If it walks like a duck: Ossuary 6 of the Talpiot 'Patio' Tomb depicts commonly used Jewish images

I am delighted to be able to publish today a guest post from Wim G. Meijer about the images on the ossuary 6 in Talpiot Tomb B. Dr Meijer has been a reader of the NT Blog for a while and he has followed the story of the Talpiot Tombs with some interest. We have been corresponding in recent months about some fascinating observations that he has made about parallels with the images on Talpiot Tomb B, Ossuary 6, that shed light on those images. I encouraged Dr Meijer to write up his observations for the blog and I am delighted that he has now done so. Although this article is Dr Meijer's work, I would like to make clear that I find his observations enlightening and persuasive. His expertise is in a different discipline (Biomolecular and Biomedical Science), but I think his eye is sharp and his instincts right.
-----------------------------

If it walks like a duck: Ossuary 6 of the Talpiot 'Patio' Tomb depicts commonly used Jewish images

Wim G. Meijer, UCD School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland (wim.meijer@ucd.ie)

Tabor and Jacobovici identified ossuary 6 of the Talpiot 'resurrection' tomb (Talpiot patio tomb) as early Christian based on the presence of a cross on the side of the ossuary and the depiction of Jonah as a stick figure with his head wrapped in seaweed, apparently being spit out by a giant fish. In addition, it is claimed that the fish head also contains a Jonah inscription. If true, this would be the earliest example of these Christian images ever identified. Furthermore, Tabor and Jacobovici argue that the presence of this Christian tomb 60 meters from the controversial ‘Jesus family tomb’ (Talpiot garden tomb) supports their conclusion that Jesus and his family were buried there.

Figure 1: The ‘Yehosah’ ossuary
 (top panel) and the ‘cross’ in
 the middle of the ossuary
 (enlarged) compared to replica 1
 of ossuary 6 of the Talpiot tomb
 (bottom panel)

A golden rule in science is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Have they provided such extraordinary evidence? I don’t believe they have. In what follows below I provide what I believe is compelling evidence that the images on ossuary 6 are standard Jewish images of the period, not connected to the emerging Christian movement. Therefore, in my opinion ossuary 6 is not from a distinctively Christian ‘resurrection’ tomb, but from a tomb belonging to a normal Jewish family.

A cross is also present on the ‘Yehosah’ ossuary from a tomb belonging to a priestly family.

The ‘Yehosah’ ossuary, described by Asher Grossberg in the Biblical Archaeology Review, was discovered in a cave tomb in south-eastern Jerusalem (Grossberg, 1996). The ‘Yehosah’ ossuary displays a clearly identifiable cross in the centre (Fig. 1), with similar dimensions as the one on Talpiot ossuary 6. Clearly the cross on ossuary 6 is not unique, but is it Christian? The ‘Yehosah’ tomb contained a further seven ossuaries bearing the inscription of names that are closely associated with contemporaneous priestly and Levite names. This includes the name ‘Tarfon’, which is mentioned in the Talmud as belonging to priests performing duties in the Temple. Grossberg thus concludes that the Yehosah ossuary is from a tomb belonging to a priestly family. The cross on the Yehosah ossuary is therefore most certainly not a Christian symbol. Based on ancient descriptions of the Temple, Grossberg argues that the central image containing the cross is a depiction of the second Temple.


The depiction on the side of ossuary 6 is strikingly similar to images of the second Temple.

Tabor and Jacobovici focused on the cross on the side of ossuary 6 as a Christian symbol, and have not paid much attention to the image as a whole. However, when the entire image is taken into consideration (Fig. 2), one can not help but notice the striking similarities between this image with that on a coin struck during the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136 CE). This coin depicts a structure with two columns on each side, which is generally believed to be the facade of the second Temple. These two columns on each side are clearly visible on the side of ossuary 6 (Fig. 2). The columns flank an arched, dome like structure in both images, with at the centre a square, which on ossuary 6 is freestanding, while the sides are merged with the sides of the domed structure on the coin. However, based on the similarities it seems clear that these two contemporaneous images depict the same: the facade of the Temple. This imagery was not only used in the 1st and 2nd century CE, but is still present in many synagogues as the Aron Kodesh, housing the Torah scrolls (Fig. 2). It is arguably one of the oldest and most enduring images in Judaism.

Figure 2: Comparison of the image on the side of replica 1 of ossuary 6 to a coin
 struck during the Bar Kokhba revolt and an Ark Kodesh of the Rachmastrivk
a Hasidim, Jerusalem.

In summary, comparison of the image on the side of ossuary 6 to contemporaneous images on an ossuary belonging to a priestly family and to a coin of the Bar Kokhba revolt strongly suggests that the image on the side of ossuary 6 is Jewish, and most likely depicts the facade of the second Temple.

The image of the ‘fish’ is similar to vessels on contemporaneous coins of the first Jewish revolt.

Figure 3: Comparison between Temple
 vessels depicted on coins of
 the first Jewish revolt to the
vessel on replica 2 of ossuary 6.

The front of ossuary 6 depicts what Tabor and Jacobovici argue is a depiction of a large fish spitting out Jonah. If so this would be the earliest known use of this Christian image. During the first Jewish revolt (66-70 CE), ending in the destruction of the Temple, coins were struck displaying vessels that experts agree were used in Temple services, in particular wine libation, as is suggested by the presence of a grape leave on the other side (Fig 3). The vessels depicted on these coins have a mouth that is as wide or wider than the widest part of the vessel, and have two handles in the middle at the widest point of the vessel, just below the neck. The similarity of these vessels to the image on the ossuary is striking: this too has a mouth (the tail of the 'fish') that is wider than the widest part, and has two handles ('fins') in the middle at the widest part of the vessel just below the neck. The ‘fish’ thus has the same characteristics as the vessels depicted on contemporaneous Jewish coins.

If Tabor and Jacobovici are correct about their ‘fish’, then the critical part of the ‘fish’ image, defining it as Christian, is its mouth spitting out Jonah as a stick figure and containing a Jonah inscription. I cannot help but wonder that if this part of the image is all important then why is the tail of the fish depicted on the side of the ossuary and not Jonah? Without Jonah, the inscription and the fish head, there is nothing in this half image that has any Christian significance. However, depicting just the very wide mouth of a vessel used in Temple services still makes this half image instantly recognisable as a ritual vessel.

Conclusion

If ossuary 6 is early Christian, as claimed by Tabor and Jacobovici, it would have contained uniquely Christian images that are not shared with or have similarities to images on Jewish objects. However, the images on ossuary 6 also occur on contemporaneous Jewish coins and an ossuary belonging to a priestly family, which most likely depict the Temple and a vessel used in Temple rituals. Therefore both Occam’s Razor and the Duck test lead to one obvious, inescapable conclusion: Ossuary 6 is Jewish and does not have any connection with the emerging Christian movement.

