On Thursday, June 21, 2007 our UHL technical staff visited the IAA storage facilities at…
Midcourse corrections can eventually lead toward sound final conclusions.
It is astounding that the filmmakers and their advisors, in particular James Tabor, are presently denying that the experts who appeared in the film now want to convey something other than what they originally stated. The filmmaker, Simcha Jacobovici, even continues to insist that “nobody has been able to poke holes” in their assertions.
After reading the previous blog, now read more recent statements by the same experts on the identical topics. The following are some statements that most readers would believe comprise a conscious modification of what was conveyed by their own words by the film.
Professor François Bovon, specialist in ancient apocryphal texts, now clarifies that, “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.” (SBL website)
DNA Scientist Dr. Carney Matheson has offered this clarification concerning the DNA relationship between the “Jesus son of Joseph” ossuary and the assumed Mary Magdalene ossuary: “The only conclusions we made were that these two sets were not maternally related. To me it sounds like absolutely nothing.” (Scientific American website)
Paleontologist Dr. Charles Pellegrino, honestly admitting that the camera caught him during an emotional outburst, now corrects his statement that the patina tests between the “James the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” ossuary and the “Jesus son of Joseph” ossuary were not actually a “MATCH” but were merely “CONSISTENT.”
According to the Discovery Channel’s website, statistician Prof. Andrey Feuerverger now 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.”
All of these revised statement are backed by “on the record” statements by the experts themseves. But this is just the beginning.
To see more of what they now are wanting to be “on record” as saying see: “Cracks in the Foundation”
Even these recent corrections and clarifications made by the film’s experts should not necessarily be taken as final conclusions but rather as midcourse corrections. “Final conclusions” are not actually being provided by the experts until well documented scientific papers will appear with that intention.
UHL Staff Report