Hebrew inscription appears to confirm 'sign of Jonah' and Christian reference on ancient artifact (http://phys.org/news/2012-04-hebrew-inscription-jonah-christian-ancient.html)
Quote(Phys.org) -- Following the recent announcement of the discovery of the earliest known Christian imagery in the exploration of a sealed first century Jerusalem tomb, controversy predictably erupted, with numerous members of the community of biblical scholars offering alternate interpretations of the iconography and disputing the tomb's claimed Christian connections.
Now, the exploration team has announced a previously unnoticed but highly specific detail that appears to confirm the original interpretation of the inscribed images. James H. Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary has announced the identification and deciphering of a previously overlooked four letter inscription written in ancient Hebrew on the controversial "Jonah" ossuary. The inscription appears to spell out the name "Jonah" in Hebrew...
Something of interest to our Christian members and those into archaeology and history.
Yeah they found the name Jonah, but how many people were named Jonah back then?
Quote from: Budhorse4 on April 19, 2012, 03:49:57 PM
Yeah they found the name Jonah, but how many people were named Jonah back then?
I'll be interested to read what Too Few Lions has to say on this.
Let's assume that the inscription does turn out to say "Jonah" and is found to be an example of "the sign of Jonah" used by a First Century Jewish Christian. All that would confirm is that the earliest Christians looked at Jonah as a symbol of resurrection, and perhaps connected that to their belief that Jesus was resurrected. We already knew that early believers believed Jesus was resurrected. That Jesus may have used the "sign of Jonah" as a part of his teaching about resurrection would not be anything miraculous in and of itself. It would add to the historicity of the gospel accounts of Jesus, but the historicity of Jesus is not really the issue, is it? It's whether he was the Son of God and rose from the dead. A sign on an ossuary would not prove either of those two things.
So, assuming this all pans out and it is a valid interpretation of the markings, it would lend support to some gospel claims, but not the ultimate claim about Jesus. Nevertheless, it is important and interesting, as it would connect Jesus to that world and undermine somewhat the mythicist argument. Thanks for the link, Tank.
Looks like it checks out. I don't put much stock in it though.
This kind of stuff pops up now and again. Some of it may be deliberately falsified.
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=4109.0 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=4109.0)
(Sorry - the Greek characters have gone loopy since we changed to the new host.)
It does look interesting, and would be the earliest archaeological evidence for Christianity. I guess the question is does it have to be a (proto) Christian burial, or could it be a plain Jewish burial? Early Christians did use the Jonah myth as allegory for Jesus' death and resurrection so it might be Christian, which would make it a fascinating find. It's also interesting that the name Jonah is in Hebrew but the other inscriptions on the ossaries would appear to be in Greek
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-tomb-exploration-reveals-archaeological-evidence.html
I've been watching this for the last couple days. Seems the Christian 'archeologists' have taken wide liberties on ascribing certain engravings to make the word "Jonah". Several REAL archeologists have said the engravings do not or may not be what the Christians think it says as at least one "letter" does not match (the letter looks like a U but squared off, like to L's leg to leg where the legs actually meet This "letter" does not meet).
At any rate, since the Jonah story is a Jewish story from the Jewish Bible, and the engravings (found in a Jewish city in a Jewish land) are indeed confirmed to say "Jonah", it doesn't necessarily mean anything of the sort Christians are saying..."A first century Christian believed in resurrection". It could just as easily mean that a first century Jew liked that story and his relatives made or left the item in the grave with him.
As usual, the Christians will always try to make something fit their POV.
Just been looking into it online and you're right Gawen. Seems like the work was funded by The Discovery Channel and carried out by the same people who made the earlier sensational claim of having discovered Jesus' family tomb a few years back.
The image on the tomb actually doesn't look much like a fish anyway, more like a vase or drinking vessel of some kind. The people behind the claim turned the image on its side to try and make it look like a fish, but that makes no sense, as it would surely have appeared on its side in the first place if it was supposed to represent a fish. Original image here;
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Qthra00LXWQ/T25w0oKxeSI/AAAAAAAAAPo/KYp3LA1Dzag/s1600/IMG_7422.jpg
http://abmcg.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/fish-story-in-talpiot-tomb.html
worse still, they may have tampered with the photos to try and make the image look more like a fish than it actually does
http://robertcargill.com/2012/03/05/if-the-evidence-doesnt-fit-photoshop-it/
The Jonah inscription's highly dubious too. It appears to be a few lines that are just part of the general design rather than an inscription of a name. But even if it is a deliberate inscription, it doesn't actually look like it reads as 'Jonah', more like 'Zolar'
http://ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/do-lines-in-fish-head-spell-out-jonah.html
http://robertcargill.com/2012/04/20/when-is-a-nun-not-a-nun/