Reference

Grossberg, A. ‘Behold the Temple: is it depicted on a priestly ossuary?’ Biblical Archaeology Review 22,3 (1996) 46-51, 66.

"Tomb of Jesus" Volume from Eerdmans - Charlesworth Interview & Errors in the Blurb

Over on the EerdWord blog, there's a new video interview with James Charlesworth (on Youtube here) in which he discusses the forthcoming volume The Tomb of Jesus and his Family, the proceedings of the conference in 2008 in Jerusalem relating to the Talpiot Tomb.  Regular readers will know of my own interest in this tomb and my scepticism about the claims of Simcha Jacobovici that this tomb can be identified as the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

Charlesworth himself is non-committal in the interview.  He mentions the range of views covered in the volume and although he includes among the possibilities that it belonged to "Jesus' clan", he does not associate himself with this view as he has done on previous occasions (James Charlesworth on the "Jesus Family Tomb" and James Charlesworth on the "Jesus Family Tomb": follow-up).

Charlesworth also mentions the controversy that surrounded the Jerusalem conference in 2008 (see The Talpiot Tomb Controversy Revisited, Simcha Jacobovici responds to his critics and Charlesworth on the Talpiot Tomb Symposium) and he counsels greater co-operation and friendliness in the future.  He does not mention Simcha Jacobovici in the interview.

The interview was presumably filmed at SBL last year.  It looks like the same room as for my interview on Thomas and the Gospels.  The book itself is due to come out in December this year, after several delays.

I do want to quibble with the book's blurb, which features a couple of errors:

About twenty-five years ago archaeologists discovered a tomb near Jerusalem that contained a family's ossuaries — limestone bone boxes commonly used in ancient Near Eastern burial customs — inscribed with some familiar New Testament names: Mary, Joseph, James, Mary Magdalene, and Jesus. The Discovery Channel produced a film investigating "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," raising interest among the public and specialists alike. Could this actually be the tomb of Jesus and his family? [emphasis added].

The blurb appears on EerdWord, Youtube and the Eerdmans Website.  Quibbles:

• Minor quibble: the tomb was excavated in 1980, which is 33 years ago, a little more than "about twenty-five years".


• Major quibble 1: the tomb does not feature the name "Mary Magdalene".  If it did, it would have been a really remarkable find for the study of Christian origins.  The name is not there.


• Major quibble 2: the tomb does not feature the name "James". Although Jacobovici and Tabor have argued that the James ossuary came from the tomb, this is a controversial and problematic claim that cannot simply be stated as fact.

The list of (Anglicized) names should really be given instead: Jesus? Son of Joseph, Mary, Mariam (or Mariame) and Mara, Joses, Matthew, Judas son of Jesus.

How accurate is that replica, and why does it matter?

After discussions of the Talpiot Tombs resumed recently in the blogs (see James McGrath, Talpiot Tomb Latest and Talpiot Tomb Representation and Rhetoric), I have found myself reviewing some of the materials and looking back at old contributions.  The fact that some time has passed since the excitement of March-April 2012, when details of and theories about Tomb B emerged, actually helps one to get the kind of perspective that only time can provide.

One thing that has become clearer to me with the passage of time is the importance of distinguishing between the evidence itself and the project leaders' interpretations of the evidence.  Because the academy at large has been broadly critical of the project leaders' theories, it is easy to give the mistaken impression that we are not genuinely fascinated by the materials that they have uncovered.  If we have not underlined that sufficiently in the past, it's worth doing it again here -- the new finds in Talpiot Tomb B are fascinating and well worth studying. Nevertheless, our interest in the evidence does not, of course, commit us in any way to accepting the project leaders' interpretations of the evidence.

And there is a difficulty here.  A lot of the evidence has got bound up with the interpretations of the evidence.  Thus, the CGI composite image of the "fish" should only be used as an illustration of Jacobovici's and Tabor's theory.  It should not be used, as it was back in March 2012, as if it were an actual photograph.  It represents the theory.  It is not part of the data set.

It is clear now also that both ossuary replicas are best understood as attempts to represent Jacobovici's and Tabor's theory about the tomb.  As such, they are very useful.  In order to see this, we need to play down the language about the accuracy of the replicas, and especially Replica 2 (e.g. recently in the video interview with Prof. Puech).  While there are important points of contact between the replicas and the artifacts that they are modelling, there are also important points of divergence.

Let me illustrate.  I pointed out the other day that one of the ways that Replicas 1 and 2 differed was in the depiction of the border of the ossuary -- see here:

Replica 1 (left); Replica 2 (right), bottom left facade

Replica 1 is far more accurate here than Replica 2.  Replica 2 simply produces regular triangles without any attention to what is actually on the ossuary.  It is as if someone has just said "Do me some regular triangles in the border".  Replica 1, on the other hand, attempts to depict what is actually on the ossuary.  Take a look. I can only find two published photos that feature that part of the ossuary, one on the Jesus Discovery site and one on James Tabor's blog, but notice how on each you can see that the triangles are not even, and the bottom one protrudes over the border.  This is the clearest one:

Bottom left of ossuary 6 showing triangle protruding over border, as in Replica 1

Here, then, Replica 1 is more accurate than Replica 2, and we should treat the claims about the great accuracy of the replica with a touch of caution.

However, the point of this post is not solely to point to the problems with the claims of the accuracy of "the replica", but to reflect on what this tells us about how the filmmakers are looking at the photos.  Allow me to explain.

We already know that the alleged "Jonah" inscription does not feature on Replica 1 but appears clearly on Replica 2 (See A Tale of Two Replicas, and see now also with helpful illustrations in Unfaithful Representation: The Second Replica and A Comparison of the First Replica on Steve Caruso's blog). The reason that that is interesting is that it illustrates the value of the replicas for showing how those involved in the project are seeing the evidence.  The replicas function not so much as facsimiles of artifacts but instead as models of theories.

