Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 10-23-2002, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
Steven, is the reference in this thread?

<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/8t4/8t4051.html" target="_blank">http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/8t4/8t4051.html</a>

Wright dismisses it because there is another box in the family tomb, with a 'son of Jesus', although he concedes that names were duplicated (2 Marys for example) and that Jesus was a common name. Perhaps the son of Jesus was a second Jesus in the family, just as their were two Marys.

And Wright dismisses it because the family (Jesus, James, Mary etc) lived in Nazareth and the box was found in Jerusalem.

For some reason which I cannot fathom, no Christian has dismissed the James box for that reason. Can anybody here work out why Christians find arguments to dismiss one box which they never think of using when wanting to claim a box in Jerusalem belonged to a family from Nazareth?

Wright also claims 'Sixty years after Jesus' death, his grandnephews were accused by the Roman emperor Domitian of being part of a would-be royal family'

Can anybody come up with a reference for that?

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]

Seeker196 · 10-23-2002, 06:07 AM

'Roughly the size of England'

Indeed, in Geology 020E 'The Crust of the Earth' (my compulsory univ science credit) we learned this, although he said 'roughly the size of southern ontario.'

leonarde · 10-23-2002, 06:17 AM

It seems to me that we need to distinguish multiple layers of authenticity:

1)Is it a genuine ossuary with authentic Aramaic
inscription?

2)Is it of the 1st Century? (Can it be narrowed
down further?)

3)Is the limestone from an area which can be delimited?

4)Can the physical location of the find be determined?

5)Can we say in even the most tentative way which James this is?

Cheers!

Kosh · 10-23-2002, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WalrusGumBoot:
The arguments going on here are unbelievable! An empty tomb of a Pharoah is unearthed, and nobody doubts that this Pharoah existed. Some inscriptions are carved in a stone, and it makes the the history books as fact. However, when the subject of Jesus of the bible finally has evidence (outside of the NT) that he actually existed, then suddenly archaeological evidence has somehow been "tampered" with.

That's not quite a fair comparison. To keep with your Pharoahs tomb analogy, it would be more like:

Some collector has in his possession a tomb (which is not in Egypt) which he says he got from a dealer (who he won't identify). The inscription says simply "Pharoah" on it, but now everybody is claiming that that this is evidence of the long sought after missing Pharoah XXX.

Now, would you concede that you can't confirm that the tomb came from Egypt, or who or when the inscription was made? The best you can show is that the stone used to make the tomb was from Egypt.

On that note, since everyone likes to focus on "The limestone is from Jeruselem".... I have a guitar made of Indian Rosewood. Does that mean the guitar was made in India? (The label says it was made in Japan).

Layman · 10-23-2002, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:


The website claims 'Researchers may have uncovered the first archaeological evidence that refers to Jesus as an actual person and identifies James, the first leader of the Christian church, as his brother.'

Of course, there has been other archaelogical evidence that refers to Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

Christians ridiculed this, in clear and certain terms.

NT Wright wrote :-
'Discovering a tomb with these names in one family is rather like an archaeologist two thousand years hence finding an English tomb with parents called Philip and Elizabeth and children called Charles and Anne, and claiming that this must be the British royal family. The Israeli archaeologists, none of them interested in defending Christianity, were the first to pooh-pooh the idea of this being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.'

You can only imagine the similar scorn Layman must now be heaping on the latest find.

This has been addressed at length above. The finds are significantly different and the deliniators are much more significant in this find.

I know this is a long thread, but perhaps you should read some of the posts in it?

Steven Carr · 10-23-2002, 06:31 AM

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]

Apikorus · 10-23-2002, 06:53 AM

Layman, I left a long post for you last night.

Steven Carr · 10-23-2002, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:


I was not impressed by your special pleading.
The names Jesus, son of Joseph, and Mary are not significant, while Jesus, James and Joseph are?

Here is Wright's reasoning 'Why is there no mention of James, Jesus' most famous brother, or of Joses and Simon (as listed in Mark 6:3, along with some unnamed sisters)?'

So why is there no mention of James's other brothers? It can't be because they were less famous as Wright expects non-famous brothers and sisters to be listed. They are missing just as much as in the ossuary you dismiss.

And , of course, the finds are completely different. As you repeatedly point out, the new find is NOT in Greek, but in Aramaic , indicating a non-Hellenized Jew, while the old find was in Hebrew. Somehow I can't see the great difference.

And, of course, James was a rare name while Yeshuas was a common name. Among the about 1,000 ossuaries from biblical times unearthed
in Jerusalem, six carry the inscription 'Yeshua,' or Jesus.

Again, I can't see a great difference in the frequency of the names.

<a href="http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/1996a/msg00145.html" target="_blank">http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/1996a/msg00145.html</a>

leonarde · 10-23-2002, 07:08 AM

Apparently there are three distinct types of limestone in the Jerusalem area:

Quote:

A close examination of the cave reveals three types of limestone: the white (or royal, as it is
called in Hebrew), the sweet or soft, and the iron-bearing red variety. All of these stones to this day form the characteristic building material of the Holy City and its burgeoning suburbs. The iron-laden red type, the hardest of the three, by itself and combined with the others, gives that special pink hue to many of Jerusalem's buildings and homes as they catch the morning rays bouncing off the Red Sea and the mountains of Moab or the slanting rays of sunset on clear summer evenings. That the cave was a quarry is clearly established. First, there is the structure of the huge hollow itself. Quarrymen left large columns of limestone for support as they removed sections of rock. In some areas the cave looks like a series of alcoves in a Spanish mosque or a California mission. If the visitor looks carefully, he or she will find traces of the quarrying methods.

Above from
<a href="http://www.shofar.org/shalom/8704_solomons_queries.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shofar.org/shalom/8704_solomons_queries.htm</a>

Cheers!

Jayhawker Soule · 10-23-2002, 07:34 AM

Steve, you originally wrote: "But they did find a box with Jesus, Joseph and Mary on it. Is that close enough?" and now offer
<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/8t4/8t4051.html" target="_blank">http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/8t4/8t4051.html</a> as a reference. I still see nothing suggesting a single ossuary inscribed with those three names. What am I missing? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

10-23-2002, 06:31 AM	#196
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-23-2002, 06:07 AM	#192
Seeker196 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 278	'Roughly the size of England' Indeed, in Geology 020E 'The Crust of the Earth' (my compulsory univ science credit) we learned this, although he said 'roughly the size of southern ontario.'

10-23-2002, 06:17 AM	#193
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	It seems to me that we need to distinguish multiple layers of authenticity: 1)Is it a genuine ossuary with authentic Aramaic inscription? 2)Is it of the 1st Century? (Can it be narrowed down further?) 3)Is the limestone from an area which can be delimited? 4)Can the physical location of the find be determined? 5)Can we say in even the most tentative way which James this is? Cheers!

10-23-2002, 06:53 AM	#197
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Layman, I left a long post for you last night.

10-23-2002, 07:34 AM	#200
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Steve, you originally wrote: "But they did find a box with Jesus, Joseph and Mary on it. Is that close enough?" and now offer <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/8t4/8t4051.html" target="_blank">http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/8t4/8t4051.html</a> as a reference. I still see nothing suggesting a single ossuary inscribed with those three names. What am I missing? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.