More on "The Jesus Discovery" - A Fish? Nay.

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

The Pre-Easter Update - Forgeries & Follies

Sensationalist Lenten offerings for your enjoyment. :-)

Sorry for being on hiatus with all things blogging for a long while. Lots of family stuff has been going on (houses selling, people moving), I was sick for nearly all of January (rolling cold, flu and other unpleasantness), catching up on my business backlog nearly all of February, and starting a brand new project with my wife and my sister that will hopefully end in something awesome.


I hope to pick back up in time for the February top blogs list and get things back on the road.

Anyways, it's Lent!

And do you know what that means?

Sensationalist Biblical news in the run-up to Easter! :-D

So far we're off to a *great* start with two three things on our plate:

First, the Markan Fragment -- the Under Glass Edition! -- that looks like a Greek student's doodle on a piece of mail-order papyrus. And I should know, I've done $%^& like that to unsuspecting people for fun and laughs [1][2][3][4]. :-)

Many bloggers have chimed in with their doubts. I will add my voice to them: "CALL ME THOMAS! (no, not that Thomas; but I'm sure he agrees with me) I'M A DOUBTER!"

Second, another "Golden Letters on Animal Hide" manuscript that supposedly predicts the coming of the Prophet Muhammed, and that some people think might be the lost Gospel of Barnabas, prove one world religion superior to another, solve Rubix cubes by itself, yadda yadda yadda...

Let me put this bluntly: Vellum is expensive. Sharpie markers are cheap. Tourists will buy crap. Put all three of these together and you get your standard "golden letters on leather/animal hide trinket." I have seen no fewer than 3 of these in the past 5 years (2 in pseudo-Syriac, 1 in copied Hebrew) and I will take a metaphorical bite out of my hat if the writing has no trace of modern (or at the very least seriously anachronistic) ink.

UPDATE:  Number 3! James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici are also gearing up for another Lent release (last year it was the real nails of Jesus, remember?). James McGrath reports on Simcha's latest grab for attention: "The Jesus Discovery."

"This book documents a new archaeological discovery in a 1st century Jewish tomb in Jerusalem that relates to the earliest faith of Jesus’ followers. The tomb is located less than 200 feet away from the controversial Talpiot “Jesus family tomb,” raising the question of their relationship. Authors James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici analyze the new discovery as well as its implications for understanding the Jesus tomb. Expect to be surprised at the conclusions."

Really? ... Really? .... *sigh*...

Then there is the old business of the Jordan Lead Codices -- now with ugly leather covers! -- which first appeared in full force a few Easters ago. As expected, nothing really new has happened. No earth-shattering revelations. No examples of anything to show they're authentic (in fact, many examples that show how they've biffed it royally with these fakes; read all the back posts on this blog).

Just keep an eye out. I'd guarantee there will be another "tidbit" on these in the near future to try and grab some "Easter-share" away from the two three others I've mentioned.

In any case, I hope to be back to blogging soon. Until then!

Peace,
-Steve

David Elkington and the Lead Codices... More Rubbish...

Sorry for the hiatus. Moved into a new apartment, and now the whole family has come down with a sniffle. :-P It has been madness, but more on that later...

Anyways!

So, Elkington has posted a new video that shows the codices being tested at a lab.

However, taking a close look at the codex that's being tested, it's one of those babble-text examples with little doubt.

These have been turning up in the markets of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and other places throughout the world, each with a different absolute claim of origins and antiquity.

But here's another kicker. Elkington claims the following on his Facebook page:

Thanks to certain critics of this page, we would like to highlight a correction to a small portion of text found within a transcription of the Oxford (OMCS) metallurgical report. Whilst typing from the original copy (the scanned original is also posted on this site ) a sentence was unintentionally omitted, which has since been corrected. Please note that this has no bearing on the final conclusions of the report.

"Unintentionally" my big toe.

Dan McClellan I think put it best a long while ago:

Will Elkington argue for haplography as a result of homoioarcton? [[my note: YEP!]] Possibly, but it can be no coincidence that the edited text supports a fundamental claim that Elkington highlights and emphasizes elsewhere. Elkington has demonstrably altered the report to support his assertions. This is flagrant and egregious deception, and it shows quite conclusively that Elkington is willing to lie and to openly and transparently manipulate scientific data to make his codices appear ancient. They simply are not.

I have no doubt that this set of lab tests will say that the lead is old, as every example is made of ancient lead. However (as I'm sure I've mentioned before) ancient lead is so common that the quantity necessary to make a codex can purchased on eBay for $5. (Here's some more, too.)

However, the report is very clear that the corrosion is not ancient, and the researcher behind the Oxford report (which was the one that was altered), when asked *specifically* what he meant, he pegged the window of construction at a few decades to about 100 years.

Hardly the 2,000 years Elkington claims.

In any case, the academics are fairly unanimous (including those who are on Elkington's supposed "team"): These codices are bogus.

