No That’s Not What We Meant

Posted on December 23, 2012 by Professor Taboo

Friday, December 21st, 2012 has come and gone without any apocalyptic event, and perhaps to the chagrin of many hyper-dooms-dayers. Much of the fears and predictions are fortunately based in the misunderstanding of the Mayan calendars and how they worked within the 250 – 900 BCE civilization. Attempting to project contemporary ideas of time onto the ancient Mayan methods of time would be like attaching square wheels to your car — it is a show of ignorance.

The Mayans had three circular calendars, each with a different purpose. The first calendar was their Tzolk’in calendar, or Sacred calendar. It consisted of 260 days and was used for scheduling religious ceremonies. When the calendar was exhausted it would simply start over again.

The second circular calendar was their Haab’, or Secular calendar. This consisted of 365 days but did not account for the extra quarter-day it takes Earth to cycle around our Sun. Our miscalculated modern Western calendar corrects this by adding a leap year about every four years then removing the extra February day the following three years.

The third circular calendar and the one receiving most of the hoopla is the Long Count calendar. This calendar consisted of about 5,125.36 years and completes its major cycle every December 21st. Once exhausted, another 5,125 years will begin again. What astronomers have since learned in the last several decades is that our Sun indeed aligns with the center of the Milky Way, however, pinpointing the exact date cannot be determined in any particular year. What forms the “Milky Way center” is still a debate among scientists. They also gladly report that there is no alignment-phenomena of planets or the Sun that will pull Earth’s crust apart or shift its magnetic poles on a specific date.

Our solar system, our planet, and much of the cosmos are cyclical; things ebb and flow, collapse and morph into new creations over and over. What most scientists, astronomers, geologists, and the like do agree on is that there are any number of catastrophic possibilities that could change our lives on Earth as we know it. This is a common fact. It could happen on any given day, but to prophesy an exact date and time is as likely as you picking winning Lotto numbers.

For a good logical scientific explanation of the Mayan calendars, read the article at Live Science.

(paragraph separation)

This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.wordpress.com.

Correcting the Gospels of Jesus

Posted on October 25, 2012 by Professor Taboo

(paragraph separation)

“What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters with us?” — Mark 6:2, 3

“[Mary] will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,’ which means, ‘God is with us.’” — Matthew 1: 21-23

(paragraph separation)

Like the day we discovered that our childhood belief in Santa Claus and his flying reindeer, or Peter Pan and Tinkerbell were really folklore and not real, archaeology has recently shown that the “Jesus” of the Christian New Testament has been greatly dramatized and intentionally mystified.

One spring afternoon in 1980, in Talpiot, south Jerusalem, construction workers uncovered a tomb dating from the 1^st century CE. Archaeologists from the Israeli Department of Antiquities (IDA) and Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) were called-in to excavate the tomb, including then surveyor Dr. Shimon Gibson, today archaeologist and senior fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research. Found inside were ten ossuaries or limestone boxes used in 1^st century Jewish burial practices to store the bones of deceased family members. This practice stopped in 70 CE after the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple, Jerusalem, and slaughtered most of the Jewish inhabitants.

During this modern period of the 1980s, many ancient burial sites were being uncovered, and in some cases destroyed due to the widespread expansion and development of Jerusalem. Exposing such tombs was typically common and uneventful. However, this particular Talpiot tomb turned out to be quite different. When archaeologists began examining the ossuaries, they found inscribed on one the phrase “Yeshua bar Joseph” written in Aramaic. Translated, this means Jesus son of Joseph.

Talpiot Tomb Jerusalem in 1980

The IAA archaeologists would have found nothing extraordinary by this phrase. Yeshua was a fairly common name in 1^st century Jerusalem and Joseph was even more common. Hence, the phrase does not necessarily mean this particular ossuary belonged to Jesus of Nazareth of the Christian gospels. A much more thorough examination and investigation of the coffin and family tomb was required. What other discoveries might make this tomb and Yeshua/Jesus ossuary more than ordinary?

The New Testament gospels tell us that Jesus/Yeshua was the son of Joseph and Maria (also Mary). What many do not know is that according to earliest Christian traditions, i.e. those decades just after the crucifixion and prior to canonization, Jesus had two sisters: Salome and Miriam. The Gospels of Mark and Matthew state that Jesus had four brothers: Joseph, Judah, Simon, and James. Jesus’ mother Maria/Mary died, according to early Christian traditions, in Jerusalem. Of known Jesus family names, six of them were found inscribed on six different ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb. On another ossuary in the tomb was found the name: Maria or Mary. Now these names combined make the family tomb more than ordinary!

Throughout 1^st century Israel and Judea, Latin was the spoken and written language of the Roman Empire along with the native languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. Greek was also used – the region not only was placed in an ideal location of trade in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, but was also conquered several times by several empires of various languages. On the streets of 1^st century Jerusalem one would have heard daily business conducted in any of these four languages. In the Gospel of Mark, the oldest of the four canonical gospels and written in Greek, the Virgin Mary or Jesus’ mother, was in only one form: Maria, a Latinized form of the Hebrew Miriam. Following the death of Jesus, his teachings were continued by family members including his mother Maria. As the teachings became more popular, more Roman converts joined the social-welfare movement. As a result, Mary’s name became Latinized. Written in Hebrew, the name Maria is extremely rare. Now the Talpiot tomb becomes even more intriguing.

Yeshua bar Yosef/Jesus son of Joseph ossuary and inscription

If archaeologists had uncovered a family tomb of ossuaries with inscribed names of Yeshua bar Joseph and Maria in the same tomb, what other names might be found on the other eight ossuaries that could tell us who the tomb’s family might be?

On a third ossuary was found the name Matia, a short-form or nickname for Matthew. At first glance this name wouldn’t quiet fit the genealogy of Jesus or his father Joseph. Jesus had no known brother named Matia. However, this only seems out-of-place if scholars strictly follow paternal generations. Over on the mother Mary’s side in the Gospel of Luke chapter 3, can be found many Matthew’s, or Matia’s, Matthat, Matthathiah, Maath, Mathathias, Matthatha, all representatives of Jewish priestly names. And not so coincidentally this correctly follows Jewish traditions of a kingly and priestly Messiah, or Saviour foretold in the Jewish scriptures. Finding an ossuary with the name Matia in the same family tomb as Maria is not at all unusual.

If an inscribed name of Isaac, Jacob, Daniel, Jonah, Zachariah, or some name that in no way fits the family of Jesus son of Joseph, and Maria, then the fascinating discovery of this Talpiot tomb would be over and there would be nothing shocking to report. This sort of name on just one of the ossuaries would disqualify it as the tomb of Jesus Christ of the gospels. However, there are no such names or ossuaries found in the tomb which seem out-of-place. The Talpiot tomb actually does deserve a more precise and thorough examination.

On a fourth ossuary from the tomb was found inscribed the name Jose, a very rare Hebrew nickname. As mentioned earlier, Joseph was a very common Jewish name. Yet, only in the Gospel of Mark, the first and oldest known written gospel of Jesus, is there mentioned a brother by the nickname Jose. Of all the ossuaries recovered during excavations and constructions sites for the last 25+ years in and around Jerusalem, only one ossuary has ever been found with the inscribed name Jose. It was found inside the Talpiot tomb and matches the same spelling found in the Gospel of Mark. Now four pieces of ten in the tomb fit logically together within the Christian gospels and early traditions. Is that coincidence?

The four names of Yeshua/Jesus bar Joseph, Maria, Matia, and Jose found on ossuaries from 1^st century Jerusalem, by themselves or separate are again common names of the period. But up to this point what are the statistical probabilities of the four names being found in one tomb which also correlate with the Christian gospels and early Christian traditions? Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, a statistical expert at the University of Toronto’s department of mathematics and statistics addresses this question.

Dr. Andrey Feuerverger of the University of Toronto

Feuerverger has compiled every single name from all ossuaries and other sources in the region from the period of Jesus’ life. By calculating how often all the names are used Feuerverger can statistically test the names found in the Talpiot tomb. Dr. Feuerverger emphasizes that examining all the names individually, as if they were found in various locations, then in that way nothing at all strikes you as peculiar. But the correct way to look at this tomb is to take the names in unison. Feuerverger explains that according to statistics, if you were to shout out the name Yeshua/Jesus on the streets of 1^st century Jerusalem, 4% of the men would respond. If you were to shout out Maria/Mary, about 25% of the women would answer. But if you were to shout out the name Jesus, with a father named Joseph and a mother named Mary, and a brother named Jose, the odds of that individual answering are remarkably low. Dr. Feuerverger explains these statistical probabilities further:

“From a statistical point-of-view, we don’t actually look at the incidences of the individual names, where we say each one of them is a very common name. We look at the way in which the factors combine with each other; so sure, a father by the name of Joseph is not a rare name. A son by the name Yeshua is not a rare name. But when you combine those two together it’s rarer; so it really is a possibility that this particular tomb-site is in fact the one of the New Testament family. It is a possibility that I think needs to be taken seriously.”