The point can be further illustrated by looking at the issue of the shading on certain areas of Replica 2.  Several of us have been saying for some time that the lines in the ball-shaped object at the bottom of the image do not represent Jonah's seaweed-wrapped head, as James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici argue, but rather they are the artist's typical means of shading his image (e.g. Juan V. Fernández de la Gala).  The same shading appears all over the ossuary, in the borders and in the image itself.  Here is the relevant area:

Close-up of bottom of image on Ossuary 6 (source; also here) 

Notice the shading in the ball area at the bottom.  It's the same shading that we see here at the top of the same image:

Close-up of top of image on Ossuary 6 (source)

That's not seaweed wrapped around the top of the image; it is the artist's way of shading in his image, helpfully illustrated in this reconstruction by Juan V. Fernández de la Gala:

Juan V. Fernández de la Gala's illustration (source)

What Replica 2 illustrates, however, is that Jacobovici and Tabor appear not to be paying attention to the shading at the top of the image.  Replica 2 depicts the shading at the bottom of image:

Close up of Replica 2 showing the shading at the bottom of the image (source)

This is where they are attempting to depict Jonah's head wrapped in seaweed.  However, at the top of the image, the shading is left blank:

Close up of Replica 2 showing the lack of shading at the top of the image (source)

What the replica does is to illustrate the theory that this is an image of Jonah and the fish.  The shading of the "tail" is irrelevant to that theory, just as the shading in the border triangles is irrelevant, so they are left blank.  It is the same issue as the alleged "YWNH" inscription, that the elements relevant to the model are illustrated and the elements that do not fit the model are not illustrated.

For what it's worth, I don't think that there is anything wrong with providing helpful illustrative models of theories.  In fact, I think it's a really useful way of proceeding because it helps one to explain the theory as clearly as possible so that scholars can assess it.  The point is to be clear in this context about what the replicas are -- they provide illustrative models for a theory.

Nevertheless, the issue over the replicas, like the issue earlier over the CGI composite image (originally simply called a "blow up"), is that a fascinating and highly worthwhile project of excavation, exploration and analysis has become inextricably linked with a particular theory about the project, a theory that many of us regard as untenable.  In other words, it is a project that is driven by an interpretative model that has serious problems.

Unfortunately, the analysis of the finds is difficult because any resistance to the project leaders' theory is interpreted not as honest, rigorous, critical analysis of the evidence, but as irrational reflections that proceed from some kind of reactionary, theological agenda.  But this is why I refuse to engage in the kind of playground games that the project leaders like (see Response to Simcha Jacobovici's "Pants on Fire") and instead prefer to reflect critically on the evidence.

Response to Simcha Jacobovici's "Pants on Fire"

I am grateful to Simcha Jacobovici for taking the time to respond to my blog post A Tale of Two Replicas in which I detailed the differences between the two replicas of Ossuary 6 from Talpiot Tomb B and asked some questions about them.  I have been blogging and writing about the Talpiot Tombs for several years now and although I have sometimes received indirect responses from members of his production team, this is the first time that Jacobovici has responded himself.  I had always assumed that he did not read my blog, especially as I have often engaged with his theories about the tombs, so it was a honour to receive a public response to my most recent post.

Jacobovici's post is entitled Pants on Fire.  Although the primary reference is presumably to the rhyme, "Liar, liar, pants on fire", from the school playground, it is also a clever and amusing allusion to Jacobovici's characterization of his critics as underwear bloggers, and I am apparently a member of this group.

Most of Jacobovici's post is general abuse, some of it quite funny, some of it puzzling, most of it presumably intended to provoke a reaction.  I am grouped together with others like Prof. Robert Cargill and we are regarded as "personal and hysterical", "masquerading as scholars", "enforcers of Pauline theology" (?) who make "libelous statements".  It is "pseudo-scholarship" that aims "to rewrite history in Orwellian fashion".  Jacobovici ends the post by planning to take a shower "because I feel slimed by these guys".

Although most of the post is in that vein and so of limited use in the actual discussion, there is some content.  I am pleased to see my basic contention verified, that there were indeed two separate replicas made of the ossuary in question, and that there were significant differences between them.  Replica 1 was produced first and Replica 2 later, in April 2012.  Prof. James Tabor kindly clarifies the matter further in a useful comment to my post, and he expresses some surprise that I had not realized that there were two different replicas.

I suppose that I in turn should express some surprise at Tabor's and Jacobovici's surprise.  They have consistently talked about the museum quality replica as if there were only one and before posting on the topic, I reviewed everything that I could find.  I could not find any statement anywhere about the production of a second replica, in the media, in the blogs, in correspondence, in the official website.  They repeatedly and consistently talk about just the one replica.  And from the reactions more broadly to my post, I can tell that no one else seemed to realize that there was more than one replica.

However, it turns out that I had in fact missed something, and for this I apologize.  About half-way through a lengthy post on another subject on 4 January 2013, nine months after Replica 2 was produced, James Tabor mentions the two replicas, and provides a picture of each, with a view to making some insinuations about Amos Kloner.  I had missed that paragraph in my research.  Mea culpa.  And it turns out that while Jacobovici himself had not talked about the two replicas (again, subject to correction, as always), he did re-blog Tabor's blog post in which that paragraph appeared, at the same time, ninth months after its production.

The point of my post, though, was to draw attention to differences between the two replicas and to ask some questions about them.  Tabor confirms my point that the "fish in the margins" were adjusted between the production of the two replicas, apparently in response to scholarly critique of the way that they had been represented (the critique was by Robert Cargill, though neither Tabor nor Jacobovici mention this), and it is useful to know that.

My key question related to the replica shown to Prof. Émile Puech.  Since it is on video, there is no doubt at all that the replica is informing the discussion.  It is clearly Replica 2, the replica that features an apparent attempt to spell out "YWNH" (Jonah), in contrast to Replica 1, which does not have it, and which was produced before the "YWNH" inscription theory had emerged.  Jacobovici does not comment on this issue, the relationship between Puech's statement and Replica 2.

A further issue does arise from this about how accurate the "museum quality replicas" really are, but that's a blog post for another day.

A Tale of Two Replicas

The recent renewed discussion of the Talpiot Tombs, brought about by Simcha Jacobovici's post featuring an interview with Professor Émile Puech of the École Biblique in Jerusalem (See Simcha Jacobovici and the Talpiot Tomb again), and followed up by Prof. Puech's own statement on the affair , has sent me back once again to the photographs, the blog posts, the media reports and the articles that I have in the past spent such a long time looking at.  But this time I spotted something new, what I am calling "A Tale of Two Replicas".

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.

Here is the first replica.  This one was on the first version of the Jesus Discovery website and dates back to when the site was first published in February 2012, as you can see from the archive.org capture.

Replica 1 (February 2012)

Here is the second replica, which dates back, as far as I can tell, to April 2012, and which replaced the first on the Jesus Discovery website.  This is the one you see there now.

