[UPDATE 3/16/2012: Click here for Prof. James Tabor's response to Robert Cargill's expose, the subject of the original post.]
A busy day for Talpiot-related news!
Not only did we have the verdict of the James ossuary trial, but yesterday Prof. Robert Cargill posted a verylengthy and devastating analysis of the various image alterations of the Talpiot B tomb “fish art” in this most recent tomb (with many images and illustrations). The stench has become truly overwhelming. Some excerpts are worth including here (boldfacing is Cargill’s):
One can clearly see that the image has been drawn to suggest a “Jesus fish” image where there clearly is none. The “Fish in the margins” image contains artificially added, digitally “inked” lines colored to resemble naturally engraved limestone lines, which do not correspond to the engraved lines on the ossuary. The digital “ink” extends well beyond the engraved lines of the actual image, which do NOT overlap. This means that the image was digitally altered to generate the illusion of small “fishes swimming” around the edges of the ossuary, perhaps to support the illusion that the image just beneath them is a “fish” and not some sort of vessel.
The evidence of commission presented above is indisputable. An unacknowledged digital alteration was clearly made to the “Fish in the margins” image to create the illusion that there are fishes swimming around the edges of the ossuary. And again, this digital manipulation is nowhere acknowledged in the image or its caption. This is textbook digital manipulation of a image for the purposes of supporting a particular claim.
And…
Thus, despite the fact that the engraved lines comprising the oval loop handle are as clearly visible at the same angle and in the same light as other engraved lines comprising so-called “fish’s tail,” and despite the fact that the same engraved oval loop and handles are also clearly visible on the so-called “half fish” on a different panel of the same ossuary, for some reason, Mr. Jacobovici and Dr. Tabor chose to omit this evidence from their representations, and chose not to represent the evidence in the heavily Photoshopped “CGI” “computer enhanced” “composite image” they have been offering to the press.
Ouch.
Cargill’s treatment is supplemented by another analysis of the alleged ossuary fish by Juan V. Fernández de la Gala, Forensic Anthropologist and Zooarchaeologist.
A “not guilty” verdictin the seven-year trial of antiquities dealer Oded Golan was announced today. The trial was significant in that it involved the James ossuary (and so, naturally, its inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”). As I blogged a short time ago (see point #3 at the link), though the ossuary itself is accepted by all as authentic, many scholars consider the inscription to be entirely or partly faked. Since this ossuary is thought by some (namely Jacobovici and Tabor) to have originally been interred in the first Talpiot tomb (the “Jesus family tomb”), the case has been watched closely.
Mark Goodacre has a round-up of scholarly responses to the verdict. Most (Tabor of course is an exception) don’t think a legal verdict means the inscription is authentic, declaring that the scientific evidence against the inscription is a separate issue from who is responsible for it. The response of Eric Meyers of Duke University, whose comments are representative:
“I would therefore emphasize that because the government, in this case, the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel Police, failed to prove that the artifacts in question were inauthentic in no way means that they are authentic. The burden of proof that falls on the prosecution in a criminal case must rise to a high level of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that the defendants have been acquitted thus does not end the matter of the quest to decide authenticity. This leaves much opportunity for academic opinion to continue to believe that these artifacts are not authentic and to question their provenance.”
Meyers’ response also includes mention of the fact that “The prosecutor Dan Bahat said the case had been weakened by the refusal of a key witness to travel from Egypt to testify, the same person who had appeared on Sixty Minutes.”
Those of you who have been following the discussion over the Talpiot B “fish symbol” will find this of interest. Kudos to Mark Goodacre for posting Amos Kloner’s 1980 photograph inside this tomb before it was sealed (see Tabor’s report) that is available on the “Jesus Discovery” website (NOTE per Mark Goodacre in the comments: this “fish” is the “half fish” on the side of the ossuary rather than the so called “Jonah fish” on its front facade). The “fish” symbol is visible in the photo. You can go to the post and click on Goodacre’s link to a high resolution image of the “fish” to see the point Goodacre is making — the “fish” has handles. This of course would be no surprise if the “fish” is an unguentarium ( a flask), but it’s not expected (!) for a fish.