Up to this point we have at least 5 pieces of evidence that combined, logically gives plausible compelling weight that the Talpiot tomb could be the family tomb of Jesus from the Christian gospels.

The tomb is in nearby Jerusalem, where Jesus was crucified and buried according to the New Testament.
The tomb follows precisely 1^st century Jewish burial practices, which over time include close family members.
The ossuaries inside Talpiot are identified correctly as was Jewish law and practices of the 1^st century.
The four names identified so far on 4 of the 10 ossuaries all reasonably fit together according to the Christian gospels and known early Christian traditions.
The statistical probability of the four New Testament names being all found in the same family tomb are very rare according to Dr. Feuerverger.

With these five strong pieces of evidence, anyone in their right mind must be compelled to examine Talpiot to its comprehensive conclusion. But there are bound to be fundamental denials that this is not, or could not be the bones, ossuary, or tomb of Jesus and his family, and they reach this conclusive denial before all the evidence is examined. Let’s be responsible and avoid that sort of tunnel-vision.

New Religion or Messianic Reform?

Roman destruction of Jerusalem 70 CE

For several decades now since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other scriptures found from Antiquity, archaeologists, forensic scientists, and both secular and biblical scholars have argued whether Jesus intended to start an entirely new religion separated from and against his Jewish heritage, or if he merely intended to reform it – keeping it rooted in Judaism. This debate has been very heated because of two primary reasons: 1) In 70 CE the Roman authorities had grown especially annoyed with Jewish uprisings and civil rioting; they destroyed the Temple, Jerusalem, and wiped out those people participating in insurrections…including followers of the Jesus Movement. And 2) after the few remnants of the movement went underground, their written stories and worship-gatherings about Jesus were also hunted down and destroyed. This went on for some 200 years until Emperor Constantine legalized the Roman-Greco version of the Jesus Movement to unite his crumbling empire (see Constantine: Christianity’s True Catalyst/Christ for more details). Therefore, until the late 19^th and 20^th centuries when many “other” (non-canonical) stories of Jesus and his movement were found, the world had only ONE version, one story of Jesus and his first followers: Constantine’s Roman-Greco version.

Interestingly we find today in the canonical gospels that Jesus’ followers and disciples were often confused about what Jesus was trying to carry out for his people. Or were they? Historical and biblical scholars today agree that the four synoptic gospels in today’s New Testaments are simply testaments attributed to those four disciples, not literal quotes and single-authorship. In contemporary literature, that method of Roman-Greco writing would be categorized as inspired-from…and certainly for those authors and co-authors scribed through a Roman lens. Scholars and linguists know today any narratives, historical or contemporary, are from some level subjective.

Unfortunately for anyone living post-70 CE and pre-325 CE and listening to so many conflicting teachings, e.g. James the brother of Jesus versus Saul of Tarsus, or the Apostle Paul of Roman-Jewish heritage, was indeed confused about what Jesus was really trying to do! Yet, most scholars are in agreement now that there wasn’t necessarily confusion about whether Jesus was a Messianic Reformer or Son of God. All throughout Roman imperial history, emperors were commonly accepted as divine, straight from the gods, or in this case, the God. It is a well established Roman-Greco tradition. But 255 years of confusion and bickering among followers and “teachers” did not end until once again Roman authority exerted itself in the form of Constantine’s Council of Nicaea.

First Council of Nicaea in Bithynia 325 CE

It is quite plausible, perhaps even certain, that the last canonical versions of Jesus’ teachings and life that came down to us presently are heavily influenced Roman versions bearing intently the interests of Rome; e.g. patriarchal hierarchies. Constantine and his Roman bishops could not benefit from a floundering social-welfare movement if it wasn’t appealing to more Romans. Tweak it a bit and then give it full imperial backing! Resoundingly that was the obvious decision. Ironically or not, one of the largest churches in the world today is located in Vatican City representing Rome’s past sovereignty and glory into the 21^st century.

The Remaining Six Ossuaries

Ossuary number five was studied next. Found inscribed on it were the Greek words Mariamne e Mara. We already know that Maria is another form of Mary. Linguistic and epigraphic experts of the period know that Mara means in Aramaic Master, or Great One. Today, in the Armenian section of Jerusalem a church leader or rabbi is called Mar Jacob or Mar Samuel in the masculine; a sign of respect and title. Mara is the feminine. If these two ossuaries, however, are simply labeled as two Mary’s/Maria’s in the same tomb, is that an unusual finding? Of the some 650 ossuaries uncovered the last 30 years with inscriptions of names, not a single ossuary has the name Mariamne e Mara.

Mariamene e Mara ossuary & inscription from Talpiot tomb

In the canonical gospels of today’s New Testament we read about several Mary’s. As mentioned earlier, Mary/Maria was a fairly common name in 1^st century Jerusalem; about 25% of the women. What stands out about there being two Mary’s in the same tomb as Yeshua/Jesus bar Joseph is that according to the New Testament gospels, there were two women closely associated with Jesus’ life and teachings. Their names as we know it in English were the Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. In the Gospel of Matthew (27:56, 28:1) and the Gospel of Mark (15:47, 16:1), the earliest written gospel, Mary Magdalene, who not only followed Jesus closely, stayed at his side during the crucifixion, and was also the first or one of the first to arrive at Jesus’ burial site. Considering only the canonical gospels, most scholars agree that these passages indicate the importance of Mary Magdalene to Jesus and his family. Yet, inferring anymore from this they consider to be speculation and cautiously put little credibility into it.

But what of the some forty-five “other” testimonies about Jesus’ life, death, and teachings – including three relevant to our two Mary’s – that Emperor Constantine’s closest bishops had hunted down and destroyed (or tried to extinguish) as heretical, not worthy of a traditional Roman-Greco son of God and patriarchal church? In keeping with the principle of responsible fair examination (and not tunnel-vision), let’s consider these “other” testaments.

The Acts of Philip

In 1974, Harvard Divinity School professor François Bovon discovered in a Greek monastery on Mount Athos a 4th century copy of a Gnostic gospel called The Acts of Philip. To date it is the only complete gospel known to exist from earlier texts. In this testament it describes the actions of three Jesus-followers: Philip, Bartholomew, and a female leader named Mariamne, commissioned by Jesus to spread his teachings. The Mariamne of the Acts of Philip is a bold, spiritually gifted leader given the title of Apostle, on level with Peter (i.e. their first Roman Catholic Pope), Philip, Bartholomew, and all the others. Mariamne is said to be the sister of the apostle Philip and she teaches, baptizes, and heals with the same authority as the other apostles.

Translating the Greek Mariamne into Hebrew it becomes Mariam, and into Latin it is Maria, or Mary in English. Dr. Bovon supports this line of translation based on the 3^rd century writings of Origen, who consistently used Mariamne to mean Mary Magdalene.

Mary Magdalene and Jesus

The Pistis Sophia

In the Pistis Sophia, a Gnostic manuscript written as early as the late 2^nd century, also spells in Greek the name of Mary Magdalene as Mariamne. It too gives high regard to female apostles having equal authority and status as the male apostles.

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene

There is some controversy over whether the Gospel of Mary refers to Mary Magdalene, but most historical and biblical scholars agree that given the growing library of 2^nd and 3^rd century Gnostic and Coptic (Asiatic-Egyptian) testaments of earliest Christianity, it is indeed Mary Magdalene of the 1^st century town Magdala on the Sea of Galilee near Jerusalem. In this gospel it spells in Greek the name of Mary Magdalene as Mariamne. And it gives her very high regard as a leading apostle, similar to the previous two gospels mentioned.

Attempting to remain true to our principle of responsible fairness, finding somewhere within the known first, second, or third century Roman Empire another ossuary with the name Mariamne e Mara spelled in Greek, would certainly cast serious doubts on the Talpiot tomb being that of Jesus and his close family. But as of the date of this blog/article no such ossuary has been found. Perhaps not all “illegal or heretical” writings, teachings, and evidence of a real Jesus were put to the torch, but slipped through the jaws of Roman sovereignty?

The Remaining Ossuaries Continued

The sixth ossuary or what should have been the sixth was missing according to Dr. Shimon Gibson’s 1980 survey-blueprint. Why would this particular ossuary and not any of the others be missing? Did it have some sort of significance? Did it have some sort of value? Pursuing this line of questioning we can come up with at least two reasonable answers.

The Black Market or Underground (illegal) markets are very lucrative markets. Consider the legal or illegal drug market in the United States. Pharmaceutical companies spend extraordinary amounts of money to manufacture, market, and sell their prescription drugs. The illegal narcotic market in America is estimated to generate some $60 – $70 billion dollars in business for the cartels. Valuable irreplaceable archaeological artifacts can fetch thousands to millions in the Antiquities Black Market. This is easily an incentive for a construction-worker, truck driver, thief, or whomever of ill-repute to steal a 1^st century ossuary.

