PhilosopherJay

James Tabor has apparently doubled down on his Jesus Tomb Discovery.
His second amazing discovery of 1st Century Christianity has already attracted sharp criticism. See "Doubts About the 'Jesus Discovery.'


Gordon Franz has probably correctly identified the alleged Noah's Fish as a jar of some sort and not a fish at all.



What is disturbing is Tabor's dishonesty in changing the direction of the object in pictures released in news articles. It is clear that nobody would imagine the object as a fish releasing Noah on the sea floor, if he indicated the actual direction of the image on the ossuary. Here is the image with the alleged Fish's mouth clearly pointing downward.



Compare this to the image in the Daily Mail newspaper in the U.K. Here it seems to be a normal fish swimming right to left.


At least some Christian sites are rejecting Tabor's nonsense. See 'Jesus Discovery' Has 'Zero Percent Chance' of Being True, Say Experts.

Any other guesses as to what the image actually is?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

It is NOT only Christians who believed Jesus existed and are on a QUEST for evidence.

There are so-called Atheists who are LOOKING for evidence of an historical Jesus and may have hoped that James Tabor was right.

There will NOT ever be found any credible evidence for the existence of Jesus of the NT. The authors WROTE Fiction and PUBLICLY circulated that Jesus was the Child of a Ghost and God the Creator that transfigured and Walked on Sea water.

Why doesn't James Tabor read the Gospels??

The Gospels and all NT authors made SURE that they did NOT at all claim Jesus had a human father.

James Tabor MUST first read the NT.

In the NT:

1. Herod was tetrarch.

2. Pilate was governor.

3. Caiaphas was High Priest.

4. Tiberius was Emperor.

5. Gabriel was an Angel.

6. Satan was the Devil.

7. Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

James Tabor should have realised long ago that we are dealing with Myth Fables that were PUBLICLY known and circulated in antiquity.

The NT is NOT about an historical Jesus but a compilation of Historical RECORDS of the Myth Fables that people BELIEVED.

From Plutarch we KNOW people of antiquity BELIEVED the Myth Fables of Romulus and Remus.

From the Existing Codices we know people of antiquity BELIEVED the Myth Fables of the charater called Jesus.

No historical records of Jesus was EVER produced in any argument from apologetic and non-apologetic sources until the forgeries used by a writer under the name of Eusebius.

Any person who presents any evidence for an historical Jesus will only present fakes or is a fraud.

When the author of gMatthew PUBLICLY documented Jesus was the Child of a Ghost and the author of gLuke confirmed it then it is NOT likely at all that any evidence will ever surface to contradict them 1600 years later.

James Tabor, Christians and Atheist who BELIEVE there was an historical Jesus will always come away totally disappointed by hoax after hoax because they refuse to accept that Jesus was a Myth Fable as can be CLEARLY seen in ALL version of the Existing Codices.

PhilosopherJay

It seems pretty clear to me that their are two images here. The top half is a chalice of some kind. There is no lettering, but four lines of decorative patterns on it.

Then there is a triangular cyclinder with a small opening at the bottom. It looks like something is dripping out of the small opening at the bottom.

It looks like some kind of straining or purification process to me.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

la70119

A fish does NOT look like this.

Neither does a stick-figure human, in what appears to be in the alleged fish's mouth.

thentian

I'd say it's an amphora. One greek type was called Loutrophoros. Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on that:

The loutrophoros was used to hold water during marriage and funeral rituals, and was placed in the tombs of the unmarried.[1] The loutrophoros itself is a motif for Greek tombstones, either as a relief (for instance, the lekythos on the Stele of Panaetius) or as a stone vessel. There are many in the funeral area at the Kerameikon in Athens, some of which are now preserved in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens.

There's a photograph of one in that article, too.

Sheshbazzar

A lot of guessing going on all around. Nice Rorschach image that.
Revealing more about the thought processes of the beholders, than anything about that which is beheld.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Thentian,

Good catch. The Loutrophoros shown in the picture at the website you pointed to is even a closer match than the one that Gordon Franz had at his website in the OP.

You can really see it looking side by side.
I also found another Loutrophoros where the shape is a little different, but the "W" or "M" band is almost identical to the band on the ossuary.


Since the Loutrophoros is already associated with Greek funeral rituals, we may suppose that Tabor has discovered, at best, not that there were Christians buried in Jerusalem in the First century, but rather that Greeks or Jews who had assimilated Greek customs were buried there.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Sheshbazzar,

Agreed. However, while I think speculating on an image like this on a website like this or in a blog is perfectly acceptable, Tabor's pronouncing to the world's media that this (possible) fish image is definitive evidence for the existence of First century Christianity goes beyond the bounds of reasonableness and science.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Sheshbazzar

Agreed Jay, and
Nothing new that.
Like I said; revealing the thought processes of the beholders.
Is Tabour right? Likely not. but he describes what it is that he thinks he sees.
Only those whose view is through that same distorted glass, will be persuaded that they see the same.
Mary or Jeebus on a tortilla? on piece of toast? on an oil slick? or on a dogs posterior? If that is what your mind has been primed to be looking for, then that is what is going to be 'found'.

People have a natural tendency to 'see' whatever they want to 'see', and an amazing ability convince themselves that they 'see' or have 'found' whatever it might be they are looking for, even when through a glass darkly, the lines are blurred and the shape of many things, remain ambiguous.



.

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Michael Sheiser suggests the image might be a "unguentarium, a small receptable for perfumed oils used for anointing the dead for burial"
He gives these images as typical examples:



The bottom sees to resemble the unquentarium more, but the top seems closer to a loutrophoros.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin