Malachi151

But what about Salome?

Malachi151

What is BAR?

Chris Weimer

Biblical Archaeology Review, the journal published by BAS, Biblical Archaeology Society.

douglas

From Zias...

and from wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblica...aeology_Review

Chris Weimer

Thanks for the overview, Andrew.

lee_merrill

Indeed, very helpful to have someone check this thoroughly.

Steven Avery

John Gill says simply that
""Jose", or "Joses", is only an abbreviation or contraction of "Joseph"

Putting aside two Matthew synoptic references similar to Mark,
here are five Joses/Jose references.

Luke 3:29
Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer,
which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat,
which was the son of Levi,

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James,
and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?
and are not his sisters here with us?
And they were offended at him.

"this Joses is, by Dr. Lightfoot, conjectured to be the same with Joseph, called Barsabas, who was put in nomination for apostleship, after the death of Judas" (Gill)

Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on afar off:
among whom was Mary Magdalene,
and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Mark 15:47
And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother
of Joses beheld where he was laid.

Acts 4:36
And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas,
(which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,)
a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

The additional Salome reference is -

Mark 16:1
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene,
and Mary the mother of James, and Salome,
had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

And Salome is a "common name among the Jews" (Gill),
including the Josephus account of Herod and John the Baptist.

Clearly it would seem to be a stretch to call Jose a rare name,
unless the context was the name that is put on ossuaries.
However in that case it is likely that we have a Joe/Joseph
situation. Most graves today will say "Joseph" but if one
says "Joe" it would take a lot of metaphorical digging to know
which Joseph is a good Joe.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

jgibson000

It is, according to the entry on Joses in the ABD (by Gareth Lee Cockerill), the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Joseph".

JG

Skeptical

Ok, so I watched the documentary on Tivo last night, and the first half of the "critical" look afterwards. I read through all the posts in this thread and the links to blogs, and the links on those blogs. Yes, I had some spare time on my hands. Here is my somewhat informed opinion on the whole matter.

One word at the start, since I consider the early Christian documents to be mainly hagiographies, I did not even attempt to analyze the question in comparison to what I consider to be early "legends", unlike a lot of apologists. I just consider it pointless since we cannot say with any degree of certainty what parts, if any, of the Jesus stories reflect reality to make a comparison. (i.e. where he was from, what his socio-economic status was, etc.)

So, from what I can tell, here is the "con" side of the question:

1) The film is transparently sensationalistic, and it plays fast and loose with some, but not all of the facts - I agree with this

2) The film uses some shoddy scholarship in trying to make connections, like the uses of the Luke family tree as Mary's tree to explain the presence of Mathias on the name of 1 of the ossuaries - I agree with this

3) The statistics are overplayed, they are based on premises which are very questionable, such as the "James" ossuary - Can't really say, I'm not a statistician, but it seems like the stats themselves are solid, it's just the assumptions behind them that may be in question

4) In general, the film played up many claims that are very questionable to make the case stronger, and definitely tried to make the film titillating. This leads many to conclude that the case for this being genuine is weak overall. - I tend to agree with this as well, the film was definitely trying to be sensationlist, although that doesn't necessarily mean the underlying claims are bogus

Overall, there are plenty of reasons to question the authenticity of much of the film. However, that doesn't mean its entirely fluff. Some of the information did seem hard to dismiss out of hand.

Now, the "pro" side:

1) The following names on the ossuaries do not seem to be in dispute:

(names given in the common spellings)
-Jesus son of Joseph
-Mary
-Judah son of Jesus
-Jose (short form of Joseph)

Interestingly, I did not see anyone claiming that these inscriptions were a modern forgery. I can only assume it has been ruled out, but obviously if any or some of these inscriptions are forged the entire case falls apart. I will assume for the rest that they are genuine.

Statistically, since none of the Christian traditions record a son of Jesus, the only names that can be linked to the traditions are Jesus, Joseph and Mary. That alone would be very underwhelming.

The presence of the "Jose" spelling of Joseph, seems to make it stronger, but ONLY if this shortened form is not well known. Otherwise it would simply be another "hit" for Joseph. Since all 3 names are very common, this would not be very meaningful statistically, just consistent with the hypothesis.