James ossuary and “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus” inscription

Another possible suspect would be a well-informed high-ranking Israeli government official. You might ask why they would have any incentive to make disappear a specific 2,000 year old ossuary. In a January 2008 article by Time magazine said this:

“The widow of Joseph Gat, the chief archaeologist of the 1980 excavation electrified the conference by saying: “My husband believed that this was Jesus’s tomb, but because of his experiences as a Holocaust survivor, he was worried about a backlash of anti-Semitism and he didn’t think he could say this.”

Fear. Fear of the reaction of others, even nations, in positions of power and the length they might go throughout history had often put truth…put real life…into a locked closet or forced it underground; exactly what happened to Gnostic (or anything in disagreement to Constantinian-Roman Catholic laws) beliefs and worship in the 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd century Roman Empire.

Since the creation of the Israeli nation in 1947-48, Israel has depended heavily on U.S. political, economic, and military support for its existence in a highly hostile region. The U.S. is a predominantly Christian nation. The Talpiot tomb has already provided significant evidence that the tomb is that of the Jesus family. You may ask, How does that relate to one ossuary disappearing? Well, it could have serious implications if the one ossuary turns out to be the final proof that the Talpiot tomb is of Jesus and his family, then it disproves the theological belief that Jesus’ full body ascended up to heaven, and it could dismantle other traditional Christian theological and biblical beliefs. Hence, a conscientious Israeli government, sensitive to maintaining the highest trust and relationship with its big brother has good reason to “assist” in the big brother’s…integrity and image to the world, especially to their mutual enemies. Therefore, if this one ossuary on some level damages that relationship, certainly the little brother will pause and rethink what he is about to make public.

Further Talpiot Challenges to Church Traditions

As I conveyed in my blog/article Constantine: Christianity’s True Catalyst/Christ, and has been eluded to here, after the death of Jesus there existed in mid 1^st century Jerusalem Judeo-Christians and Early Neo-Christians. The former were those who firmly held to Jewish laws and customs and the teachings of James the brother of Jesus. And the Early Neo-Christians were those who had no heritage to Judaism; i.e. converted Gentiles who wanted ALL the physical and spiritual benefits of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and salvation as taught by the Apostle Peter and Jewish-Roman Apostle Paul.

Peter and Paul – fathers of Roman Catholicism

Over many recent decades historical and biblical scholars have debated over the true significance of Jesus’ brother James (see Robert H. Eisenman‘s work) and Mary Magdalene (see Karen L. King‘s work) for one major reason. They draw into serious question WHO really had any single authoritative blessing of Jesus. Was it James, the life-long brother of Jesus, perhaps biological brother? Or was it Mary Magdalene, the closest and “most loved” of Jesus? Or was it Peter, the rock, of whom the Roman Catholic Church built its eminent kingdom on earth. Or would it be Paul from Tarsus, seen by some Jesus followers as too Roman and too Hellenistic, not of rabbinical Judaism? We haven’t been able to decipher the ancient evidence or draw reasonable conclusions until recent decades. The other lost testaments, “other” points-of-view like James, Mary Magdalene, Philip, or the Gnostics were all hunted down and destroyed between 70 CE and say 400 CE (or so the Roman church had hoped) by guess who: Roman armies, Constantine, and his closest bishops. These men eventually became Christianity’s Early Church Fathers and coincidentally, these Church Fathers were also the ones who decided which of all the 45 plus known testaments of Jesus and his apostles would make-up our modern New Testament. This strongly suggests that our modern New Testament is severely amputated.

Controversy over the James Ossuary

As it was from 1980 to 2005-06, the IAA and IDA chose not to pursue further examination of the Talpiot ossuaries or the whereabouts of the missing ossuary. When asked why, the usual response was general, vague and apathetic. It seemed the IAA and IDA was pleased that possibly the most astonishing discovery of Christendom went quietly on warehouse shelves.

When Simcha Jacobovici, Charles Pellegrino, James Tabor, and film producer James Cameron found out about the tomb’s discovery, unlike the Jewish authorities, they felt compelled to responsibly look at the tomb and ossuaries extensively. They all agreed, if only just the first four or five ossuaries had been found together in one tomb, statistically it deserves responsible archaeological and scientific investigation. The fact that one ossuary was now missing should also draw more persistent attention.

The hunt for the missing ossuary began. Locating the missing Talpiot ossuary, however, could prove almost impossible given the number of known ossuaries both in museums and in private collections – like a needle in a haystack. There are hundreds and hundreds of ossuaries with names on them common to the time period and as mentioned before, to Jesus family names. Yet, before the makers and contributors of the investigative documentary could go far in their search, in October 2002 an ossuary – unlike the hundreds of others – surfaced in the Antiquities market with a name inscribed on it that would logically belong to the Jesus family. On it written in Aramaic was Ya’akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua, or “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus”. Once again, the Talpiot tomb cannot be ignored!

How possible is it that the inscription and ossuary are a forgery? Furthermore, what are the possibilities that this particular ossuary even came from the Talpiot tomb? These two questions fuel the controversy.

There are two well-established accepted methods used by modern scientists and archaeologists to decide whether an ancient relic is a fake and what time-period it comes from: epigraphy and long-wave ultra-violet patina tests.

Dr. André Lemaire, researcher and respected epigraphic specialist of the Sorbonne in Paris, France, states the percentage this inscription is a modern forgery is practically a 0.1% chance. He goes on to say that all the words and letters are accurate representations of the Second Temple period, i.e. decades prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and that “it seems very probable that this is the ossuary of James in the New Testament.” Lemaire and the Canadian Royal Ontario Museum commented that according to established scientific methodologies of epigraphy and dating “nothing suspicious” about the ossuary or its inscriptions exists.

The other established method of determining fake relics and their time-period is long-wave ultra-violet patina tests. Patina is a layer of particles or tarnish formed on the surface of metal or stone surfaces (called cortification) over long periods of time. Under an electron-microscope the layer/tarnish reveals the oxidation process of molecules from the relic’s specific environment which also helps in elapsed time similar to carbon-dating methods. This and the epigraphic study are reliable methods of determining the ossuary’s authenticity.

Patina tests can decide the likelihood of where the ossuary was found and/or located prior to discovery; in other words, for our purposes here it will find a mineral fingerprint of whether the ossuary was originally inside the Talpiot tomb or whether it was buried somewhere else in Israel, or if it was buried at all.

Patina layers on various stones

Charles Pellegrino, a forensic archaeologist, sent the patina samples to the Suffolk Crime Lab in New York State for analysis. The patina off the James ossuary had trace minerals such as titanium and iron that are unique to it. In addition to samples from the Talpiot tomb, many other random samples of patina were gathered from all over Jerusalem and surrounding excavations to further identify samples from other tombs and see if the Talpiot tomb had distinguishing elemental traces. After the Suffolk Crime Lab finished its complete analysis of all samples, ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb were the only ossuaries to have contained exact traces and levels of titanium, iron, phosphorous, magnesium, and potassium which matched the same elements off the James ossuary samples. The electro-microscopic materials match in almost every elemental class with a margin-of-error of less than ten percent.

With the conclusion of the Suffolk Crime Lab’s electro-micrometer analysis, it is compelling evidence that the James ossuary is the missing ossuary of the Talpiot tomb. With this probability, Dr. Andrey Feuerverger modifies his previous statistical calculations this way:

“If it has been possible to determine that the James ossuary is the missing ossuary, then this would have a very strong additional degree of evidentiary value. I would say that would be an absolute slam-dunk, if that were shown to be the case, that we have found the tomb of Jesus and his family.” [the statistical probabilities are shown in the two graphics bottom right]

Naturally Feuerverger’s statistical model has come under fire by opposing scholars and statisticians. The most common counter-argument to his model is that the names apparently found in the Talpiot tomb were all very common names during the time. However, as Feuerverger stated, it is the four or five names found in unison, all found in one tomb that makes it exceptional in contrast to other tombs. Simply considering each ossuary name independently would indeed make the finds much more meaningless. But the fact remains that at least four names were found in the same family tomb. It is this grouping which makes the Talpiot tomb so extraordinary. If in further scientific examination it is found that five or six names do match known family groupings from both canonical and accepted non-canonical sources, and they are found to come from this specific tomb, then it must be seriously considered that the Talpiot tomb is undoubtedly that of Jesus of Nazareth and his close family.

For a broader reading on this debate, see the March 2007 article in Scientific American magazine “Special Report: Has James Cameron Found Jesus’ Tomb or Is It Just a Statistical Error?” and the October 2002 New York Times article “’Jesus’ Inscription on Stone May Be Earliest Ever Found”.