Peace,
-Steve

"Archaic Aramaic Bible" - Weird

Over on BLT, there is a very odd modern Bible that they're showcasing with writing in "Archaic Aramaic" script.

At very first glance I thought it was written in Samaritan, but upon closer examination it seems to be lifted from the Mesha Stele (a Moabite flavor of Phoenician script). I recommend you give it a look and check out the comments. Very, very odd.

Peace,
-Steve

Jordan Lead Codices Page on The Biblioblog Reference Library

On The Biblioblog Reference Library:

In early March 2011 the media reported upon an amazing discovery: Twenty to seventy codices, cast in lead, that potentially held untold secrets about early Christianity. However, from the very beginning something about the discovery appeared improper. Over the course of seven months, an informal group of Bibliobloggers (scholars and students who blog about Biblical Studies) took the time to form a private email list to investigate and discuss the objects and the people behind them. This page serves as a place to showcase their collective insights.

The current consensus is that the Jordan Codices released to date are not authentic.

Read more here. :-)

Peace,
-Steve

Jordan Codices: Another Stamp Identified - Marcus Ambiblius' Prutah

(HT to Tom Verenna)

The "weeping  palm" icon was hand-copied very much like the helmet motif on Herod The Great's 8-Prutot Piece (scroll down to the animated gif), only from a poor example.

This motif is only found in one other piece in antiquity, and that is on the coins of Coponius, who was Ambiblius' predecessor (6-9 AD) with slight variation.

I was able to find a good example of a worn specimen that illustrates exactly how similar these illustrations are.

Taking everything into account (as this motif is found on plates that contain repeated, stamped text as well), this yet another strong evidence of forgery/fakery as the iconography on the Codices continues to betray itself as a pastiche of disparate eras, crudely copied en-masse.

Peace,
-Steve

Jordan Codices: More About the Altered Metallurgical Report

(Lead, from Wikipedia.)

So you may be aware about how the informal group of Bibliobloggers who are putting the Jordan Codices and surrounding circumstances under the microscope recently uncovered that one of the metallurgical reports was tampered with on the Jordan Codices Facebook page. (For background, see Tom Verenna's video and Dan McClellan's post about the debacle thusfar.)

In this post, I'd like to go over what was originally stated in parts of that report with some ambiguous language clarified by the researcher who wrote it, Dr. Peter Northover, himself (of whom I am deeply grateful for taking his time to correspond with me).

When I first contacted Dr. Northover (whose late first wife, I found out, was Alison Northover, a highly respected librarian whose legacy for professional development is held today in memory by a prestigious award; it's a small world for us librarians it seems) back in late August before this was reported in the biblioblogs, I brought to his attention that his report was manipulated by the administrator of the Facebook group and quoted it for him.

I also asked him if he was familiar with David Elkington and what exactly he meant by calling the codices "not a recent production" (as that was a phrase that is emphasized by a number of the Codices' supporters).

He, at first, replied rather surprisingly that he did not know who David Elkington was and that he did not recognize the report I quoted. Although he immediately emailed me back while I was drafting my reply, saying that he was able to recall the report after thinking hard about it because, "the first stretch of text was so edited [he] didn't recognise it at all." (And frankly, I cannot blame him.)

He told me:

"I have only seen two of the codices and only one of them open and that just contained inscriptions. The trace element pattern of the lead was consistent with anciently produced lead, although there is so much of that around that it is easy to get some to re-use. [...] I understand there are some copper ones, which are a much better target for authenticity [studies], which may be why I have not seen them."

And when he got to my question about his choice of words, he revealed:

"My own use of the phrase 'not a recent production' implied that the piece I examined in detail had not been made in the last few years, or possibly decades, but I could not rule out a date of, say, a century ago or so."

This struck me as a very different timetable vis-à-vis the claims the Codices' supporters were touting. Ambiguity with, in hindsight, less than sufficient context is something that is easily preyed upon, and that ambiguous language plus a few carefully made edits was able to turn a good portion of the report's original concerns around.

He then revealed that Robert Feather (one of the earliest individuals associated with the Codices in the media) and an unnamed journalistic partner were the individuals who had commissioned the report. At my request he tried to give me an introduction to Feather via email and contacted him at the very beginning of September.

Despite Feather telling Dr. Northover in reply that he would contact me shortly, it has been two weeks and I haven't heard from him (however, I have conversed with Northover several times in that period). Yesterday I decided to try and be bold and reach out to Feather, so I sent him an email explaining who I was and that I had hoped he would contact me back.

As of writing this article, I still have not heard from him; however, I still sincerely hope that will change.

Peace,
-Steve



NOTE: Out of respect, I have withheld quoting Dr. Northover's emails in entirety until I have obtained explicit permission to do so; however, I took great care not to quote him out of context as it would be a great insult to the kindness he has shown to me in taking the time to explain his words. The reason I did this is because we discussed a number of things (don't get any ideas either, this isn't anything scandalous :-) ) that I do not believe he would like posted all over the Internet.