Tag Archives: jonah

A Comparison of the First Replica

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

I’ve taken the time to further illustrate the First Replica next to the Second as well as what I’ve been able to trace from the photographs of the genuine ossuary. Click to enlarge to see the notes.

The first replica does well at reproducing some very strong visual elements of the original ossuary that are very prominent without knowledge of the alleged script. These are features that anyone would notice at a glance, simply because of the pattern the lines make: The prominent “V” shape between the “he” and the “nun” as well as the prominent “lens” shape between the “yod” and the “waw” as well as the “tav tail” on the “he.”

The second replica destroys and filters these features, instead leaning towards forms that better express “Jonah” with little ambiguity.

Additionally, on the first replica, the supposed “nun” is so very widely broken that there is no way to read it as one scratch. It also has some of the “minor” scratches that were prominent.

Thoughts?

Peace,
-Steve

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

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.

The “Jonah Ossuary” Images Debunked

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,
To quote Bob: “Fish don’t have handles.”
Click to enlarge and see.

Robert Cargill has posted a blog article that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exposes where the so-called “Jonah Ossuary” images were digitally manipulated. These manipulations were made to hide features that very plainly show that the “fish” are in fact pottery.

If that were not enough: 

Almost immediately after Bob posted this article (March 13 2012 @ 13:21, to be precise) the “The Jesus Discovery” blog (which is the official mouthpiece of Jacobovici and Tabor’s “findings”) pulled down one of the manipulated images to re-title replace it.

Needless to say, this is not how one deals properly with criticism, and this is not the first time that edits to the “findings” have been made without proper citation and documentation.

In the digital age, there is always a “paper trail” and those who are observant will find it. 🙂

The original image (#16 posted Feb 27 @ 21:42, subsequently deleted),
now image #61 posted Mar 14 @ 13:21.
Note the overlay for strokes that are not present in the image.
Please, click the image to enlarge and see for yourself.

Image #60, posted Mar 13 @ 18:07.
Please, click the image to enlarge and see for yourself.

UPDATE: The paper trail continues. At 18:07, the old image (where the “fish” outlines were doctored; previously #16 [deleted], and then #60 with un-doctored lines) was re-uploaded as image #61. I will be watching carefully to see if #60 is deleted.

Peace,
-Steve

More on “The Jesus Discovery” – A Fish? Nay.

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

I posted this over on the ASOR blog in the comments, but I feel I should also share it here in more elaboration:

What is this?

If you’re not aware, Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor believe this is a fish. Specifically, the whale that swallowed Jonah. That “ball” at the bottom? They believe it’s Jonah’s head, wrapped in seaweed, being spat out upon land.

I believe that this is a better metaphor to understand the current problem with that conclusion:

(Especially pertaining to Jonah’s head. Or should I say ‘skull’? Wait until about 0:28 and you will see *precisely* what I mean).

(HT to Tom Verenna for an excellent infographic.)

That aside, in the proper orientation, the lines of different texture are most consistent with layered patterns produced by potters and glass workers ubiquitous to the era. (As many other scholars have pointed out.)

If this — as a fish — is “a first” (as Dr. Tabor calls it) even a casual observer should see a bright, red flag: If this is without precedent and we have nothing to compare it with, standard procedure is to observe extreme caution before we make any unusual or sensational claims.

As the matter stands, we have many, many examples of pottery and other vessels on ossuaries and they look more like this image than anything else (in structure, motif, and function). With that precedent, I would feel it’s the safer and more likely conclusion.

The “Fish Hypothesis” (on the other hand) requires treating the inscription’s details as a bit of a Rorschach, which flings us from the stage of scientific inquiry and thrusts us into a completely different field altogether.

No, not this Rorschach.
But if you messed with him, you might end up in an ossuary yourself.

UPDATE: Robert Cargill has written an amazing exposé on how the images have been altered digitally. I can only concur with his analysis as the hallmarks of photoshopping are all too prominent.

Peace,
-Steve “I don’t see the skull” Caruso, MLIS