GIS Mapping

During the last two and a half decades several tombs in this area of south Jerusalem have been uncovered. During the Second Temple period (530 BCE to 70 CE) members of the same movements or ideologies often knew each other and so were often buried in the same areas. In a nearby tomb just about 60 meters from the Talpiot tomb are found several undisturbed ossuaries with elaborate drawings on their sides biblical scholars and archaeologists feel are representative of known Judeo-Christian groups of the 1st century. Dr. Natalie Mesika, a geographic information systems (GIS) mapper brought in to analyze and map the area, concludes that the Talpiot tomb and nearby tombs have a spatial relationship with each other. “In this area there are” she explains “tombs that differ from normative tombs. The members of ideological groups often knew one another. They were less ‘mainstream’ and so they were buried together in specific areas. There was a large Essene cemetary on this expanse in the area of the Armon Hanatziv ridge [the Talpiot tomb area]. This may have been where groups that were not connected to the mainstream, such as groups of early Christians, were buried.” What this means is that much more can be gleaned from the group-movement by extensive research and examination of the area’s ossuaries which may lead to more intriguing challenges and enlightenment of earliest Christianity.

Tabor and Jacobovici meanwhile have inferred that so far the findings in both tombs can open a theological can-of-worms for both Christianity and Judaism and those modern impressions of their earliest roots. If the evidence is found to further support a resurrection-concept as the inscribed symbols seem to imply, then it also implies that these Judeo-Christians “did believe in Jesus’ ability to rise from the dead, but — and this is a significant but — he had not yet done so. If this is really the case, then it is a major deviation from contemporary Christian beliefs.” See the May 2012 issue of ERETZ Magazine of Israel article Who’s Afraid of the Tomb of Jesus?

Judah son of Jesus Ossuary

In Aramaic it reads Yehudah bar Yeshua, meaning Judah son of Jesus. This inscription on a seventh ossuary found in the Talpiot tomb probably causes the biggest firestorm of debate. And it is with good reason.

The Rise and Birth of the Final Holy Church – At Least until the Protestant Reformation

Since the 4^th and 5^th centuries CE, the earliest Roman-Greco Christian traditions portray Jesus of Nazareth as a divine Son of God. Following all historical imperial traditions of authority in Antiquity and after, there could be only ONE king; a king straight from the ONE God or Gods if your empire was polytheistic. The supreme ruler was divine and anything opposed to that law was treason, heretical, and punishable by death. This is a well-known fact about Roman rule and sovereignty. The bloodline of these divine rulers had to be the purest of pure. Otherwise, civil revolts and ambitious challengers to the throne would disintegrate the kingdom. There could be no doubts of purity whatsoever.

We also know that Roman patience was extremely short with volatile belligerent groups. One such group was the Jews with their constant fervor of a new king, called Messiah, which would rescue and revive the true Kingdom of God’s People from the tyranny of Rome. By 70 CE and later, Rome was utterly fed-up with these Jews and their nagging revolts. It was time to annihilate everything about these people, most of all their theological doctrines as taught by the Judeo-Christian leaders. Yet after some 200 years, the social-welfare-Christ-movement kept popping up in various provinces where inequality, poverty, and civil abuses by Rome’s elite were high. By the year 315 CE, the Caesars would have to ask again and again, how can we defeat these people?

Some four centuries of Roman oppression and social tyranny upon its vanquished finally brought the mighty empire to its knees. Unknowingly, her rulers accomplished the exact opposite of what they egocentrically dreamed of: an empire of superior people (Romans) ruling over inferior people (non-Romans) for a thousand centuries. Enter one of the greatest social-welfare movements of history, which no longer requires you to convert to Judaism! It is open to all (see Constantine: Christianity’s True Catalyst/Christ), even the lower social-classes and outcasts.

Judah son of Jesus?

In a world long governed by one king, one ruler, one emperor, how would it be socially possible to have multiple, even hundreds of leaders, many of them women! Roman-Greco thinking could never fathom this type of social order. Therefore, what Constantine and his archbishops decided was to merge the social-welfare movement into a Roman sanctioned social order, or universal church. They called it the Roman Catholic Church and it would represent, as closely as was possible, a mixture of the grass-roots Christ-movement tenets, bits of ancient Jewish prophetic traditions of the Messiah-Christ adding mystery and miracle, but also firmly inline with Roman rule and traditions. Those opposing this commencement would be branded heretics and punished by law. Thus began the destruction of Gnostic testaments. This included Judeo-Christian testaments portraying Jesus of Nazareth, his family, and his apostles in such a way as to appear normal or realistic, or furthermore in a way not sanctioned by Constantine’s bishops.

Two thousand years later, when an ossuary turns up with the inscription Judah son of Jesus, obviously it will fly in the face of fundamental Christendom, and hence must be discredited at all costs reminiscent of 1^st century Rome and the medieval church.

Removing the Horse-Blinders

In light of known Roman punishment to insurrection, naturally the son of a rival-king would be in grave danger. Anyone connected with the Jesus-movement was open to Roman prosecution. Perceived treason was never tolerated by those in power. John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, beheaded. James the brother of Jesus stoned to death. Simon brother of Jesus crucified. And most certainly, the son of Jesus the Messiah would be in horrible danger.

There is expert biblical speculation that the “beloved disciple” mentioned in the Gospel of John, might be Judah son of Jesus to hide his bloodline. In John 19:26-27, minutes before Jesus took his final breath while hanging on the cross, according to the passage it reads “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, here is your son.’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’” Anyone well-versed in the four original synoptic gospels – not later renditions – knows that identifying specific relatives, disciples, and women associated with Jesus is a rabbit-trail at best. Arguably, the confusion was intended.

Protecting the son of the 1^st century crucified Messiah-Christ, or protecting the later 4^th century Roman-Greco Christian tenets of pure divinity or a clever mixture of both to give the impression of miraculous truth… finding Judah the biological son of Jesus of Nazareth, James the biological brother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene the wife of Jesus, Mary the biological mother of Jesus, Jose biological brother of Jesus, and finally the Jesus of Nazareth all in the same tomb would most certainly call from fundamental radical followers their most unforgiving opposition. Two thousand years of doctrine and tradition just cannot change or be challenged, right? Do not ask that same question of the Roman Catholic Church (or modern Protestant churches) in regard to Nicolaus Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the heavenly bodies!

Perhaps not surprisingly, the IAA forced the documentary scientists, archaeologists, and researchers to stop and seal the Talpiot tomb before any further examinations could be concluded.

Professor James Charlesworth, respected scholar of New Testament Language & Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, helped put together in Jerusalem in January 2008 a panel of 31 international scholars to reopen the case of the Talpiot tomb and its ossuaries. The results of the symposium are now published and available to the public (click on the book cover above to purchase). These 31 expert essays vindicate the 2006 examination of the ossuaries and tomb and the 2007 documentary by Cameron and Jacobovici, and conclude that to a very high degree the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his close family has indeed been located. Furthermore, the probabilities of the specific names found inside the tomb and grouped together casts many basic Christian gospel foundations as folklore or personal faith, but not systemic fact. It turns everything upside down.

Santa Claus, Peter Pan, and Tinkerbell Revisited

Why does a person hold on to faith-based beliefs so staunchly? There are some understandable answers. Some would say because present comfort and security are vital to life and survival. Some would answer because evil exists, and there are evil-doers in the world and nether-world who are determined to harm and destroy you; thus a form of miraculous protection is needed. Some might simply answer it was my parents way of life, they taught me the same, and it worked for them, it works for me. Others would claim another theological reason, that mankind is in a state of total depravity and has only one form of hope or escape from eternal damnation. Still others might claim that the “key” to mortal happiness, redemption and eternal bliss have been firmly and convincingly offered for the taking for over 2,000 years; we only need to accept it. Are these answers much differently than when we found that our childhood hero(es) was/were mythical? And so what was the purpose of those grand stories anyway?

The grand stories offer dramatic hope in a world and life that is often difficult, even brutal. Perhaps most of all they offer a soothing antidote to the reality of death and beyond. The good-feeling hope or faith-stories are most popular among the impoverished and struggling lower and middle-classes of society, just like it was in the conquered provinces of Rome’s oppressive rule before, during and after Jesus’ life. And just like our uplifting childhood stories of Santa Clause, Peter Pan and Tinkerbell and the like, from a purely altruistic and humanitarian perspective, they are good for a person’s, a society’s, and a civilization’s composite mental and emotional health, whether they are based wholly or in part, in fiction or fact. For those who mentally or emotionally are struggling most severely, the stories bring great relief!

If this article has upset or struck an emotional nerve, then I respectfully ask you to please read my earlier five blogs/articles: Canaanites Killed & Removed From Native Lands, The Suffering Messiah That Wasn’t Jesus, Hyper-Social Anxiety Over Sex, Collaborative Ineptitude, and Constantine: Christianity’s True Catalyst/Christ. These articles collectively give a balanced picture of why divisive hyper-polarized systems and institutions (but not charitable or philanthropic) eventually disintegrate a society’s cohesion and progress, e.g. America’s gross socio-economic and educational inequality today.