I took the liberty of adding lines to the left and right-hand of the image so readers could see the point Goodacre is making (click on the links). While the (larger image) left-hand side has the most visibly clear lines (of a handle)
I just read the the lengthy essay by Richard Bauckham entitled, “The Four Line Ossuary Inscription from Talpiyot Tomb B: An Interpretation” posted on the ASOR blog today. It’s fascinating, and exactly what I was hoping would follow the Rollston article. Bauckham comes up with some examples of what Rollston was sure did not exist — the letter iota with top and bottom horizontal strokes — and so the reading IAIO seems secure in my mind. This is what ought to happen in interchanges between scholars; one corrects another, and they collectively lay out the strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, for the millions who read only the first headline and its content, framed by whatever archaeo-bungling, headline-seeking journalist who wrote it, articles like this might as well not exist. That headline is now their truth. It’s appalling when that happens, but to deliberately cause it to happen is unconscionable. But I digress.
I would recommend the Bauckham article to all. It’s technical, but worth it even for non-specialists. His conclusion is that the inscription is rare since it couples the divine name, Yahweh, with Zeus. But he allows for another take on it. If Bauckham’s preference (the Zeus reading) is correct, why that coupling may have been done receives considerable attention. Such conceptual linkages were not that unusual. It made me think of how, iconographically, Yahweh is associated with Sol Invictus in certain Jewish synagogues that have zodiac mosaics. Such a linkage need not be seen as an expression of the theological compromise of Yahwism (it certainly wasn’t in a synagogue). What is unusual in the present case is the coupling on an ossuary inscription. Bauckham also concludes that the inscription has nothing to do with Jesus or early Christianity. To date there is nothing in Talpiot B that does. As I noted in a recent reply to James Tabor in the comments, even if the symbol is the sign of Jonah, a Jew could have thought of that story in resurrection terms (and connected it to three days via Hosea 6:2). Frankly, for Jesus’ statement about the sign of Jonah to have any impact (Matt 12:39), it couldn’t have been a Christian symbol at the time of the speaking. He was speaking to JEWS (Matt 12:38) — and so it would have had to mean something to that audience. But I still don’t see a fish spitting out a man. The “man” seems like a blob to me.
I was prodded to write this summary post by Mark Goodacre’s most recent post on Simcha Jacobovici’s apparent obliviousness to the academic criticisms of his work by Mark and others. In a video dated to last year, Jacobovici pretends to be unaware of any mistakes in his work and its presentation.
There are only two explanations for how he “missed” Mark’s list of errors (this weekend will mark four years that they have been online) and those of others: (1) ineptitude; and (2) apathy fueled by self-aggrandizement. I’ll let readers decide which one makes more sense. My money is on the latter.
Mark, of course, good-natured as he is, seems to have assumed that Jacobovici actually cared about the discourse over the past few years and the past few days. I can imagine Mark doing his best to imagine $imcha pouring over the scholarly interaction, fretting here and there about how he could have done a better job of thinking more carefully about the data. Forget it, Mark. That never happened nor will it. After years of blogging on paleobabble and the constant internet trafficking of antiquity-twaddle (and even more years of doing so by email), I can tell you from hard experience that the last thing people like Jacobovici are interested in is pursing truth objectively. They are interested in the “truth” of the agenda they have constructed. I know this comes across as harsh, but it’s just the way the paleo-babbling grist mill works. I’m more jaded than Mark because I’ve seen dozens of other archaeo-hucksters pretend that their work is so paradigm-shifting and intellectually overwhelming that it cannot be answered by mainstream “in-the-box” scholars. It’s PR BS; just part of keeping people interested enough to keep coming back for the next credit card swipe. And Jacobovici is better at it than most.
