Tag Archives: james tabor

One More Observation: Upside Down Jonah

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

One more thing I would like to draw attention to before I give this subject a rest for a while is what I see as one of the more interesting problems of context for interpreting the name “Yonah” on this ossuary.

Very simply put, if the “fish,” as a fish, is facing “left” then that puts the inscription interpreted as “Yonah” nearly upside-down.

This — as can been seen — does not provide a favorable context as it leaves the frames of reference for each claim quite literally at odds.

Thoughts?

Peace,
-Steve

Enough With Fish – Two Metaphors & How They Relate to The Resurrection Tomb Mystery

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,
(I’m considering making this image a series header. 🙂 )

One of the most common apologies that Dr. Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici have been using in blog comments is that scholars cannot make up their minds about what the image is; therefore, their interpretation somehow has some more possible merit.

Is it a krater? Is it an amphora? Is it an unguentarium? Is it some generic vessel? No one knows! — There is no consensus — so it could be a fish.

Odd? Yes.

Allow me to explain it with metaphors: Two of them in fact.

One automotive,  the other an older one I’ve used before, but in a much more explicit context.

For the first, please absorb this image (props to go my eldest daughter):

Let us imagine that when this image was first noticed 30 years ago, a newspaper reported it being some sort of Sedan automobile.

The newspaper article is forgotten and suddenly this very year Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor announce to the world that, “We’ve found this inscription, and it’s a fish.”

Needless to say, this causes a lot of ruckus.

Bob Cargill remarks, “What? It’s a Chevy.”

Mark Goodacre says, “Come on. It’s a VW, or some sort of German 2-door.”

Tom Verenna says, “Really? I think it looks more like a Nissan Fiargo.”

Tabor and Jacobovici, after listening in for a bit, then say here and there, “See? You guys can’t agree with one another. It’s a fish.“

This is where a little more puzzlement and disbelief sets in. Everyone else does not quite understand, not just how they could come to such a conclusion, but also how they could say that no one could make up their minds.

After all — a Sedan, a Chevy, a VW, a Fiargo — they’re all cars. Where the make and model are nuances, the clear consensus is that it’s an automobile.

Simply put: This apology that there is “no consensus” cannot and does not stand upon its own merits.

With me so far?

Now to the second metaphor. I’ve shared this one with you before, so bear with me:

When you watch this video *this* time around, substitute the following phrases in your mind, one-to-one, melodrama and all:

“Skull” = “Jonah” or “Fish”
“Island” = “Ossuary”
“Duck” = “Vessel”
“Bunny” = “Nephesh Tower”
“Scary” = “Theologically Traumatic” or “Early Christian”
 (The former I admit, is more Simcha’s phrase. 🙂 )

There: You now truly have the whole story that has played out these past weeks.

Peace,
-Steve

A Post Mortem Of The Resurrection Tomb Live Blogging

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

Where I was rather ill (blasted cold…), Bob Cargill, Mark Goodacre and Tom Verenna were having lots of fun live-blogging through The Resurrection Tomb Mystery last night.

Here are some of the highlights!

Bob’s comments:

“CGI is well done. Simcha’s CGI folks get an A+ (especially since we see so much of it in the documentary. And the press. And the book. And the website.)”


NOW THEY’RE GLOWING! SHOW THE ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPH!!!!

We kept being told, “Just wait for the documentary. You’ll see the actual pictures.” But there were none. There were better pictures on the website. The documentary kept showing a rotated vessel and inked circles to make them look like ‘fish’. And you now see why they rotated the fish from the catacombs scene. It’s a visual trick to prime the brain to see similar fish.

In the words of Gerald Ford, let us hope “our long national nightmare is over.” 🙂

Mark’s comments:

They are pressing on after making progress.  But the cable has snapped and they’ve hit a problem, a problem of the kind that in documentaries requires an . . .

. . . . ad break!

10.55: My wife has fallen asleep.

11.00: the documentary is over.  No real surprises.  One big disappointment for me was not seeing more of the ossuaries and the tomb itself.  I was surprised to see just how often they mentioned Joseph of Arimathea and just how weak the attempts to link the tomb to Jesus appeared. 

“Debate is just beginning”  Well, it’s been going on for six weeks or so and I’m afraid we are not persuaded.  Sorry, Simcha.  Sorry, James.

Tom’s comments:

That isn’t a skull, it’s a pelvis.

This rosette ossuary is the same filmed in the 2007 doc.

OMG!  Did they just TILT the orientation to make it look like a fish?!  Wow, talk about forcing the data to fit a conclusion here.

They keep using the CGI’d image, not actual photos.

Whew…that was brutally painful to watch.

Peace,
-Steve

Jonah Inscription Problems & Other “Possibilities”

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,
The “Jonah inscription” with ignored lines in black
and problem areas in pink.

(You’ll have to excuse my brevity. I’ve caught a nasty cold and am trying to devote as much time as I can to relax and get rid of it.)

With interpreting this series of carvings as “Yonah” (יונה) there are some serious difficulties to overcome.

First, no fewer than eight lines need to be ignored or omitted. There are, of course, the the two lines on the outside (not arguably important) but the line that runs down the middle actually bisects the interpreted “Yonah” which is exceedingly problematic. Finally, there are lines beneath the “Vav” and lines actually connected to the “Yod” which are also exceedingly problematic.

Second, the serif of what is identified as “Yod” may not be there. Very much related to the first point, however, one would expect serifs on carved yods like this.

Third, the crook of the nun does not look like it is connected. This is the far more serious problem with this interpretation, which would mean that the two lines are not part of an intended “letter” at all.

All of this in mind, one cannot just pick and choose which lines are part of an inscription and which aren’t. If that were the case, I could easily pull out “Jesus” and “three” and “days” from this set of squiggles (by using the “Four Rules” I mentioned in my last post) and then remark about how this couldn’t be by chance and that it *must* relate to Jonah and the whale. However, I could also pull out any other number of unrelated words and weave a story together with them as well.

Unless, at the very least, the line below the “Vav” is accounted for in the “text,” then this inscription (if does carry any semantic content) cannot be “Yonah.”

Cherry-picking only works with fruit.

“Theological Trauma” – Simcha Jacobovici

Uncategorized, , , ,

For more on the ABC Nightline feature concerning the Jonah Ossuary that spawned the above infographic, read:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/jesus-tomb-controversy-rages-archeologists-explore-2000-year/story?id=16111993

And watch:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/jesus-christ-resurrection-tomb-discovery-16113057

Kudos to Mark Goodacre and Bob Cargill on their contributions.

And here is an observation of my own:

“Fish” in the margins.

These fish don’t exist as much as the other “fish” on the ossuary.

See? Just ovals. No tails.

So… what are they doing on the “museum” replica?

Peace,
-Steve