Replica 2 (April 2012)

If you think they look pretty similar, you would be right.  But there are some telling signs that illustrate beyond doubt that these replicas are different.  Let's take a look at them side by side:

Replica 1 (left) and Replica 2 (right)

There are several tell-tale signs.  Notice how in Replica 1, there are some lines drawn inside the square shaped object to the right of the vessel / fish, whereas in Replica 2, these lines are completely absent:

Replica 1 has a drawing inside the square which Replica 2 lacks

Notice also how the top left tip of the vessel / fish is next to the pointed part of a triangle in Replica 1 but next to the flat part of a triangle in Replica 2:

Triangle border differs next to top left of vessel / fish 

Similarly, notice how at the bottom left of Replica 1, the triangular shape protrudes across the border whereas in Replica 2, the triangle is neatly inside of its border:

Replica 1: triangle protrudes across the border in contrast to Replica 2

Similar observations could be repeated for other elements in the two replicas, but I am sure that you get the basic point.  Now one of the reasons that this is worthy of comment is that the replica (singular) has always been called "museum quality" and its accuracy has been praised.  Yet, far from this being one, accurate "museum quality" replica, it is two contrasting replicas, in which attention to detail is far from the order of the day.

It is not just the question of accuracy and representation that is at issue here, or the apparent failure to flag up the differences between the two replicas.  It is that Replica 2 makes several changes that may be the result of engaging with criticisms of the project.  Let me attempt to explain what I am getting at.

Replica 1 appears in all the publicity for the documentary, book and website from February to March 2012.  Replica 2 first appears, again as far as I can work out, and subject to correction, on April 3 or 4 2012, in Jerusalem:

Simcha Jacobovici shows off Replica 2 in Jerusalem, 3/4 April 2012

In between the release of Replica 1 and Replica 2, there had been a lot of criticism about the project's claims including, among other things, the idea that there are drawings of little "fish in the margins".  Robert Cargill demonstrated that the little oval shapes had been "inked in" so as to make them appear like fish.  Now notice how the "fish in the margins" changed between the two replicas. In Replica 1, before the criticism had appeared, they were presented as fish, with very clear, long tails:

Replica 1: "fish in the margins close up" (screengrab from Steve Caruso)

In Replica 2, which appeared after the criticism had been made, these shapes resemble more closely the actual shapes on the ossuary.  The tails have gone:

Replica 2: "fish in the margins" now appear more like ovals

Now, since Replica 2 appeared some time after Replica 1, I began to wonder whether there were also any changes in the way that the alleged YWNH ("Jonah") inscription appeared.  Does the alleged inscription differ at all between Replicas 1 and 2?  There is, indeed, a major difference in the way this appears between Replicas 1 and 2.  Here it is in Replica 1:

Close up of alleged "Jonah" inscription on Replica 1

This replica appears to have been produced before the "YWNH" inscription theory had emerged.  The lines really look like random lines.  Notice in particular what would become the letter "nun" -- it is here completely broken, just as it was in the CGI composite photograph and all the pictures up to this point (Do the lines in the "fish" head spell out Jonah?).  No one looking at this picture would for a moment think it was spelling out "Jonah".

However, in Replica 2, the transformation of these lines is remarkable.  Now the inscription could indeed be taken to spell out "Jonah".  Notice how the "nun" is now one single, connected line.  It is no longer broken.  The "he" is given the appearance of stopping with one thick line forming the top of the letter, and only a thin line going on to the border.  And the "yod" has a little loop on it just as it does in the "tracing" of the letters that appeared when the alleged inscription first came to light.  Here's a close-up:

Close up of Replica 2, showing YWNH lettering clearly marked

One can see the whole of Replica 2 in high definition here, if you want to take a closer look.  Notice also that there are no extraneous lines here.  Everything appears to be doing service in the representation of "YWNH".  Here's the tracing of the letters as it appeared on James Tabor's blog:

Yellow tracing of the alleged letters, James Tabor's blog, April 2012

In each, the "yod" has a loop, the "nun" is unbroken and the top line of the "he" does not extend all the way to the border.

I don't know what to make of all this, but I thought in the interests of analyzing Talpiot Tomb B, and the claims made by those involved with the "Jesus Discovery" project, it would be useful to lay out what I have found by analyzing the two contrasting replicas, and to see if others also see what I am seeing.  Why is it that the "fish in the margins" are recrafted in between Replicas 1 and 2?  Why is it that the "YWNH" inscription suddenly becomes clear only in Replica 2?

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:

Simcha Jacobovici shows Émile Puech Replica 2

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?

Émile Puech's Statement on the Talpiot Tomb Images

I expressed some surprise over Prof. Émile Puech's apparent endorsement of Simcha Jacobovici's claims about the Talpiot Tombs on Thursday in a post headed Simcha Jacobovici and the Talpiot Tomb Again.

It now appears that Prof. Puech is very unhappy with the way that he was treated by Jacobovici and he has spoken out about this, first in en email reproduced on Jim West's blog, and subsequently in emails to several scholars including James Tabor, who publishes the email in a blog posted headed Emile Peuch’s [sic] Position on the “Jesus Discovery” and “Lost Tomb of Jesus” Films.

I am grateful to Prof. Tabor for publishing Prof. Puech's comments, and I think it is greatly to his credit that he has done so.  

I hope that Simcha Jacobovici will be issuing a public apology to Prof. Puech as soon as possible.

Simcha Jacobovici and the Talpiot Tomb Again!

I have spent a lot of time, some would say wasted a lot of time, engaging critically with claims made by Simcha Jacobovici in relation to two tombs excavated in Talpiot, East Jerusalem.  I won't go into detail on how things have panned out in the past, but I documented some of it in my article published on The Talpiot Tomb and the Bloggers, and have written a lot about it here on the NT Blog.  My most recent extended discussion is found on Bible and Interpretation, The Jesus Discovery? A Sceptic's Perspective, an article based on an enjoyable critical exchange with James Tabor and Christopher Rollston at SECSOR in March this year.

The general response from Simcha Jacobovici himself has either been dismissal or mockery.  Although he asked his critics to point out the mistakes, he has never responded to my attempts to explain why I am unconvinced by his claims, preferring instead either to ignore the critical response or to mock what he calls underwear bloggers.  That's me, and people like me, sitting on the couch, blogging in our underpants while we eat takeaway pizza!

In a post published yesterday, Jacobovici draws attention to a new interview with Professor Émile Puech of the École Biblique in Jerusalem, Jesus Tomb Finds Dramatic Support.  The post includes a video interview with Prof. Puech, who explains Jacobovici's theory about the tomb, indicating his own support for this interpretation, that the controversial image is actually an upside-down fish spitting out a stick-figure Jonah.  It is not a standard vase or vessel.  Moreover, Prof. Puech lends his support to the suggestion that the name "Jonah" is spelled out in Hebrew on the "head" of the "fish".

I must admit that I was a little surprised to see an esteemed, senior figure like Prof. Puech supporting Jacobovici's interpretation of the ossuary.  I accept that there will be disagreements in the guild, and that this is the stuff of academic debate.  I would love to be able to ask Prof. Puech what he makes of things like repeated geometrical shapes in the body of the "fish" that correspond to the same geometrical patterns on the borders of the ossuary, or the handles on the "half-fish", which make the Jacobovici interpretation so problematic for many of us, but I doubt that I will get the opportunity.