Consequently, as a refresher of sorts, I thought I’d put together a summary of where all this is really at — what are the main sticking points?
Aside from Mark Goodacre’s listing of errors on Jacobovici’s website presentation of this tomb, what has all the discussion of which Jacobovici feigns ignorance produced? What’s the current situation? Here’s a list of the most crucial points:
The “Jesus Family Tomb”
1. The Names in the Tomb
A. Paucity of Patronyms
Most of the names in the tomb lack patronyms. That is, we have no idea of the relationships between the people in the tomb. This applies to “Jesus son of Joseph” and either of the Marys in the tomb. Jacobovici (and Dan Brown, another scholar) wants people to think that Jesus and one of the Marys (the one whose name allegedly reads “Mariamne,” and alleged reference to Mary Magdalene) as being married.But why not brother and sister? Aunt and nephew? Grandmother and grandson? Second cousins twice removed? No patronyms = guesswork. The same goes for any of the other names lacking patronyms. There is ZERO evidence in any ancient text that Jesus was married to anyone. For example, you can click here to watch some exciting screen capture videos of me searching the Gnostic gospels (in vain) for a Jesus’ marriage. You can see Goodacre’s list of errors in regard to the “Mariamne” red herring as well.
B. The Commonality Issue
Most of the names in the tomb are common. The retort to this is that the assemblage of these names in a single tomb is not common. But how would we know that? Rahmani lists 227 inscribed ossuaries, many of which are from the same tomb, and so few family tombs have actually been discovered. The most reasonable scholarly estimates of the population of first century Jerusalem at no more than 100,000, most of whom were Jews (Samuel Rocca, Herod’s Judaea [Mohr Siebeck, 2008], p. 333). So let’s say 75,000 Jews in first century Jerusalem. Numerically, there would have been many more family tombs than have been discovered, so any estimate of the rarity of any collection of names is based on navigating without instruments. The point: Rarity in terms of the data we have is not the same as rarity in terms of the data that corresponded to a first century Jerusalem reality. Not having the latter gives no warrant to substituting the former and pretending it’s the latter. That’s a little thing I like to call “cheating.”
The statistical likelihood of this being Jesus’ family tomb is also greatly influenced by the name Yoseh. If this name is just a variant of the more common Joseph, the probability that the tomb is truly that of Jesus of Nazareth is 2-3%. If, on the other hand, Yoseh is a rare name, then the probability is 47%. Mark Goodacre has pointed out for years now that Yoseh and Joseph are interchanged in the gospels for the same person:
The difficulty over (1) is that the names Joses and Joseph are clearly regarded as similar or the same in the New Testament. Mark 6.3 calls Jesus’ brother “Joses” while the parallel in Matt. 13.55 calls him “Joseph”. Matthew clearly regards Joseph as an alternative, preferable way of saying “Joses”. Likewise, the character who appears in Mark 15.40 and 15.47 is called Joses in Mark and Joseph the Matthean parallel (Matt. 27.56). Moreover, the fact that this character may be a different character than the brother of Jesus also witnesses against the alleged extraordinary nature of the name. The same Joseph / Joses variation is found in the texts too, and not just here in Matthew but also in Acts 4.36, Joses / Joseph Barnabas.
So, if we go with the data we have for the persons actually in question (Jesus’ family) the name is not rare; it is a variant for “Joseph.”
[UPDATE 3/13/2012: Richard Bauckham was kind enough to add the following note in the comments page regarding this name:
"There is an important point about the name Yoseh which is being missed. People seem to have accepted the claim by Tabor and the others that there are only 9 occurrences. But they get this figure by distinguishing between Yoseh(final he) and what Tabor says is “Yosi” (final yod). These are in fact the same. The latter should be vocalised “Yose” (long e). Yoseh is an Aramaic spelling, Yosey a Hebrew spelling. The combined total occurrences for the two forms is about 40, which means a considerably higher frequency. In this case, Yose is not ‘rare.’ Of course, it is also true, as has been said a number of times in these discussions, that Yose is just a shortened form of Joseph(Yosef or Yehosef), and the same person would often be known by both full and short forms. Matthew has Joseph where Mark has Joses, no doubt because Matthew preferred the formal to the colloquial form. The same could happen on an ossuary inscription or in other places."]
