Layman

Yes, as I have said many, many times. These names are common. Whose posts have you been reading?

Layman

Why do I get the feeling you are trying to pick a fight with me? I never said it was rare. In fact I quoted sources saying all the names were common. But what I pointed out is very true: James IS significantly less COMMON than Joseph and Jesus. And I provided support for my specific statement.


This post accused Christians of hypocrisy for finding the latest find more exciting than the previous find. I pointed out why that was not the case. In other words, we were making a relative comparison and there were features about the recent find that narrowed the prossibilities to a much greater degree than for the previous find.

Even if your point about counting males and females is true, it does not affect this relativistic comparison because it would also increase the frequency of the names Joseph and Jesus.

Apikorus

Layman, I again caution you not to take as gospel what you find on the internet or in the popular press. You cited sources as saying the following:

"...Largely abandoned in 70 A.D., when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple..."

"From the first century B.C. to about 70 A.D., it was the burial custom of Jews to place their dead
in a cave for a year, then retrieve the bones and put them in an ossuary. Several hundred such boxes from that era have been found—some ornately carved and others plain, some with feet and others without. The burial custom changed in 70 A.D., when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and torched the Temple there.

Rahmani presents a somewhat different picture. While the production of hardstone and chip-carved soft limestone ossuaries ceased after 70 CE, the practice of ossuary reburial did not begin to tail off until after the second Jewish revolt, ca. 135 CE.

Concerning the period 70 CE to 135 CE, Rahmani writes,

"During this time-span, a cheaper variety of ossuary (group B2) was manufactured in southern Judaea from soft limestone."

"Historical reasons also indicate that the Jewish population still remained sufficiently numerous and strong to require an extensive supply of ossuaries. This population diminished in the wake of the Second War against Rome, although there are indications that ossuaries continued to be used in some places."

Concerning the period from the late-second to ca. mid-third century CE,

"In the Galilee, clay ossuaries (group C2) were apparently used well into the third century CE, e.g. near Acre, Nazareth, and Kafr Sajur. This practice may be regarded as the result of waves of refugees from Judaea after 135 CE."

My own view is that I strongly suspect, based on the people involved (Lemaire et al.) that the James/Joseph/Jesus ossuary is an authentic first century CE find. I think it is perhaps wishful thinking to jump at connecting this to figures mentioned in the New Testament. When comparing archaeological and textual evidence, there's an understandible tendency to overestimate the likelihood that if X is mentioned in both a book and an inscription, it must be the same person. We've seen this with the Hebrew Bible, too, and the identification of the character berekhyahu ben neriyahu hasofer with Jeremiah's scribe Baruch son of Neriyah. Neither is an a priori implausible identification, but, to be blunt, not every Bill is Bill Clinton. (Better: not every Edward, son of Joseph, brother of John to be identified with Ted Kennedy.)

I suspect the "one in twenty" odds implied by the BAR article is an overestimate (i.e. the real odds are worse) based on flaky statistical analysis by historians and archaeologists. But even if we take those odds seriously, they are not particularly good.

The existence of an ossuary with the inscription "Shimi, son of `Asiya, brother of Hanin" further strengthens my point. There is no obvious historical candidate for the presumably important figure of Hanin. It was rare even for prominent citizens of the ancient world to be immortalized in surviving documents. There is simply no way to meaningfully assess the odds that there might have been another significant person from that era named Jesus who was brother of James and son of Joseph. Maybe the Jesus mentioned on the ossuary was a wealthy prominent businessman who survived his interred brother James and in fact paid for his tomb and ossuary. Such a hypothesis is perfectly plausible and is virtually impossible to falsify, especially given the mysterious origins of the Lemaire ossuary.

So yes I do catch a whiff of a double standard here, when you concur with Wright's ridiculing earlier ossuary findings of Jesus, Joseph, and Mary in close proximity, but now try to squeeze all the significance you can out of the Lemaire find.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Layman

Since I have repeatedly said that I want to see the actual article and how the arguments hold up in the scholarly community, what makes you think I have taken all of this as "gospel"?

But I'm not going to ignore everything that is being said about this, especially when there are many leading scholars saying the same things?

As you know (unless you are going to ignore the articles on the issue), this ossuary was made of limestone, not clay. So of what relevance is this last point?

And, it was not found in southern Judea, but in Jerusalem.

I've said I'm reserving judgment, but I'm not going to ignore all that the scholars are saying on this.

Sauron

Layman, I asked for a source that established that the practice of ossuary burial had its "heyday" before 70 CE.

All you've done is recycle three news articles about this controversial ossuary. And since all three articles have the same source, you have in actuality given only one source - which, as godfry glad and Rahmani have already shown, is incorrect.

Anything else?

Layman

How did you decide which sources are correct?

And I suspect that the actual reality of the situation is that Rahmani is correct, but that -- as Apk noted -- Rahmani's data is about other kinds of burial practices. For example, the use of clay ossuaries in the second and third centuries.

I think its too soon to discount what so many are reporting when you have not even read the article at issue.

Sauron

Which means nothing - anyone wanting to sell an artifact would bring it to Jerusalem, regardless of where it might have been found. Best markets, best buyers, best artifact dealers, etc.

Of course, it could also have been dug up in Jerusalem as well. I don't know.

I'm just pointing out that your statement that it "surfaced in Jerusalem" really has no evidentiary value, even if true.

Yes. There was. Money. This also happens with relics from the Valley of the Kings in Egypt. It happens with relics from several other places. You cannot rule this out simply by waving your hands.

Yes, and that's a fact that someone wanting to proffer a forgery would be well aware of. So such an individual would almost certainly say that it was found there, regardless of what the truth is.

The problem is that since it wasn't found in situ, we can't confirm that it was found there.

And the reports don't seem to hold up, when examined by someone with experience in geology.

It isn't required that someone give evidence that the box came from elsewhere. The affirmative case for the box coming from Jerusalem hasn't been established yet. We don't have to prove it came from elsewhere, in order to question the strength of the claim that it's from Jerusalem.

Sauron

By the quality of the source.

And you still did not answer my point: your three 'sources' are basically one source, that was quoted in three different news agencies.

Do you have anything else?


I have read the article in question. But unlike yourself, I read with a more critical eye and don't jump ahead, trying to guess the conclusion.

Sauron

You are trying to stretch the clay ossuaries too far. Unfortunately, the clay ossuaries that Rahmani mentions are only mentioned for Galilee. The use and production of limestone ossuaries continued well past 70 CE:

Concerning the period 70 CE to 135 CE, Rahmani writes,


"During this time-span, a cheaper variety of ossuary (group B2) was manufactured in southern Judea from soft limestone."

"Historical reasons also indicate that the Jewish population still remained sufficiently numerous and strong to require an extensive supply of ossuaries. This population diminished in the wake of the Second War against Rome, although there are indications that ossuaries continued to be used in some places."

Layman

You did? I didn't know the BAR issue was on the shelves yet. I look forward to getting my copy.

And repeat:

In other words, the quoted excerpt from Rahamani is insufficient to negate the other authority claiming that the nature of the ossuary dates it to the first-century.

This is a limestone ossuary. It was found in Jerusalem. It is not a clay ossuary. It was not found in Southern Jerusalem.

And, of course, my statement was that the "hey-day" was in 20 BCE to 70 CE. Which does not mean that no one else ever used an ossuary before or after that time. It means that it was most commonly used in the time-period stated. And, again, Rahmani does not appear to dispute that.