The film claims that the "Jose" form of Joseph is not common and links the name to a brother of Jesus. If this is true, that definitely makes the case stronger statistically, but I have seen conflicting reports on the commonality of this spelling of Joseph, so I cannot comment further. Perhaps someone else has more insight into this.

2) The "Mariamme or Mary" or "Mariamme the Master" ossuary seems to be very sketchy. From what I have read by people who seem to be knowledable on the subject. While it is possible that the Mariamme could be textually linked to Mary of Magdalene as early as the 2nd century, on balance it seems to be a stronger case that it is not. It remains a weak link in the chain, and if this link cannot be made then the statistics remain pretty low without more.

3) The "James" ossuary. This is in some ways the weakest link in the chain, but it is not completely dead. From what I have read, it seems like the phrase "brother of Jesus" was definitely added, but that some experts say the label "James son of Joseph" is legit. If so, that makes it intriguing. The other interesting part is patina testing. It could be that the testing was completely wrong b/c it was done shoddily, as some have alleged. However, if the results could be duplicated, and I see no reason why the tests could not be performed again, then the case that this is the missing 10th ossuary becomes MUCH stronger.

Correspondingly, this would make the statistical case stronger. (it goes from 1 in 4 to about 1 in 380 or so depending on the James name frequency, see analysis at the end)

Having read the accusations against Taber and his response, I have to say that it does seem strange that Joe Zias remembers vividly that the 10th ossuary was plain after so many years when by all accounts there was a lot of chaos during that time period. And, there seems to be no question that the 10th ossuary is missing.

Still, the fact that at least a portion of the ossuary inscription appears to have been forged raises red flags. More testing would need to be done on the Patina, and all the facts about what was said about the missing ossuary to whom and when need to come out. There's still too much "he said/she said" going on.

3) The DNA test seems solid, but not very useful. The fact that the Jesus bones and the Mariamme bones are not related through their mother is not very compelling. If the other bones could be located and additional testing done, say for example to see if there are siblings, mother, father, etc. then that WOULD be compelling if certain relationships were found. Until then, the DNA doesn't really help.

In summary, it seems that IF the James ossuary can be linked to the Jesus, Mary, Judah and Jose ossuaries, then the statistical odds that this is the Jesus family go way up. It seems doubtful that the Mariamme ossuary is Mary of Magdalene. Tantalizing and possible, but doubtful.

There seem to be 3 areas where more data is needed to take this any further than "possible":

1) The patina test ln the "James" ossuary needs to be done again under carfully controlled conditions

2) DNA evidence from the other remains, if they can be located

3) The real story regarding the missing 10th ossuary needs to come out, there are too many accusations and counter-accusations flying about (of course, if the patina test doesn't pan out, then this point is probably moot)

If the patina test is replicated with positive results, the statistics probably go from "possible" to "somewhat likely", but still far from "probable". And I don't see this getting to "probable" without more DNA, which unfortunately seems unlikely at this point.

I think the film presented the strongest possible case in a very sensationalist way, and for that it has rightly been condemned as unscholarly. However, there does seem to be a kernel of truth at the core of the glitz that cannot be dismissed, but does not yet get this above the category of "possible".

For the record, using the statistics in the film, if you eliminate Mariamme as an "unknown", then you only get a 1 in 4 chance (using Jesus son of Joseph, Mary and Jose). If you include James son of Joseph, the odds go up depending on the frequency of the name James and its correlation with Joseph. I assumed 1 in 100 as a swag, and that makes the calculation 1 in 380. If anyone knows the James name frequency then please post it.

For those interested, the stats are:

Jesus son of Joseph = 1 in 190
Mariamme = 1 in 160 (I eliminated this one)
Jose = 1 in 20
maria = 1 in 4
James son of Joseph = 1 in 100 (I guessed at this one, but it seems reasonable)

multiply them together, divide by 4 (bias correction), and then divide by 1000 (# of tombs in Jeruselem) for the result. This is straight from the film, like I said I'm not a stats man.

blastula

If there is a photo dated 1976 then how is it possible that ossuary came from the same tomb as the "Jesus family" ossuaries when that tomb was not opened until 1980?