2. Logical Coherence
A. Yoseh and Judas
The above issue with the name Yoseh is important for another reason. On one hand, Jacobovici would have us be breathlessly astonished with how his evidence coincides with the gospels, while on the other hand, we are to ignore where it simply is not. Goodacre succinctly notes this inconsistency in two regards:
(1) They claim that “Yoseh” is significant because it is rare, a claim that does not take the New Testament evidence seriously.
(2) They do not regard “Judas son of Jesus” as contradictory evidence for the identification with the Jesus family.
Honestly, we are supposed to believe Jesus had a son (by Mary Magdalene) and named him JUDAS!? Yes; that is what we are asked to believe.
B. Logic Check
I can’t help asking what to me are some obvious questions:
This tomb was not hidden underground. Given its famous occupants, how is it that no enemy of the early church, Roman or Jewish, simply didn’t end Christianity by exhuming the bones of Jesus of Nazareth from his own tomb showing the whole thing to be a sham?
“Matthew” is a name on one of the ossuaries. So, presuming with Jacobovici that he is the Matthew who wrote the Gospel of Matthew, and that Jesus of course was long dead before he wrote it, how in the world would Matthew get away with that scam? No one local in Jerusalem knew it was a scam? Seriously?
3. The James Ossuary Debate
Most scholars believe the ossuary is genuine, but that the inscription (“James the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus/Yeshua”). There are good reasons (here and here and here) to consider either the whole or the second half of the inscription to be faked (i.e., added by a modern hand). This would make the related issue of whether this ossuary was one of the missing ossuaries in the “Jesus Family tomb” moot. Obviously, if if came from that tomb, then the statistics would have to be reworked (but that would not in term affect the Yoseh issue noted above, or the logical coherence issues). And even if it came from the tomb, the inscription could still be a fake (whole or part). Someone could have taken a blank ossuary from that tomb and added the inscription. The official final report of the Israel Antiquities Authority on this ossuary included these epigraphic experts (with their summative thoughts included):
The Ossuary Inscription Committee
Prof. Amos Kloner (Appendix 6E)
It is clear that the engraving on the bone box dates from a different period than its original installation. The inscription appears new. The writer tried giving the letters an ancient appearance by using samples from contemporaneous inscriptions.
Dr. Tal Ilan (Appendix 6F)
Even if the ossuary is authentic, there is no reason to assume that the deceased was actually the brother of Jesus. But I am of the opinion that the inscription is a forgery.
Prof. Roni Reich (Appendix 6D and 6D1)
The inscription does not exhibit a combination of configurational or substantial effects that would imply forgery. But I was convinced that the inscription is a forgery when presented with the findings by the Materials Committee.
Dr. Esther Eshel (Appendix 6G)
From my examination of the inscription and the data I received, it appears to me quite clear that the inscription is not authentic, and was added at a much later date (possible in two stages).
Incidentally, the verdict in the antiquities hoaxing trial that involves this ossuary is set to be announced next Wednesday. Regardless of the verdict, it seems the inscription involved fakery judging by the links noted above. The patina issue as it relates to the inscription seems very suspicious.
The Talpiot B Tomb
My thoughts on this are captured in an earlier post. Basically, we have an inscription reading (for the divine name) that lacks precedent in terms of letter formation and a picture that is supposed to be a fish spitting out a man (Jonah), but the man is a blob. No man; no Jonah, and no fish [insert blurry UFO picture joke here]. I’m going with the unguentarium view of the drawing. It makes the most sense.