Nevertheless, that's the substance of academic debate, and I accept that academics just disagree with one another.  I should perhaps admit also that I was disappointed that there was no new substance in Prof. Puech's interview, i.e. there was nothing to refute those who have argued against Jacobovici.  It is interesting nevertheless that Prof. Puech is convinced by Jacobovici's unusual claims.  I find it surprising, baffling even, but there we are.  That's life in academia.

However, I do want to draw attention to elements in Jacobovici's post that I think problematic.  He attempts to summarize the debate so far, incorporating discussion of both Talpiot Tombs, and drawing attention to why he sees the case for the identification with Jesus and the Jesus movement to be so strong.

There are three particular elements I would like to draw attention to.  These are all elements that have been criticized in the past.  To suggest that each point is self-evident is the real problem here.  In summarizing the case for the identification of Talpiot Tomb A with Jesus and his family, Jacobovici writes:

(1) "Six of them have inscriptions. One of them explicitly states; 'Jesus, son of Joseph'"

The difficulty with this statement is that the inscription is really difficult to decipher.  Indeed Émile Puech himself is on record as doubting the clarity of this inscription, for example here:

Another prominent expert whom Jacobovici did not consult, across town in the tranquil offices of the French Biblical and Archeological School in east Jerusalem, was Prof. Emile Puech. His response to the inscription was much the same as Naveh’s. ‘It’s very crude lettering,’ said the bearded, French-born Father Puech. ‘The ‘Joseph’ is clear. The ‘son of’ is no problem. The ‘Jesus?’ It’s certainly possible to read it that way.’

It may be that Prof. Puech has changed his mind about this but, if so, there is no indication of this in the current article.  This is not to say that the inscription could not be "Jesus" but just to draw attention to our uncertainty about the reading.  It is absolutely not "explicit".

He also writes:

(2): "A third has 'Yose', a very rare version of Joseph. 'Yose', 'Joses' in the King James version of the Gospels, is described as a 'brother of Jesus' by the Gospels of Mark (6:3) and Matthew (13:55-56)".

This is incorrect.  Only Mark has "Joses".  Matthew has "Joseph". And the textual witnesses demonstrate unequivocally that the two names were regarded as interchangeable.

Jacobovici also claims:

(3): "If this is not enough, there was an inscription in Greek of a certain Mary called 'Mariamene'. In all of Greek literature, this particular spelling of Mary is used in reference to Mary Magdalene and no one else."

This is false. The word "Mariamne" is used twice in early Christian literature, once by Hippolytus (third century) and once in the Acts of Philip (fourth). On neither occasion does the author say that this Mary is "Mary Magdalene". Indeed, both authors, Hippolytus and the author of the Acts of Philip, depict Mariamne as having a sister named Martha, which illustrates that they are not talking about the historical first century figure of Mary Magdalene but the later, composite literary figure of the apocryphal Mary who incorporates characteristics from the full range of Marys.

Now of course it could be the case that my readings of the primary texts are wrong, in which case I would welcome some good, robust, critical engagement.  My guess is that I am more likely to receive dismissal or abuse, which is the norm, but I am always happy to be surprised.

The Jesus Discovery? A Sceptic's Perspective

The third in the series of papers on the claims made by James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici on the Talpiot Tomb is now up on the Bible and Interpretation website.  All three papers are revised versions of presentations given at the SECSOR meeting in Greenville, SC, on March 16 this year:

The Jesus Discovery?  A Sceptic's Perspective

Mark Goodacre

My paper gathers together my thinking about Talpiot Tombs A and B as they have emerged here on the NT Blog over the last five years.  The primary focus is the more recent claims about Talpiot Tomb B (Is it is fish? Is it a vase? Is it a stick man with seaweed wrapped around his head? Are those scales of a fish or patterns on a vessel?  Are those fins or handles?) but there is some discussion also of Talpiot Tomb A, and I am afraid that I could not resist the temptation to bring out John, Paul, George, Alan, Martin and Ziggy for a reunion concert.

Renewed thanks to Ralph Hawkins for the invitation to speak last month at SECSOR, to Mark Elliott for inviting us to publish our papers on Bible and Interpretation, and to James Tabor and Christopher Rollston for stimulating exchanges.

Christopher Rollston Revisits the Talpiot Tomb

The second of the three papers relating to the claims of Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor on the Talpiot Tomb is now available on the Bible and Interpretation website is now available.  (See earlier post, Revisiting the Talpiot Tomb):

The Talpiyot (Jerusalem) Tombs: Some Sober Methodological Reflections on the Epigraphic Materials
Christopher Rollston

Revisiting the Talpiot Tomb

Back in March, James Tabor, Christopher Rollston and I spoke at the SECSOR (Southeastern Commission for the Study of Religion) meeting in Greenville, SC, on the topic of The Jesus Discovery:  The New Archaeological Find that Reveals the Birth of Christianity by Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor.  Bible and Interpretation is now publishing, over the next several days, our papers from that session, beginning today with the following:

The Tombs at Talpiot: Overview of "The Jesus Discovery"

James Tabor 

Christopher Rollston's and my papers are to follow over the next couple of days.

Myths of Mary and the Married Jesus on Youtube

The Cadbury lecture I gave in Birmingham just over a week ago is now available on Youtube here:



Or watch it on Youtube here.  The lecture is 48 minutes long.  It features much of the powerpoint, but some slides have been omitted for copyright reasons. All of the Q&A is also features, though under the veil of darkness.

Update (12 February 2013): I have now made the audio available as an extended episode of the NT Pod.  This version has the advantage of enabling you to hear the talk without seeing the speaker constantly waving his arms around.

Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene? at Baylor

I'm lecturing at Baylor University tomorrow on the topic, "Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene?"  They have put this nice poster together, which features details of time and location.  I look forward to seeing some of you there.

The Talpiyot Tomb and the Bloggers

Several other bloggers (including Joel Watts and Jim West) have mentioned this fine new volume from Eisenbrauns, Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media (great Oxford comma there). It is edited by my esteemed colleagues here in the Duke Religion Department, Eric and Carol Meyers.

The volume is the result of the Duke Conference on this subject held in April 2009.  At the time, I blogged about the conference, and you can listen in to an archive of the talks on our iTunes U.  It is all worth reading, of course, but I am happy to provide access here to my essay in the volume (as well as to the table of contents):

The Talpiyot Tomb and the Bloggers
Mark Goodacre

The essay has a response by AKMA, though I can't reproduce that here.