Personally, I do not want to remove anyone’s individual dreams and hopes. Who wants to give up that sort of feeling? Good feelings indeed do our mind, body, and soul good! Instead, my intention is to bring into serious question the validity (or invalidity) of staunch, discriminatory oppressive, systematic institutional abuses of societal control or misinformation. History has shown time and time again, that accepted or forced fear-based myths and folklore on people are most successful when the powerless, uneducated, gullible, or illiterate are exploited. If anything, I hope this article spurs more determined responsible biblical archaeology that presents the unbiased comprehensive evidence, and NOT foregone conclusions supported by selected evidence.

Therefore, I write this and other blogs on the subject. Reject radical fundamentalism in whatever religious divisive form it takes is my mantra. Let us simply put folklore on the shelf of “Folklore”, healthy self-help stories on the shelf of “Self-help”, and scientific archaeology on the shelf of “Scientific Archaeology” and allow an individual the freedom AND dignity to choose wisely what suits them best.

(paragraph separation)

Footnote: This blog/article was inspired by the 2007 documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus by Simcha Jacobovici and produced by James Cameron and other sources.

April 2015 Update — “Geologists Claim Stats, Science Prove Jesus Buried In Jerusalem with Wife and Supposed Son,” Ariel Cohen, The Jerusalem Post.

(paragraph separation)

This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.wordpress.com.

Oversimplification 2012

Posted on September 14, 2012 by Professor Taboo

Are you an informed voter?

Over half of America’s population does not sufficiently or safely understand their own government, their own laws, and most likely the campaign premises and rhetoric of political candidates running for offices that they will uphold, abide by, and then enact their civilian government and laws! Why not? Simple: growing inequality over four decades.

The average years of education in the United States is 12 years; a high school diploma. This average is barring various levels of sub-par or quality education. In 2011 only 30.44% of the U.S. adult population received a Bachelor’s Degree. Less than 8% of the American population attained a Master’s Degree or higher. These bleak figures are a result of one primary cause: the almost exorbitant cost of post-secondary education, again barring various levels of education quality. As we Americans approach another presidential and congressional election year, all the candidates, their campaign managers, and campaign-workers, all have Bachelor Degrees or higher. In other words, they make up a mere 8% or 30% of the American public, and speak to and campaign for votes to the other 92% or 70% of the population respectively.

This stark contrast of social imbalance is the quintessential definition of disparity; disparity of a subtle and complex kind.

On at least one occasion [Abraham] Lincoln gave some good advice to a young lawyer. “Billy,” he said, “don’t shoot too high – aim lower, and the common people will understand you. They are the ones you want to reach – at least, they are the ones you ought to reach. The educated and refined people will understand you anyway. If you aim too high, your idea will go over the heads of the masses and hit only those who need no hitting.”

Clearly Mr. Lincoln understood ordinary people. But more so, he not only understood, he related; he identified with ordinary ‘high school educated’ people, if you will.

Let’s Shoot Between the Eyes

There is one life-lesson that always holds true: actions speak louder (and truer) than eloquent words. What does that mean to you? What have you lived? What have you not only lived, but what have you lost, or almost lost? How miserably have you failed, and therefore learned a life-long lesson from? In other words, how well can you REALLY identify with the 92% of America? Did your expensive undergraduate and/or graduate education teach you how to live, even survive in poverty? Does your expensive degree indicate how perfectly you can relate to and lead 92% of the U.S. population? How and where have you spent the majority of your life, your job or career, and with your family both immediate and extended family? Does it represent anything close to the 70% — 92% of Americans?

Perhaps more importantly a question we should be asking our political candidates and leaders is this: “How well do you precisely understand the needs of some 50-100 various diverse ethnic, economic, social, educational, historical, and religious classes in America?” The purpose of this post/article is to show the dangerous trap of oversimplification to a high-school-educated population by the highly educated 8% of the population.

By the way, for the sake of disclosure I am from a lower-middle class family, raised in a lower-middle class neighborhood in south Dallas, Texas. I have a bachelor’s degree (Humanities) from a tiny private liberal arts college, and four semesters of graduate studies toward an incomplete master’s degree. I had a successful collegiate and semi-pro soccer career with a short stint in pro-soccer, all of which took me to five different continents around the world. I am what you might say in the middle of the road within this article; mixing with several different American and foreign socio-economic classes.

Reject the Politics of Polarization

Oversimplification is often radical extremism. Most intelligent people would agree that knee-jerk reactions are rarely productive, even destructive. The same applies in complex issues in a diverse complex nation such as the United States. This applies more so to increasingly globalized economies between nation-states.

The adage Knowledge is Power applies here. I would personally add to the adage, Knowledge = Power = More Wealth/More Resources/More Opportunities. Anyone who disagrees with my modified adage, kindly tell me. I would enjoy discussing it, or more accurately point out your folly (wink). For others, I am stating the obvious.

Anatole Kaletsky is an economic journalist and Chairman of the Institute for New Economic Thinking founded after the 2008 economic crisis. He is a graduate of King’s College at the University of Cambridge, U.K. in mathematics, and master’s degree graduate in economics from Harvard University. Kaletsky has much to say about inequality, polarization, and the upcoming fall elections in Europe and the United States:

…do these [political-economic] decisions really need to be so radical? Is it fashionable to proclaim that the future is a matter of black and white: bigger government or freer markets, national independence or a European super-state. But these extreme dichotomies do not make sense.

…New mechanisms of checks and balances between politics and economics are required. Economic problems ignore national borders; therefore, more complex mechanisms for international cooperation are needed in a globalized economy.

Kaletsky’s words ring true. The role of government in economic stability and social opportunity is paramount. Exactly HOW its role is defined cannot be oversimplified nor polarized. “The fashion for oversimplified radicalism” he states “has taken hold in both economic and political thinking – a tragic irony when global [and domestic] problems are clearly more complex than ever before.” It is simply unfair to America’s three-quarters majority to understand fully what the one-quarter minority is oversimplifying. The fact remains: for the last five decades America’s economic, social, and educational inequalities have widened and reached critical stages.

Another translation for polarization is discrimination. In other words, polarization divides as much as discrimination divides; the motive and end-result determines whether the discrimination is beneficial or harmful for the whole. Once again, whether the polarization is beneficial or detrimental to the whole cannot be determined by oversimplified descriptions or solutions. Therefore, let’s do our homework! Let’s study and analyze political philosophies beginning with the roots of our American political parties, and then conclude which philosophies and their corresponding political party’s best serve the greater good for the greatest number of Americans, or whether any of the parties serve it best.

America’s Political Parties

Since the late 1790’s the United States has had primarily a two-party political system: summarized (but not comprehensive), either liberal or conservative economic-social platforms. Throughout the past 5-political eras, these two parties formed innovative campaign techniques based on what was expressed by the current public opinion. As a result, there were often some blurring or crossover campaign techniques in between the liberal-left and conservative-right. These positions became various forms of “moderate” politics and have formed various third-party groups throughout the five political eras.

Briefly, our two-party then multi-party systems began with two members of George Washington’s cabinet: Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. This period is often called the First Party System. Washington was never in favor of a dividing party-system. He was of the opinion that as the cliché goes, “a house divided against itself, will not stand.” Perhaps Washington was not spot-on, but a divided house certainly does not function as efficiently. Over two centuries later, we still have a dominate two-party system with at least 3-4 minor parties. For a more in-depth review, click Political Parties in the United States.

The Second Party System (1829-1854) saw a redefining of the two previous parties: the Democratic-Republicans (Andrew Jackson supporters) and National-Republicans (John Quincy Adams supporters). Their primary issue was over centralized governing, a strong national bank and single currency, as opposed to state independence and local governing, and hence less federal involvement.

During the Third Party System (1855 – c.1897) the issue of slavery, or the spread of slavery could no longer take backstage. From this political era came our two modern major parties. The Republicans (descendants of Adams supporters) still promoting policies of a strong central government, one army and navy, and unified foreign trade-tariff policies, versus Democrats (descendants of Jackson-Van Buren supporters); promoting antebellum, agricultural, state freedoms and allowing continued slave-trade. This is in name only, however, because obviously the policy platforms have morphed in every presidential and congressional campaign since 1897.

Our Fourth Party System (1896-1932) saw the most critical times of our nation’s history since the Civil War and Reconstruction. This era began in an economic depression, then World War I and followed by the stock-market crash and Great Depression. Within one generation of America, there were no less than 15 major issues vehemently debated! It is here that at least one trend emerges inside party policies: business interests for Republicans; domestic-social interests for Democrats. For a more in-depth analysis, click Fourth Party System.

The Fifth Party System(1933 – c.1964) emerged from the Great Depression – caused by unregulated business-trade practices – and into World War II. From 1933 to 1945 Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt united labor unions, immigrants, minority and low-income voters, Southerners, Catholics, Jews, urbanites, and intellectuals; unprecedented in U.S. political history. From Roosevelt’s New Deal Coalition the Democrats dominated U.S. government policies and public support until Richard Nixon in 1969.