Just wanted to check in regarding the new Talpiot tomb discovery (referred to most often it seems as Talpiot B). I’m caught up with all the reading available online, beginning with James Tabor’s description of the discovery and sketch-analysis (“A Preliminary Report of a Robotic Camera: Exploration of a Sealed 1st Century Tomb in East Talpiot, Jerusalem“). It’s the place to start. Here’s what you’ll learn: (a) there is an inscription on one of the ossuaries that Tabor believes to contain the divine name (Yahweh) in Greek, and that contains the word for resurrection; and (b) there is an image of a great fish / whale spitting out a man — i.e., the sign of Jonah, a symbol in the gospels for resurrection.
I have to say I’m disappointed. I was expecting more. The earlier Talpiot tomb (the so-called “Jesus family tomb”) was not only more interesting, but the issues just seemed to require more analysis. I’ve now read Rollston’s response on the inscription, and if it is correct (and Rollston should know; he’s an epigrapher) that the “I” of the presumed divine name can’t be that letter (it would be anomalous in shape), then there is no divine name. It would be nice to have an example of two contrary to Rollston before we allow Tabor’s reading to be valid. And it doesn’t seem to matter, since resurrection wasn’t a distinctly Christian idea. I have to agree with Eric Meyers who doesn’t think there’s anything to fuss about. As for the whale / fish, the blob at the end of it simply doesn’t look *anything* like a man. Just zero resemblance (maybe to Picasso it would be clear). The two other options offered by art historians are that the symbol is either a drawing of a nephesh tomb monument (see Cargill’s response for examples) or an unguentarium, a small receptable for perfumed oils used for anointing the dead for burial (e.g., Mk 14:3; Jn 12:3). I have to agree with Tabor that the nephesh option seems weak. I find the unguentarium option fairly compelling, though, especially for the blob at the top (example 1 and example 2, courtesy of Thomas Verenna).
So, I’m currently at “no fish, no Jonah, and very likely no divine name.” It just feels vacuous. And even if Tabor is correct on all these counts, there is nothing that actually connects this tomb to the other — it’s just a hunch or supposition. I’d sooner go back to the first tomb and have another round of research there than spend any more time on this one. It would be more stimulating.
The most disturbing piece I read on Talpiot B was easily that of Dr. Robin Jensen — Prof. Robin Jensen Refutes Any Claim that She Concurs with the Interpretation in “The Jesus Discovery”. If there’s any piece that all of you should read it’s this one. She describes her trip to Rome to participate in the filming of the National Geographic special on this tomb. It can only be described as a deliberate attempt to manipulate her status as an art historian for the sake of pre-determined conclusions. James Tabor responded to her piece in the comments: “Nothing was twisted. You appear in the film totally out of connection with the Jerusalem tomb, only the catacombs.” I’ll give James the benefit of the doubt there, that he’s being forthright, but his response misses the point. It’s ultimately not about where she appeared (in the final version) in the film. It’s about the fact that Jacobovici tried hard to get her to say something (or sound like she was saying something) she didn’t believe. He was looking for a sound bite, pure and simple (presuming she is to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt her either). Perhaps I’m a bit sensitive to this, since I have lived this scenario myself with the History Channel. The facade put forth is that truth is the first goal; her anecdote says otherwise.
Lots of material being generated pretty quickly. Hereis a worthwhile overview from Mark Goodacre’s NT blog. The post that Mark directs us to by Tom Verenna that serves as a collection of response is here(just in case you don’t click through to the Goodacre post).
And alas, the archaeo-nitwits in the mainstream media are doing their level best to distort the material to create headlines and garner readers. Goodacre notes:
Always be wary of newspaper headlines that ask questions. The answer is almost always “No”.