Richard Bauckham on Yose

I am delighted to be able to post the following article here:

The Hypocoristic Forms of the Name Joseph (Yehose, Yose) in the Late Second Temple Period, with Special Reference to Talpiyot Tomb A

Richard Bauckham

Note: This article consists of edited extracts from a much longer study of the name Joseph in the Late Second Temple period (not yet published). I am making this version available now in view of the recent on-­‐line articles by Eldad Keynan and James Tabor, already discussed on Mark Goodacre’s NT Blog, and the imminent publication of the collection of essays on Talpiyot Tomb A (edited J. H. Charlesworth).

I begin with a summary of the occurrences of the short forms of the name Joseph in the relevant sources, based on my own collection of the data, which is now the fullest and most up-­‐to-­‐date available.

Update (3 Nov.): Comment from Eldad Keynan.

Talpiot Tomb: "The names are common"

In a recent blog post, The Names in the Talpiot “Jesus Tomb” are Not Common: The Latest on Yoseh, James Tabor says that some critics have responded to his case with retort, "The names are common":

The most common response to my hypothesis is the assertion that “The names in this tomb are extremely common.” The implication is that this particular “Jesus,” namely “Yeshua son of Yehosef,” is simply one of many of the time, and he, along with his family members: Yoseh, Mariah, Mariamene/Mara, Matyah, and Yehudah could be any one of dozen of families with names like these. Accordingly, we are told,  there is no good argument that this particular Jesus was our own Jesus of Nazareth.

Tabor goes on:

The names are common. I could not count the times I have heard this–not only from the media but from trusted and well qualified colleagues who should know better–among them Amos Kloner, Tal Ilan, Eric Meyers, Jodi Magness, Bart Ehrman, Mark Goodacre, Stephen Pfann, Chris Rollston, Jonathan Reed, Craig Evans, Ben Witherington, Richard Bauckham–to name a few–all of whom have written or commented widely on the “Talpiot Jesus tomb” thesis. This refrain, repeated endlessly like a mantra, and picked up by hundreds of bloggers, reporters, and media spokespersons, seems to have “won the day” so to speak.

And he adds, "The problem is that this assertion is demonstrably untrue" (emphasis original).  The others mentioned in this paragraph can of course speak for themselves, but I have never used the argument "The names are common"; still less have I repeated it "endlessly like a mantra".

In fact my point is a completely different one, that a case like the one made by Tabor and Jacobovici requires remarkable correlation.  But what we have is a case contaminated by non-matches and contradictory evidence.  I have attempted to explain the point in a variety of ways, including utilizing the Beatles analogy they themselves like to use (The Talpiot Tomb and the Beatles).

Tabor links to a new article by Eldad Kenyon on Bible and Interpretation  that illustrates my point about correlation.  Kenyon begins the article as follows:

Among the Talpiot Tomb A (henceforth - TT) names, one name draws wide scholarly attention: the Aramaic\Hebrew יוסה (Yoseh), which the synoptic gospels tell us is the name of one of the brothers of Jesus. It is for that reason that Yoseh, a Jewish name of the Second Temple Era, has taken on a pivotal role in the debate over the TT. 

But "the synoptic gospels" do not tell us this.  Mark 6.3 speaks of Joses, Matt. 13.55 of Joseph (see further my blog post on the topic).  Now of course we may want to stress that Mark, as the earlier work, is preferable here.  But if we do stress that point, then we must also stress the Marcan forms of other names allegedly paralleled the tomb.  This means jettisoning the always problematic idea that "Mariamēnē" (Hippolytus, Acts of Philip) is a peculiarly appropriate way of referring to Mary Magdalene; instead, we must insist on Mark's "Maria".

The argument is not that "the names are common".  It is that we cannot cherry-pick the data and ignore contradictory evidence if we wish to insist on impressive correlations.

The Greek Ossuary Inscription in Talpiyot Tomb B – (hopefully) the Final Solution

Richard Bauckham has written the following new piece on the Greek Ossuary Inscription in Talpiyot Tomb B and I am delighted to be posting it here:

The Greek Ossuary Inscription in Talpiyot Tomb B – (hopefully) the Final Solution
Richard Bauckham

A New Interpretation of the Greek Ossuary Inscription in Talpiyot Tomb B

Richard Bauckham has written a new piece on the inscription in Tapiyot Tomb B and I am happy to be posting it here.  It's a PDF file available here:

A New Interpretation of the Greek Ossuary Inscription in Talpiyot Tomb B

Richard Bauckham

James Charlesworth on Talpiot Tomb B (Revised and Updated)

This is a fully revised and updated version of my earlier post James Charlesworth on Talpiot Tomb B which commented on an earlier version of an article by James Charlesworth on Talpiot Tomb B that was subsequently removed.  This post revises that one so that it responds to the new version of the article.
--

Those with an interest in the claims made by Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor on Talpiot Tomb B, "the Patio Tomb", have been looking forward to hearing more about the views of Prof. James Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary who acted as the "primary academic consultant" on the project (Tabor, Preliminary Report, 1, n. 2) and who appears in the documentary labelled The Resurrection Tomb Mystery (USA) / The Jesus Discovery (Canada).  His report is now available, as a PDF on the Bible and Interpretation website:

What is the Message of the "Patio Tomb" in Talpiot, Jerusalem?
James Hamilton Charlesworth, Princeton, June 2012

The article provides a useful summary of the issues raised by the documentary and the related book (but not the Jesus Discovery website or the Preliminary Report, neither of which is mentioned).  Charlesworth is broadly supportive of Tabor's and Jacobovici's claims, but he is cautious and sceptical at several points.  Charlesworth discusses the different possibilities for the interpretation of the image on ossuary 6 (nefesh, amphora or fish?) and he defends his reading of YONAH at the bottom of that image.  He asks lots of questions and encourages continued debate.

The piece is aimed at a non-scholarly audience for whom Charlesworth explains terms like "ossuary" and "nefesh"; he explains what happened in 66CE (2); he notes the correspondences between Hebrew and English letters (9) and explains that  "Hebrew is written right to left" (9).

In spite of that target audience, I will admit to some disappointment that Charlesworth does not engage directly with any of the scholars' critiques of the project, whether here, on the ASOR blog, on Bible and Interpretation, on Robert Cargill's blog, on Christopher Rollston's blog or elsewhere.  He does mention "scholars and non-scholars" who "have been reporting and blogging" and he speaks about his dismay over "occasional ad hominem comments" (1).  As one who has experienced some unpleasant remarks, including from those involved in the making of the documentary, I very much share Charlesworth's concern on that front.  Nevertheless, I think there is a danger in only mentioning blogging in the context of complaining about those who abuse the medium because it can all too easily be taken as a reason not to engage with serious scholarly criticism of the claims.

