Following closely on the heels of Professor Puech’s statement that he had been deceived, a statement which must be a major embarrassment for Simcha Jacobovici, Mark Goodacre let out the news that there are, in fact, two separate “Museum Quality” replicas of the so-called ‘Jonah Ossuary’.
Throughout the discussions of the Talpiot Tomb, right from the first, Simcha Jacobovici, James Tabor and others involved with the “Jesus Discovery” project (website here) have talked about and publicized what they call “the museum quality replica” of ossuary 6 from Talpiot tomb B. But here’s the curious thing. It’s not one replica. There are two different replicas. As far as I am aware — and I think I have read everything — they have never admitted that they produced a second replica to replace the first. (Please correct me if I am wrong). And when one notices what changes between the two replicas, there is some cause for concern.
And concludes wth some rather troubling questions:
It may be worth adding that the replica shown to Prof. Puech in the video released last week is clearly Replica 2, which has a version of the “YWNH” inscription that we see above, and not the ambiguous representation of Replica 1… As we have seen above, it is only Replica 2 that has a representation of the “YWNH” inscription that conforms with the interpretation of those involved in the project. Did the representation of “YWNH” on Replica 2 influence Prof. Puech’s reading?
But this has led me to question the veracity of the claim that these are even able to be defined as ‘replicas’. After all, I’ve seen replicas on display. I even own a replica of a Dead Sea Scroll that I purchased at the Discovery Center a few years ago during their Dead Sea Scroll exhibit. Replicas represent exactly (to the subtle details) the item they are meant to portray. Replicas at museums are meant to provide the viewer with an duplicate copy of an item so that the viewer feels like s/he is looking at the actual item, even though it isn’t present.
So when is a replica not a replica?
- (1) When the “replica” does not exactly match what it is meant to portray.
- (2) When a “replica” can be changed or altered to fit the subjective interpretations of the owners.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the case with these “Jonah” ossuary “replicas”. It seems that the first replica was fabricated to make the fish iconography stand out; but when criticism prevailed against it a new one was manufactured that removed some specific iconography and included an inscription that isn’t present in the first. So how can there be two replicas that contradict each other? And how can one really know what the ossuary looks like as it has yet to be removed form the tomb? We’ve already seen the evidence that someone in Simcha’s and James’s team has provided CGI images in place of actual photos in a misleading or unclear manner. So where does that leave this?
Check out Mark’s post for further details. I look forward to the hour when James Tabor and Simcha jacobovici remove the claim that these are “replicas”. They are nothing of the sort. Who knows if I’ll see that retraction, however; all I may get is name calling. I highly doubt Simcha will want to label me as a ‘Sleeper Agent’ of Christian theology; however time will tell.