From America’s five political eras, and perhaps more precisely since the 1970’s, at least one theme can be gleaned from our five transitions: Because the presidential office and the two branches of Congress have swapped back-and-forth over 40 years now, 70% – 92% of Americans want their politicians to stay toward the middle of the political spectrum, not to the radical extremes. According to Stanford, Harvard, and Berkley PhD and Masters students of political sciences, “American political life continues to be dominated by a broad ideological consensus; the electorate continues to hover near the center of the political spectrum, and the parties, in order to remain competitive, generally move toward the center in order to attract voters.”

2012 Party Platforms

Before listing the five major party’s political platforms taken up by their respective candidates, I want to first summarize their party’s basic tenets. These tenets can be viewed on Political Parties in the United States: Party Comparisons, but I will give a quick rundown here starting with the oldest party (Democrat) to the newest (Constitution):

(paragraph separation)

Current 2012 Presidential Candidate Platforms

There is a wonderful organization in Santa Monica, CA that lists a side-by-side comparison of the five major political party’s candidates on all the nation’s major issues called ProCon.org. Please click on their link for a more extensive list. They also have a convenient Find Your Match quiz-questionnaire of the presidential candidates that best match-up to your personal views of the major issues. Below-right is my summary of the historically controversial issues over the last three decades:

2012 Presidential Candidate Policy Positions provided by ProCon.org

The policy issues presented in the table are not all the hot topics the candidates and their parties have debated. I strongly urge that you go to ProCon.org’s website and take a long look over all the issues and become familiar with each candidate’s perspective. Remember too, this table represents the federal issues; as an American citizen you also have similar policy-issues on your state and local levels too. Find them, thoroughly review them, and vote! If you are not yet registered to vote in your county, you have until Oct. 9^th to get registered. Make your voice count!

Given the growing disparity in American education and economic opportunity for the impoverished and middle-class, the highly educated, the resourceful orators have learned the gift of eloquent rhetoric – who can sell a luxurious palace in the Arctic Circle – and so have oversimplified or distorted the comprehensive solutions to America’s crisis. How can the lower-class and middle-class (the 70% – 92%) lift themselves and their families out of inequality if they do not have access to quality educational opportunities that will not push them further into debt or to the end of their parent’s income? How can the lower and middle-classes afford the “Get out of Poverty” ticket if states continue to cut back support for good high schools, grade schools, and kindergartens, and the critically important teachers and staff required to uphold quality standards on campuses? In other words, 70% or more of Americans cannot pay for private primary or secondary schools that usually send their graduates to good colleges. And guess where most of these primary and secondary schools are located? They are in the wealthy suburbs that the 70+% cannot afford to live. Hence, a gradual disparity follows.

A micro and macro-analysis sheds light on this phenomenon: In the past, in order for the lower and middle-class to have hope of progression, the poor lived near the job opportunities, near the wealthy in the wealthy suburbs that provide quality education. Consequently, public schools possessed a student body with several various social and economic families. That was the microcosm. Because the United States has been the beacon of liberty (as shown by Lady Liberty in New York City) and opportunity to the world, what do you think our levels of foreign immigration have reached the last three decades? Since 1965 the influx of foreign immigrants has risen every year by about 1 million according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. It should be noted that these were the legally allowed immigrants. Many of these immigrants are entering the U.S. from under the same circumstances that I am describing domestically: inequality. This is the macrocosm. But inside America this has changed. Nobel Prize winner in economics, Joseph Stiglitz:

“As a recent study by Kendra Bischoff and Sean Reardon of Stanford University shows, [the socio-economic neighborhood] is changing: fewer poor are living in proximity to the rich, and fewer rich are living in proximity to the poor.”

What Stiglitz is pointing out is that what has happened past and present throughout the world’s unstable socio-economic regions is now happening inside America. This should come as no surprise when human nature is closely examined and placed in historical perspective. The wealthier get wealthier because they have more opportunities through more resources at their disposal. As their wealth increases, their perception of risk grows so they increase their “safety-nets” to protect against their perceived risk. What the 1% – 10% of America fails to recognize or accept (or in some cases deny and distort in related public policies) is that their phobia only becomes reality if socio-economic inequality rises and approach critical stages. As a result, their risk-prevention-phobia – or ignorance, or distortion – has the reverse affect. Stiglitz summarizes this vicious “phobic” cycle in a more realistic historical light:

“It’s certainly what one sees around the world: the more egalitarian societies work harder to preserve their social cohesion; in the more unequal societies, government policies and other institutions tend to foster the persistence of inequality. This pattern has been well documented.”

Throughout world history unequal societies, such as Rome, Victorian England, and Manifest Destiny America to name just three, record how inequality was justified. Today it is the same only with different titles, rhetoric, and derivatives. Today it is the explanation of, or in certain cases the distortion of, abstract market forces domestically and abroad. These modern explanations and distortions challenge even the most intelligent college graduate! Yet, gratefully Mr. Stiglitz rips away these fancy justifications and lays bare their true creations despite the concerted efforts of America’s 1 – 10%:

“The view I take is somewhat different. I begin with the observation made in chapters 1 and 2: other advanced industrial countries with similar technology and per capita income differ greatly from the United States in inequality of pretax income (before transfers), in inequality of after tax and transfer income, in inequality of wealth, and in economic mobility [rags-to-riches movement]. These countries also differ greatly from the United States in the trends in these four variables over time. If markets were the principal driving force, why do seemingly similar advanced industrial countries differ so much? [See my article:The Land of Opportunity?]

Our hypothesis is that market forces are real, but that they are shaped by political processes. Markets are shaped by laws, regulations, and institutions. Every law, every regulation, every institutional arrangement has distributive consequences – and the way we have been shaping America’s market economy works to the advantage of those at the top and to the disadvantage of the rest.

[But] there is another factor determining societal inequality… Government, as we have seen, shapes market forces. But so do societal norms and social institutions. Indeed, politics, to a large extent, reflects and amplifies societal norms. In many societies, those at the bottom consist disproportionately of groups that suffer, in one way or another, from discrimination. The extent of such discrimination [or polarization] is a matter of societal norms… These social norms and institutions, like markets, don’t exist in a vacuum: they too are shaped, in part, by the [resourceful] 1 percent.”

Despite that I have so far shown that growing inequality leads to growing volatility and social instability, which in severe cases leads eventually to civil revolt by the masses as seen in recent Middle-eastern countries, American government policies – influenced by America’s 1 – 10% individuals and their corporate institutional networks – still in 2012 continue to justify socio-economic inequality as a necessary ingredient to “free markets” and sound foundations of successful capitalism. On the contrary, I would like to show otherwise. For the sake of clarity, let’s follow this ideology through to its now 8-10 year result since 2008.

What Motivates Productive Citizenship?

Is inequality necessary to provide people with incentive?

I will continue this examination in the next article/blog: Productive Inequality. Check back often for its completion. The importance of truly understanding America’s political party’s (and their candidates) continued oversimplification to the 70-92% of Americans, that lead to social and economic ruin, cannot be overstated.

(paragraph separation)

The Land of Opportunity?

Posted on July 22, 2012 by Professor Taboo

(paragraph separation)

As some of you are aware, I teach 4^th through 12^th grade Special-Ed science, social studies, and secondary career development at a charter school. Close to two-thirds of our students are either wards-of-the-state and/or special-needs. Due in part to the nation-wide recession and severe federal-state education cuts and the increasing gap of social-economic inequality in America (families in poverty vs. families with great wealth), my workload and hours are increasing between 25-30% for the 2012-2013 school year. However, my meek salary and annual increase has been frozen – while our cost-of-living continues to run free like a gorilla in a banana farm. Even more astonishing, the social expenditures to address and manage our nation’s growing impoverished families – the exact families my students come from – are dropping through the basement in alarming amounts.

I am not blowing a horn that many haven’t already heard: America is in a very serious economic and social crisis! But what I would like to convey is a re-evaluation of a socio-economic system that like the Roman Empire, is heading toward collapse.

Here is a crash-course in basic social sciences.

From Tribe to Modern Civilization…and Back?

All people on this planet have the same basic needs for food, water, clothing, and shelter. People everywhere live in families, or primary groups, and they get these needs in one of two ways: in a way that is individually and socially beneficial, or in a way that is damaging socially and eventually to themselves, i.e. illegally according to the group’s/society’s laws-of-behavior. The methods of obtaining these basic life-needs are directly proportional to a society’s advancement or decline in relation to available resources; or in an advanced civilization, the opportunities available. I would like to elaborate on this basic social equation.

Advancement in a civilization can be categorized in six stages essentially developing for the greater good. Decline in a civilization is the reverse of these stages coupled with and caused by increased crime, civil revolt, and/or war(s), and deteriorate the greater good. In my diagram Development of Civilization right, the United States is by global comparisons clearly in the last blue stage. However, most indicators show that we are digressing, not only by global rankings but by our own domestic indicators as well.