In relation to this, it is disappointing that Charlesworth simply repeats the sight reading of the inscription on Ossuary 5, "Divine [YHWH], who lifts up (or raised up), from (the tomb or death?)" (6), which is seen in the documentary.  With the exception of a brief footnoted reference to Bauckham (15, n. 10), he does not engage with the careful analysis and criticism of this claim, with alternative readings, offered by Richard Bauckham, Christopher Rollston and others (see also Rollston's review here; see further links in those posts).  The difficulty with not engaging with the critics is that it can give the impression that the reading in question is uncontested and somehow self-evident.  It is not.  It is controversial and unclear.

By contrast, there is some exposition of the alleged YONAH inscription that appears at the bottom of the image on Ossuary 6 (6-11).  It is useful to have this exposition given that previously Charlesworth's views were only known through reports (See most fully Taborblog).  Charlesworth is actually quite guarded about his suggestion and only puts forward the reading quite tentatively.  Of the four alleged letters, he regards only the he as "unmistakable" (9).  The yod may be a zayin; "some imagination is required" for the reading of the waw (9) and the nun "is not prima facie obvious" -- it may be a lamed (9).

Having read Charlesworth's own defence of this claim, I admit to being no more convinced than I was before, and pleased to see the way in which he makes the suggestion only tentatively.  One of the reasons for my own scepticism has been the confusing nature of the case.  With so much going on in the head of the fish / base of the vessel -- arms and legs of a stick man, a mouth and an eye of a fish, Hebrew letters that extend unusually and further lines that are unaccounted for -- it is doubtful that YONAH is there (see further The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy and the Talpiot Tomb).

Like Tabor and Jacobovici, Charlesworth is inclined to see a stick man here too (5, 9-10 and especially 11), though he does not explain which lines belong to the stick man, and whether any of the lines that form the stick man do double duty as parts of the alleged YONAH inscription (see further my Changing Body of the Stick Man and links there).  I suspect that most scholars will remain sceptical about the presence of a stick man given the lack of clarity about which lines represent his arms and legs.

Charlesworth does, however, add a new element to the discussion of the stick man with an interesting speculation about the size of his head:

If this is a large fish and Jonah is intended, then it is possible to image [sic, imagine?] a stick figure inside the fish.  If so, the head is absurdly large. Why? Obviously, some Jews imagined the resurrection body to be similar to but different from the fleshy body.  Would some early Jews have imagined a resurrected body would have a large head?  Is that the ideal body? We simply need to raise questions and be open to dialogue. (5).

I would be interested to hear if there is any analogy for the idea of the resurrection body having a massive head.  I would doubt it, but I will listen with interest.  But in any case, the key question presumably would relate not to the resurrection body but to the book of Jonah, where there is no hint that the character has a massive head, either before or after being swallowed by the fish.

Moreover, one of the issues mentioned by Charlesworth does have a straightforward explanation.  He asks:

Why has the engraver spent so much time on the lines within the spherical "bottom"?  One can count at least 14 strokes.  Why? What was imagined? (5).

As  Juan V. Fernández de la Gala has helpfully illustrated (ASOR Blog), those lines are the way that the artist shades in the vessel, seen also at the top of the vessel (the "fish tail") and the vessel decorations (the "scales"):

But what of the image itself?   According to Jacobovici and Tabor's Jesus Discovery, at the time of viewing, Charlesworth "offered without hesitation the same interpretation of the fish" (loc. 1041).  In the new article, he is still inclined towards the "fish" interpretation, but he suggests that there are merits also in the ideas that it is a nefesh monument or an amphora.  Indeed he wonders whether the artist was being deliberately ambiguous, perhaps attempting to depict all three.  He suggests, for example, that:

A symbol must be interpreted and usually has many meanings.  Symbols appear in a world of ambiguity and bring with them more than one meaning (4).

Charlesworth adds:

But, something is intended.  We should move beyond what it could possibly be and ask what is the intentionality that created this image (5).

I must admit to struggling with this.  It is difficult to ask about the "intentionality" of the artist without having a clear handle on "what it could possibly be".  Perhaps my fondness for Occam's Razor is the problem.  Where Charlesworth wonders about the decorative squares inside the image --

Did the inscriber attempt to meld an image of a fish with a nefesh? Is there some conflation of symbols? Are there multiple meanings to be contemplated? (5), 

-- I can't help thinking that it is unnecessary to interpret the image as a conflated nefesh-fish when the vessel interpretation appears more plausible.

Charlesworth's concern with the amphora theory relates to the handles:

The image has something on each side. Could these be handles?  If so, they are not like any known handles on an amphora, whether drawn or part of an amphora itself (4).

Since Charlesworth does not mention any of the scholarly critiques of the project, it may be that he is unfamiliar with the attempts to illustrate answers to this type of question.  Antonio Lombatti's detailed and helpful illustrated article Observations on the “Jonah” Iconography on the Ossuary of Talpiot B Tomb, for example, provides several useful analogues, including this graphic from a useful post by Thomas Verenna:

Moreover, since he does not mention it in the article, Charlesworth may be unaware that in May 1981, Zvi Ilan reported that the first excavators of the tomb, who actually saw the ossuary, interpreted the image in question as an amphora (ASOR blog).  Furthermore, Charlesworth does not mention the image on the side of ossuary, the image that Tabor and Jacobovici had interpreted as a "half-fish" but which clearly appears to have handles on either side, as I have often mentioned here (see How the half-fish became a vase and why it matters and links there):

The key point about this image, which Tabor and Jacobovici concede may have been interpreted as a vase in 1981, is that it provides the all-important contextual information about the image on the façade.  Vase on the side; vase on the front.

Charlesworth's post concludes with reflections on the meaning of the image, and although he suggests that "meaning resides in ambiguity and all symbols are multvalent" (11), he focuses on the idea of Jonah and the fish, linking this first with repentance and then with resurrection. He draws attention to the repentance theme in Luke 11.29-32 and adds that

 Jonah is still read on the evening of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) to signal the importance of seeking forgiveness before God (11).

There is, however, no evidence that I am aware of that Jews were reading Jonah on the Day of Atonement as early as the first century.  The first reference I know of to Jonah being read at Yom Kippur is b.Meg. 31a.  But in any case that does not help with the imagined Christian identification of the tomb.

Charlesworth goes on to mention the connection between the resurrection and the sign of Jonah in Matt. 12.38-41, the text that is key in Tabor's and Jacobovici's case (See my The Talpiot Tomb, Jonah and Q).  The big question here relates to dating.  Most scholars (me included) date Matthew after 70CE, after the dates of the ossuaries in this early Roman period tomb, which places a question mark against Tabor's and Jacobovici's case.  Charlesworth's comment is:

These Jewish reflections [Matthew's] are from the first century CE, but after 70CE they were reported by those who were claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus (12).

