Since my last roundup, much has transpired.
It seems that there were some predispositions towards finding ‘Jonah and the Whale’ on an ossuary. Both Mark Goodacre and David Meadows (via Goodacre) found evidence of this and have posted some compelling information. If this is the case, one should not be so surprised by the ‘discovery’ of precisely what Simcha and his team were looking for.
Most absurd is Simcha’s claim that “NOBODY has been able to poke a hole into our reasoning or our facts or our methodology or our reporting.” How about Mark Goodacre for starters (and as he points out, these mistakes still remain on the website today)? And while we’re at it, Antonio Lombatti reports that Oded Golan was dishonest (*gasps and collapses under the weight of the shock*) about Rahmani’s impression of the James ossuary inscription. Jim West points out the obvious errors in the connection of the tomb to Joseph of Arimathea. But I also highly recommend Christopher Rollston’s critique of these claims as well. And James McGrath has quite a lot to say about the subject as well.
But the problems of both tombs don’t start or stop here. Bob Cargill and I spent a lot of time analyzing the photos and it is pretty clear that there are cases of digital manipulation. We both agree that it is likely part of the ancient ‘vase-motif’. In this regard we also both agree with Antonio Lombatti that the type of vase represented in the image doesn’t matter quite as much (though I certainly feel as though it is an unguentarium).
In other news, but related, the date has (finally) been scheduled for a verdict in the case of Oded Golan (whether or not he is dealing in illegal antiquities trade and his connection to the James ossuary).
Filed under: Archaeology, Belief, Biblioblogging, Scholarship Tagged: | james ossuary, James Tabor, Jonah and the Whale, Jonah Ossuary, Mark Goodacre, ossuary, Resurrection Tomb Mystery, Simcha Jacobovici, Talpiot, Talpiyot, The Jesus Discovery