The Human Development Index (HDI) is an index created by the United Nations Development Program to measure development of all member nations according to a composite indicator of life-expectancy (healthcare), educational attainment for youth and adults (primary, secondary, and tertiary programs & literacy rates), and finally individual income-wealth (Per capita gross domestic product). According to the index covering 1975 to 2005, a thirty-year period, you might be surprised that the United States does not rank in the top 10. Over the scope of annual indices the U.S. ranks higher. However, a 30-year scope shows a trend. Here are the rankings:

Iceland
Norway
Australia
Canada
Ireland
Sweden
Switzerland
Japan
Netherlands
France
Finland
United States

Life-expectancy is directly related to a society’s or nation’s healthcare system. In the 1975 Human Development Index the United States ranked sixth barely above Norway; a real fall in less than one family generation for one of the most advanced civilizations. However, this 30-year index doesn’t paint the whole picture. The World Health Organization (WHO) published a ranking in 2000 of the world’s health systems. Out of 190 nations the U.S. ranked 37^th. The 2000 report was WHO’s last publishing due to vast complexities in compilation. The Common Wealth Fund did a study of 19 industrialized nations on deaths considered amenable to healthcare before the age of 75. In their 2002-2003 study the U.S. ranked 14^th. Yet, the U.S. ranks 1^st or 2^nd worldwide in total expenditures toward healthcare as a percentage of its GDP according to WHO. To put it another way, in Italy, Hong Kong, France, or Japan, citizens pay much less for noticeably better overall healthcare.

The attainment of education is also directly related to a nation’s social and economic development or decline. Education and literacy directly affect a civilization’s progress. If literacy and education are stable and improving, so goes the civilization. If education and literacy are unstable and declining, so goes the de-civilization of its people. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) the U.S. ranked 16^th worldwide for literacy (reading, math, & science above 15 yrs old) in 2000, ranked 27^th in 2006, and 23^rd by 2011 according to UNESCO. A muddling in the mid to low 20’s will not improve over future generations unless attainment of quality education by our general population improves. This in turn requires tax revenues as well as a proportionate per capita GDP. But this is not happening. Though America is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the overall American standard of living has been in serious decline since at least 1981.

A dysfunctional healthcare system and underfunded public education system will have tragic implications for American society. Joseph E. Stiglitz is the 2001 Nobel Prize winner in economics. He writes in The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future:

The consequences of pervasive and persistent poverty and long-term underinvestment in public education and other social expenditure [healthcare] are also manifest in other indicators that our society is not functioning as it should: a high level of crime, and a large fraction of the population in prison. While violent-crime statistics are better than they were at their nadir (in 1991), they remain high, far worse than in other advanced industrial countries, and they impose large economic and social costs on our society. Residents of many poor (and not so poor) neighborhoods still feel the risk of physical assault. It’s expensive to keep 2.3 million people [illiterate or semi-illiterate] in prison. The U.S. incarceration rate of 730 per 100,000 people (or almost 1 in 100 adults), is the world’s highest and some nine to ten times that of many European countries. Some U.S. states spend as much on their prisons as they do on their universities.

As I mentioned earlier, a civilization on the decline has increased crime intertwined with widening social and economic wealth-to-poverty levels. When the opportunities for socio-economic advancement are hard, few and far between for a country’s impoverished, or semi-bankrupt per capita GDP families making only $41,890 per year in 2005, obtaining basic or moderate life-needs turns immoral or criminal. At least two sets of statistics indicate this trend.

Generation Extreme – Death Rates of Young People

This bleak outlook doesn’t improve. In 2011 the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and University of Melbourne published a table ranking 28 industrialized – or modernized – civilizations according to their mortality rate of 10 to 24 year olds per 100,000 population by traffic accidents, violence, suicide, and “other” causes. Sadly, it ranks the United States first in all four categories, with the most glaring difference being deaths by violence, out doing the other 27 countries substantially.

One way or another these numbers can be attributed to any combination of three variables: lack of happiness, lack of education, and lack of social-balance. And these three factors are derived from available or unavailable resources and opportunities.

A Growing Popularity toward Immorality and Crime

Get a stout cocktail, this statistic doesn’t paint a pretty picture either. In 2007 the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) released statistical data regarding nation’s prison populations and incarceration rates. Once again the U.S. ranks first, or highest in number of prisoners per 100,000 population. Our total prison population is nearly three times higher as the second highest nation Russia.

One indicator of the immorality rate is hate crime statistics. In 1990 Congress enacted the FBI Hate Crimes Statistics Act but not all states reported during the following five years. In 1996 all fifty states reported their data. Here are those results for the following 14-year period shown in the table.

As the data indicates, religious, ethnic/national origin, and sexual orientation are and have been on a steady climb. A statistic I do not need to illustrate is America’s appalling divorce rate (over 50% in 2010). For the sake of time, I will also not include incidents of domestic-family violence not related to racial, religious, ethnic/national origin, sexual orientation, or physical-mental disability. These cases are typically attributed in various combinations to psychological, psychiatric, and drug-abuse or addiction. Naturally the treatment and management of these problems goes back to available healthcare, and on a broader scale education, employment/unemployment, and overall happiness.

I stated earlier that the United States is on a path to socio-economic collapse, remarkably like the great Roman Empire. The familiar cliché history repeats itself, could not be truer here. Yet, many Americans believe we are the strongest wealthiest nation on earth of which all nations should model themselves. True, but only on the surface and ONLY in the top 1 percent of the population or the top 10% at best. The lower 90-99% has seen their standard of living erode frankly. Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz describes our historic predicament strikingly Romanesque:

If struggling poor families get our sympathy today, those at the top increasingly draw our ire. At one time, when there was a broad social consensus that those at the top earned what they got, they received our admiration. In the recent crisis, however, bank executives received outsize bonuses for outsize losses, and firms fired workers, claiming they couldn’t afford them, only to use the savings to increase executive bonuses still more. The result was that admiration at their cleverness turned to anger at their insensitivities…

…We described earlier the huge gap between CEO pay and that of the typical worker – more than 200 times greater – a number markedly higher than in other countries (in Japan, for instance, the corresponding ratio is 16 to 1) and even markedly higher than it was in the United States a quarter century ago. The old U.S. ratio of 30 to 1 now seems quaint by comparison…

…What’s worse, we have provided a bad [model], as executives in other countries around the world emulate their American counterparts. The UK’s High Pay Commission reported that the executive pay at its large companies is heading toward Victorian levels of inequality, vis-à-vis the rest of society (though currently the disparity is only as egregious as it was in the 1920’s). As the report puts it, “…publicly listed companies sets a precedent, and when it is patently not linked to [overall] performance, or rewards [overall] failure, it sends out the wrong message and is a clear symptom of market failure.”

If you are familiar with ancient Roman civilization, or even Victorian civilization in Europe, then you are also familiar with the stark inequality of their respective populations. Both Rome and the great British Empire of the 18^th century CE crumbled under this bloated weight of inequality. Rome vanished and Britain to a mere semblance of its former glory. Obviously at the risk of oversimplification, this socio-economic inequality is the consequence of the denial of the altruistic and philanthropic system of the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number lifestyle. I will return to this concept later, but first I want to explain another accurate form of socio-economic performance.

The Gini Coefficient (illustrated left) measures the degree of inequality of the distribution of family income within a nation. Basically, a gini coefficient of zero indicates perfect equality, and a gini coefficient of one represents a maximum inequality of incomes. Nations with coefficients of 0.3 or below are considered mostly equal. Nations with coefficients of 0.5 or above are considered mostly unequal. If you have finished your stout cocktail, pour another because this U.S. comparison to the rest of the world is going to break your heart.

According to the 2011 CIA World Factbook – Gini Index, the United States ranks practically the same as Cameroon (Africa) and Uruguay (South America). Stiglitz puts it in these terms: “According to UN data, we are slightly more unequal than Iran and Turkey, and much less equal than any country in the European Union.” Our actual CIA World Factbook ranking has us at 95^th, behind the likes of not only Cameroon but Uganda, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Mongolia, and Pakistan to name a few.

The Indicators Re-examined

Performances of family income inequality don’t tell the entire story. The Land of Opportunity’s real story may in fact be much worse than these numbers are indicating. For example, in other modern European civilizations their people do not worry about how to pay medical expenses, or how to afford taking care of their elderly parents, or how their children will receive a well-funded education. Attaining all these social benefits are viewed as a basic human right! In other advanced nations, the citizens put a heavy emphasis on hard work at a job, but they do not worry so much if they lose their job because their unemployment programs are good. In these advanced countries, homeowners do not concern themselves with foreclosure anywhere near as much as Americans. Social and economic insecurity for lower-class and middle-class Americans has become the rule-of-thumb. And if these international comparisons bear some level of truth, the United States is worse off than it prefers to portray itself.

