Tag Archives: Mark Goodacre

Robert Cargill, The Enforcer

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

“Acting like an enforcer, Professor Cargill has assured us that by next week Puech will recant everything.”
– Simcha Jacobovici
So yes, Simcha Jacobovici is once again crying foul after bamboozling a scholar to seemingly endorse his ridiculous theories, when in truth they did not and is trying to lay the blame squarely upon the shoulders of Professor Robert Cargill.
Since I am content in my little bit of satire of Simcha’s overly-dramatic sweeping declarations, apparently elevating Bob to the status of Dirty Harry, I will simply link to the pertinent exposition and critical commentary:

UPDATE: Mark Goodacre over on the NT Blog has brought to light that the “Museum Quality Replica” of the so-called “Jonah Ossuary” has been given a facelift in light of criticism and the shifting claims of Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor. Strangely enough in Replica 2 the inscription that supposedly says “Jonah” is almost too clear compared to the order of scratches on the first replica (which don’t connect certain “letters”), and more importantly the mess of scratches in the actual photographs of the genuine ossuary.

(This second replica’s all-too-clean inscription, by the way, was what Professor Puech was apparently basing his reading off of.)

Curiouser and curiouser. I wonder what Jacobovici has to say about this?

I have to say that I am disgusted.

It’s all fun and games to have a replica made to show off to the press. Seriously. People enjoy that kind of thing. *I* enjoy that kind of thing.

However, it’s another issue entirely to call something a “replica” that’s demonstrably not faithful or accurate to the original, revise it without noting the changes after criticism has mounted so that it looks more like what you’re trying to prove, and then use that altered representation to apparently deceive someone prominent like Puech.

It’s even a further ethical failure, in my opinion, to then turn around and use that person’s opinion (which one can assume has been misinformed due to the altered inscription; think GIGO) as propaganda for one’s own “crackpot” theories.

I’m with Mark on this one. I believe that Simcha owes not just Prof. Puech, but everyone involved thus far an overdue apology for these tactics.

Peace,
-Steve

The Talpiot Tomb Names: A Metaphor For Mark Goodacre’s Contention

Uncategorized, , , ,
This is what Goodacre contends Tabor is insisting upon.
Err.. read on, it’ll make sense in a bit.  Promise.
Bear with me. πŸ™‚

So for those of you who have been following the latest on the Talpiot Tombs stuff, James Tabor has expressed what he feels is a problem with a common response to the claim that “the names in the Tomb are common” when he believes that they are, in fact, not.

Among those he mentioned who espouse this view is none other than Mark Goodacre, who himself wrote a response challenging Tabor’s list of names as untenable to begin with as a pastiche constructed from the Biblical accounts as well as from extra-Biblical documents.

Confused yet?

Wondering why there are bears at the top of this article?

Well, besides the fact that I like bears, allow me to explain both Tabor’s problem as well as Goodacre’s rebuttal with a metaphor about the Nativity. I’m not poking fun at Tabor or Goodacre (in fact if I’m poking fun at anyone, it is you, kind reader). I am simply trying to explain things in an easier way to understand them. With that in mind:

There we go. Here’s one that’s more bearable…
.. er I mean *less* bear–.. Nevermind.
You get the idea.

The Nativity is something that nearly everyone in the western world should be familiar with. It is a vignette of the birth of Christ in the manger with his earthly parents Mary and Joseph, heralded by Angels, given adoration by Shepherds and gifts from the Three Magi: Melchior, Caspar, and Balthazar.

If anyone were to come across these elements together, they would immediately say, “It’s a nativity scene” as that’s simply what’s in one, and this arrangement of elements is more or less unique. One can’t simply say “these elements are common” and that it’s by chance they all fall into the same place as the odds would very well be against them.

This is Tabor’s argument.

But then one asks: Does the Nativity scene actually represent what is in the Bible? All Nativities are actually a combination of the accounts about Jesus’ birth found only in Matthew and Luke. For example, Luke mentions Angels and Shepherds, Matthew does not. Matthew, on the other hand, mentions the Magi, and Luke does not. Some of the details from the scene don’t even occur in the Bible. To pick on the Magi again their traditional number and names are found nowhere in the Biblical account at all. There are also other traditional elements in the Nativity that do not seem to correlate with anything.

Melchior, Caspar, and Balthazar.
These Three Kings of Orient are MariamΔ“nΔ“. 
In Tabor’s argument.
In the Nativity metaphor.
If this is confusing at this point it’s only because you’ve only been skimming the pictures.

Because this set of elements does not faithfully describe the Biblical account (as to come at this set of elements requires some selective picking and choosing from the Bible as well as picking and choosing from some late sources well outside of the Bible), the actual set, itself is meaningless for historical comparison.

This is Goodacre’s argument.
In summary: Where Tabor wishes to call what looks like it could be a Nativity a Nativity, Goodacre doubts that the Nativity represents the Biblical account in the first place.
I hope this clears things up. πŸ™‚
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. πŸ™‚ )

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. πŸ™‚ )

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

Peace,
-Steve