And Charlesworth goes on to quote 1 Cor. 15.3-8 followed by Joseph Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth.   It looks like Charlesworth is here distancing himself from interpreting the sign of Jonah as a sign of the resurrection in the pre-70 period, and so aligning himself more with sceptics like me than with Tabor and Jacobovici.  But I could be wrong -- it is not easy to parse Charlesworth's prose here (What does "they were reported by those who were claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus" mean?).

Before concluding this post, I would like to comment on three other things of interest.  The first is the mention of a "rubbing of that image" (Q & A with Ben Witherington, footnote 1), i.e. the image of the fish / vessel on ossuary 6.  I had not heard about this before and so asked Prof. Charlesworth for clarification.  He responded by saying emphatically that "there was no rubbing" and in the revised article, the reference has been changed to "a CGI generated image created from a composite of several photographs from different angles and in different lighting" (14, n. 2).

Second, I was interested to see measurements for the fish/vessel image (23 x 15 x 9 x 3) for the first time (4). This is helpful information, but I am curious about how the image was measured.

Third, it is helpful to have some clarifications of the dates in this article.  Charlesworth here dates his involvement to June 2010, which coheres with the dating in The Jesus Discovery and corrects his earlier dating of June 2011.

In summary, after having read Charlesworth's article carefully, I am sorry to say that I remain completely unpersuaded by the claims made in the documentary, the book, the website, and the preliminary report.

----------------------
Appended Note 1:  Two of Richard Bauckham's comments to the earlier version of this post remain relevant to this revised version, so I will quote them again here:

(2) Charlesworth's reiteration of the reading of the Greek inscription that he made when he first saw it (shown in the film) without taking any notice at all of any of the very considerable subsequent discussion of it by fellow-scholars is extremely disappointing, especially as he himself says in this article that "we need each other in a dialogue that appreciates the input of others" (p. 5).

(3) I was puzzled by his appeal to the multivalency of symbols in relation to the fish/nephesh/amphora image when he first made it in email correspondence back in the autumn, and his elaboration of it in this article still leaves me baffled. He says, "Any attempt to enter the mind of an engraver in order to discern the intention of an “artist” borders on unsophisticated methodology," but then goes on precisely to discuss all sorts of considerations precisely with a view to discerning the engraver's intention. Furthermore, what exactly does he mean by calling this image a symbol. His footnote refers to his own extensive discussion of the image of the "serpent" in his book on that topic, reporting that he found this to have about thirty meanings. But these are all meanings of the image of a SERPENT. This scarcely seems a valid parallel to the suggestion that the image on the ossuary may be ambiguously a nephesh or an amphora or a fish. If it is indeed a fish, then one might say that the fish is a multivalent symbol - conceivably, for example, an early Christian engraver might have intended both Jonah's fish and the Christian ICHTHYS acronym (though Jim Charlesworth himself rather dogmatically dismisses the latter as having any relevance). An amphora might also have more than one possible symbolic significance (a funerary symbol? one of the famous Temple vessels?). In such cases, we could be dealing with an intentionality on the part of the engraver to provide a symbol with a range of meaning or we could have an image so ambiguous that we can't discern the engraver's intentionality, given our limited evidence. But what does it mean to say that the image is ambiguously a nephesh and a fish and an amphora? I don't think Charlesworth means that the engraver could have intended such an ambiguity (see page 4, paragraph 4, beginning "It is easy..."). He seems to mean that the image is ambiguous to us and we find it very difficult to discern the engraver's intentionality. Even so, as I have pointed out, Charlesworth himself offers plenty of considerations towards resolving the ambiguity. So is his appeal to the multivalency of symbols no more than a warning to us not to seize too quickly on an interpretation, but to engage, as he says, in "a dialogue that appreciates the input of others, whether philologists, archaeologists, biblical scholars, or specialists in ancient art" (p 5). If that is all it amounts to, then I must say it seems to me that a good deal of such dialogue has actually occurred in the extensive discussions, especially in the highly reputable location of the ASOR Blog. I can say this as someone who has not contributed to that particular dialogue myself (reserving my own contributions to the discussion of the Greek inscription).

Appended Note 2: See also James Tabor's comments on the earlier draft of Charlesworth's article at Taborblog.  Tabor echoes Charlesworth's focus on the "intention" of the engraver and suggests that "Often only a trained eye can decipher what the writer intended".  This may well, of course, be the case, but the "intention" of the writer still has to be demonstrated on the basis of what s/he actually wrote.

Tabor also echoes Charlesworth's stress on the notion that all the strokes at the base of the vessel / fish are accounted for:

Also, as Charlesworth points out, those who read these markings as intentional Hebrew letters do not claim that all the marks in the mouth of the fish are part of the letters, some are related to the fish itself (i.e., the straight line of the mouth), whereas others seem to form the eye of the fish as well as the arms and legs of a stick-like figure, attached to the large head. What does seem to be the case is that all of the inscribed markings (not the scratches or imperfections in the stone) are intentional.

There are, I think, a couple of difficulties here.  First, Charlesworth does not appear to be convinced that the image is a fish.  He thinks it might be, but he also finds the nefesh and amphora theories compelling, even suggesting some conflation of all three, with ambiguity and multivalence. But if it is not a fish, then all the extra lines in its "head" need explanation because they can no longer be relegated to the background in order for the alleged YONAH inscription to stand out.  

Second, even if some lines are attributed to YONAH, some to a stick man (variously configured) and some to a fish head and mouth, there are still some lines left over.  See, for example, Bob Cargill's helpful graphic here:

Notice especially the several "ignored lines". 

Third, both Charlesworth and Tabor make clear that they don't see all the marks here as forming Hebrew letters.  Charlesworth writes:

Obviously, I never intimated that all the lines in "the head of the fish" are letters; anyone who imagined that I did make such a claim or that I ignored some lines simply was dependent on a journalist's summary of my rather lengthy and detailed comments (9).

And Tabor here echoes the comments.  I am puzzled by their insistence on this point since I am unaware of anyone who says that they claimed that  "all the lines . . . are letters".  It is a fact, though, that several of the lines in the "head of the fish" do not do service as letters or lines in the fish head or lines on a stick man.  But to repeat my earlier point, I think it is always preferable to cite those against who one is arguing so that one can check up on whether the argument is fairly represented.

Update (13 June): Thanks to George Makrauer for letting me know that Prof. Charlesworth's article now also appears here (PDF) on the Foundations on Judaism and Christian Origins website.  As far as I can tell, the two versions are identical (with the exception of the preparatory material) but the page numbers to not tally.  The page numbers in my response above refer to the Bible and Interpretation version.