If the picture is not quite in focus, then Stiglitz concludes these performance indicators this way:

Recent U.S. income growth primarily occurs at the top 1 percent of the income distribution.
As a result there is growing inequality.
And those at the bottom and in the middle are actually worse-off today than they were at the beginning of the century.
Inequalities in wealth are even greater than inequalities in income.
Inequalities are apparent not just in income but in a variety of other variables that reflect standards of living, such as insecurity [fear and sadness] and health.
Life is particularly harsh at the bottom – and the recession made it much worse.
There has been a hollowing out of the middle class.
There is little income mobility – the notion of America as a land of opportunity is a myth.
And America has more inequality than any other advanced industrialized country, it does less to correct these inequalities, and inequality is growing more than in many other countries.

As the American Conservative Right describes this socio-economic outlook, even Mitt Romney, these facts are inconvenient to them and should be whispered in private. There is no need to point out what sectors of the American population the phrase “American Conservative Right” refers. However, the philosophy they cherish, project, and protect is essentially no different from Ancient Rome’s and Victorian Britain’s elite. The proverbial phrases “You need money to make money” and “the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer” are simply true today.

Greatest Good for the Greatest Number

One could argue that the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number is socialism and its initiative found in communism. This type of argument is frequently revealed in American Conservative Right rhetoric. Not surprisingly, you also discover that the Conservative Right has a majority of religious-political advocates, many from various forms of Christianity (and a growing population of Islam). I find this social-political position utterly fascinating and in alarming conflict with the founding principles of the very same theology (and scriptural basis) they proclaim membership. For a more in depth look at this background, read my April 2011 article Constantine: Christianity’s True Catalyst/Christ. It and its references bring to light the utter success that the Judeo-Jesus movement of the 1^st century CE was in reality a welfare-system phenomena for Rome’s grossly outsized and mistreated poor; ironically, not unlike the heading of America’s social-economic system.

Simply and factually put, the philosophy-turning-lifestyle of the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number has been preached, taught, prophesied, born-out, died-for, whatever the case, in just about all of history’s great reformers. From Gautama Buddha in c. 563 BCE to Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968, one theme stands out from all their wisdom: there is something more and larger than yourself. What can you imagine as this theme’s reciprocal, or antithesis? Think of as many possible oppositions as you can.

The fall of Rome c. 455 CE

Now synthesize your list of oppositions into a summation. It should reflect an inflated ego, whether it is one, many, or a system, it carries with it an awareness and action for self and for few – as well as those who benefit our self. It also carries with it a reduced lack of awareness and action for the whole system – as well as those who we tolerate and/or are intolerant. When viewed in this light, the inequality that is today’s America is absolutely no different from ancient Rome or Victorian Britain. You have the superior and the inferior, and the two should remain mostly separate. The inferior are such because they are illiterate. They lack a good education because it is next to impossible to attain. The inferior are diseased because of their illiteracy and lack of medical treatment because it is next to impossible to attain. The inferior are unskilled workers because of their illiteracy to understand the complex nuances of business and ingenuity, and to gain this understanding is next to impossible without heavy coin.

Is my America-Rome analogy that far-fetched? Your response should turn to civil action; we do live in a country that OFFERS a model of social-political freedom. I come from a family and middle-class background that worked and works its ass off to gain a little more of the American dream. During my generation, and perhaps during my children’s generation, we have seen those opportunities all but vanish. My children and I face almost exactly what my grandparents faced during the Great Depression and World War II. As a boy then, my father faced strict food and material rations for over fourteen years! Our current Great Recession, economists state, began in 2007. Here we are in mid-2012, five years later.

Whatever your situation, I will repeat what I said at the start.

Due in part to the nation-wide recession and severe federal-state education cuts and the increasing gap of social-economic inequality in America (families in poverty vs. families with great wealth), my workload and hours are increasing between 25-30% for the 2012-2013 school year. However, my meek salary and annual increase has been frozen – while our cost-of-living continues to run free like a gorilla in a banana farm. Even more astonishing, the social expenditures to address and manage our nation’s growing impoverished families – the exact families my students come from – are dropping through the basement in alarming amounts. Let me reiterate:

The social expenditures to address and manage our nation’s growing impoverished families – the exact families my students come from – are dropping through the basement in alarming amounts, even disappearing!

And by the way, our enrollment/placement of special-needs students are increasing (and therefore class sizes with fewer teachers) because several identical charter schools in the region had to close their doors due to funding cuts.

In the boom years before the 2007-08 crisis, the top 1 percent seized more than 65% of the gain in total national income. And while the GDP grew, most American citizens saw their standard of living fall into the basement. In 2010, as the nation floundered to stay afloat, the 1 percent (even the top 10%) gained 93% of the additional income created in the so-called recovery. As those at the top continue to enjoy the best healthcare, education, and benefits of wealth in a Reagan-freed-market system, they often fail to realize that, as Rome’s elite fatally ignored, “their fate is bound up” Stiglitz highlights, “with how the other 99 percent live.”

No matter the social, economic, or intellectual differences, we ALL need each other and MUST find and implement civilized efficient, evolving, fair systems toward the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number, or we will go down in history as the 2nd Rise and Fall of the 2nd Roman Empire.

(paragraph separation)

The Price of Exclusivism

Posted on June 19, 2012 by Professor Taboo

I am in the process of intently reading three superb books on America’s current anemic social and economic position. By what I have read so far, all three of these books speak directly to my deep concern for our country’s doomed path of progression: exclusivism; unless this path changes. Following are some reviews of these books.

A forceful argument against America’s vicious circle of growing inequality by the Nobel Prize–winning economist.

The top 1 percent of Americans control 40 percent of the nation’s wealth. And, as Joseph E. Stiglitz explains, while those at the top enjoy the best health care, education, and benefits of wealth, they fail to realize that “their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”

Stiglitz draws on his deep understanding of economics to show that growing inequality is not inevitable: moneyed interests compound their wealth by stifling true, dynamic capitalism. They have made America the most unequal advanced industrial country while crippling growth, trampling on the rule of law, and undermining democracy. The result: a divided society that cannot tackle its most pressing problems. With characteristic insight, Stiglitz examines our current state, then teases out its implications for democracy, for monetary and budgetary policy, and for globalization. He closes with a plan for a more just and prosperous future.

The other two books in which I am engrossed are the Nobel Prize Winner in Economics, Paul Krugman’s End This Depression Now and the book I am foaming at the mouth to finish, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks by co-authors Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein.

The Great Recession is more than four years old—and counting. Yet, as Paul Krugman points out in this powerful volley, “Nations rich in resources, talent, and knowledge—all the ingredients for prosperity and a decent standard of living for all—remain in a state of intense pain.”

How bad have things gotten? How did we get stuck in what now can only be called a depression? And above all, how do we free ourselves? Krugman pursues these questions with his characteristic lucidity and insight. He has a powerful message for anyone who has suffered over these past four years—a quick, strong recovery is just one step away, if our leaders can find the “intellectual clarity and political will” to end this depression now.

And on Mann’s and Ornstein’s book —

Acrimony and hyper-partisanship have seeped into every part of the political process. Congress is deadlocked and its approval ratings are at record lows. America’s two main political parties have given up their traditions of compromise, endangering our very system of constitutional democracy. And one of these parties has taken on the role of insurgent outlier; the Republicans have become ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, and ardently opposed to the established social and economic policy regime.

In It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein identify two overriding problems that have led Congress—and the United States—to the brink of institutional collapse. The first is the serious mismatch between our political parties, which have become as vehemently adversarial as parliamentary parties, and a governing system that, unlike a parliamentary democracy, makes it extremely difficult for majorities to act. Second, while both parties participate in tribal warfare, both sides are not equally culpable. The political system faces what the authors call “asymmetric polarization,” with the Republican Party implacably refusing to allow anything that might help the Democrats politically, no matter the cost.

With dysfunction rooted in long-term political trends, a coarsened political culture and a new partisan media, the authors conclude that there is no “silver bullet” reform that can solve everything. But they offer a panoply of useful ideas and reforms, endorsing some solutions, like greater public participation and institutional restructuring of the House and Senate, while debunking others, like independent or third-party candidates. Above all, they call on the media as well as the public at large to focus on the true causes of dysfunction rather than just throwing the bums out every election cycle. Until voters learn to act strategically to reward problem solving and punish obstruction, American democracy will remain in serious danger.

As I have written about adequately throughout my WordPress blog, exclusivism, elitism, and mob-egotism seriously, seriously threaten modern democracies and ultimately this planet. Apparently Stiglitz, Krugman, Mann, and Ornstein would more less agree, particularly in a socio-economic context. Ah, humbly I need to restate that: I apparently agree with them. Or perhaps the five of us all agree.

But I will not jump too hastily to conclusions. I will completely finish these three fine works and THEN incorporate their problem-identifications, solutions, and ideals into my views and opinions for a better nation and world. Come to think of it, I can probably merge polyamory and the open-swinger lifestyle (grinning and laughing) into my viewpoint as well!

Stay tuned!