporting the premises of the film and the book are the makers of the
film "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" (J. Cameron and S. Jacobovici), the
authors of the book "The Jesus Family Tomb" (C. Pellegrino and S.
Jacobovici) and their historical advisor James Tabor (author of the recent book
The Jesus Dynasty, which the film
supports). It is worthwhile to note that the Discovery Channel has cancelled
the second airing of the film and has postponed the DVD. The book, although it
is still being read, it is no longer on the New York Times bestseller list.
Why do so many scholars have to retract their statements made on this film? Several factors affect the way the statements of scholars appear on film.
1. First of all, when the interviewer asks a question, the scholar often does not have any idea as to the direction that the discussion is headed.
2. The interview is often presented in the form of a request for an authoritative expert's opinion. However the expert has often not been able to digest the results of his initial observations, (to check his results further with his peers and additional data) in order to provided a more exact or guarded statement. Initial observations are just that. Final conclusions can be achieved with the passage of time and more time in the lab and in the library.
3. There is always further editing of the interviews, in which editing and re-contextualization of the statements of the scholars by the filmmakers will at times create a misleading impression.
By Dr. Stephen Pfann
2007 University of the Holy Land (www.uhl.ac), all rights reserved.