This is the sort of reason I do not trust Jacobovici. For those who read the comments, James Tabor and I have had a brief exchange. I just don’t understand why he doesn’t drop Jacobovici like a bad habit. Using the clueless archaeo-media to introduce new discoveries is only about generating cash, and that’s what Simcha does. If by “professional” James means the book, then I can say I’m willing to think that will be worth reading and demonstrate some careful thought — at least his credentials give me hope there). But if “professional” refers to endorsing the use of a popular journalistic army of willful or witless distorters to filter the material for the public, I’m not on board. Any good work will get lost in the nonsense. This approach invariably generates a lot of bad thinking and erroneous conclusions that will, to many, become their truth. Since I’ve spent my share of time trying to inject sanity into the world of paleobabble, I have seen many times over that this cycle is very real. I know how it works and the effects it has. It is in no way responsible.
And in any event, even if one could remove the method of announcement and everything was very professional, at the end of the day, non sequiturs professionally put forth are still non sequiturs. I know that peer-reviewed material isn’t immune from that problem, but review cuts down on it, and allows the writer the kind of input that helps sharpen thinking before things filter down to the uninitiated but interested non-specialists. By this method non get flagged until consumed and absorbed (and purchased) by the populace. It’s the methodological equivalent to using mainstream media connections to announce a cure for cancer without clinical trials, or presenting one’s off-the-radar conspiratorial theory (the academic word would be avant garde) about Zionism instead of getting critical feedback from field experts first. But that’s boring and doesn’t generate sales.
Again, I need to know how this is responsible. It’s a simple, reasonable request.
The blogosphere is already heating up with responses from scholars to the new “discoveries” of $imcha Jacobovici and James Tabor. Those interested can keep up with the responses of professional scholars via the ASOR blog, which seems poised to become a clearing house of sorts for this topic (ASOR = American Schools of Oriental Research, a scholarly society focusing on archaeology, epigraphy, biblical studies, and the ancient Near East). Here are some posts already on the site:
This post is by Christopher Rollston, a specialist in Northwest Semitic epigraphy (inscriptions). Since this latest Jacobovici and Tabor effort goes back to the Jesus Family Tomb, building on that monument to the non sequitur, Rollston revisits the inscriptional material of that tomb.
Thanks go to Charles Jones at Ancient World Online for posting this “pre-print” article, “The Cosmos in the Antikythera Mechanism” (due to the size, it is best to right-click and “Save File As”; you will also have to re-size the file in Adobe Reader, since the images do not scale with the font size). It is far and away the most detailed report on the Antikythera Mechanism I’ve seen. It is basically a full analysis of the mechanism, and ancient celestial calculator, that I’ve seen. It has many X-Ray photos and graphical reconstruction images. If you’re interested in this amazing piece of ancient HUMAN technology, this is a must-read.
Since the link for the article is not permanent, I have converted the page to PDF. But be advised, all the images in it make the file large (30 MB), so give it time to download. The permanent URL for online access to this paper is not active yet, but will be: http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/4
And for those who will insist the mechanism is another example of alien technology, either given to humans or “reverse engineered” by the ancient Greeks, think again. As amazing as the mechanism is, it didn’t work that well. From section 3.10 of the report:
We compare the positions of Mars, as reconstructed by NASA with the Mechanism’s predictions over the middle seven retrogrades of Mars in the 1st Century BC—a period of about 13 years.(86) Serious error spikes can be seen, amounting to nearly 38°—more than a zodiac sign—at the retrogrades. The deferent and epicycle theories, on which the mechanisms depended, might be regarded as an adequate first-order approximation but were completely inadequate for accurate prediction at the retrogrades, particularly for Mars. More accuracy would have to wait for more sophisticated theories such as those employed by Ptolemy in the second century AD. Added to these inherent theoretical errors were significant mechanical inaccuracies because of the way that the rotations were transmitted through the gear trains.(87)
In short, the Antikythera Mechanism was a machine designed to predict celestial phenomena according to the sophisticated astronomical theories current in its day, the the sole witness to a lost history of brilliant engineering, a conception of pure genius, one of the great wonders of the ancient world—but it didn’t really work very well!
Thanks to Mark Goodacre for alerting the blogging community to the new site by Steve Caruso that aggregates all the data and evidence pertaining to the lead codices fakery. Very handy and very well done.
