Layman

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/27/jesus.inscription.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/27/jesus.inscription.ap/index.html</a>

The James Ossuary is going to be displayed publically, in Canada at a conference of Bible scholars.

Also, the Israeli Antiquities Authority is going to test the James Oussary, and if it is determined to be authentic, will purchase it from the private owner.

By the way, I checked some book stores over the weekend and did not find the new BAR issue out. Anyone have better luck?

Wyz_sub10

The ossuary will be on display here at the Royal Ontario Museum next month.

CX

I have a copy in front me. It's the November/December 2002 issue and the cover story refers to the "James" ossuary. This is a subscription copy so I'm not sure when it hits newstands.

CX

Incidentally this issue also has what promises to be a fascinating interview with Israel Finkelstein. Hershel Shanks is so magnanimous as to call Finkelstein a centrist, but qualifies that title with double quotes. I'll be curious to read it.

CX

The BAR article is relatively short and doesn't contain any substantial information beyond what has already been discussed here. It makes a strong case that the ossuary is indeed a first century artifact, but does not clearly establish that it is the ossuary of "James the Just" the brother of Jesus.

The specific statistical analysis used is somewhat sketchy since the incidence of the three names used comes only from inscriptions and some other assumptions (i.e. the average Jewish male had only two brothers). I all goes to establish the assertion that perhaps 20 people could have been named James son of Joseph brother of Jesus. There is apparently one other known example of an ossuary that mentions the name of a father and brother, but its exact nature is not described in the article. I'm willing to bet that in that case the brother is known to be named because of involvement in the burial not because he was famous. The article also does a good job of pointing out that there is little or no evidence that early Xians (which James would have been) practiced ossilegium.

Ultimately it would seem this artifact is little more than an historical curiousity among many such. The only thing that makes this interesting is th coincidence of those three names, but ultimately it cannot tell us very much and there is no clear way to establish to whom it actually refers.

Layman

Thank you for the comments. I look forward to reading the article.

I have one question. I've seen some comments that they were able to match the stone used in the ossuary to a particular area near Jerusalem. Is that in the article?

Thanks

CX

It has a facsimile of a letter from the geologists that studied the ossuary. Their conclusion was that there is nothing to indicate it didn't come from the region in question. That being said limestone has similar characteristics regardless of it's provenance and no specific "finger print" like DNA so it would be difficult guarantee that it didn't come from somewhere else. Based on the conclusion of the geologists however there is no reason to think it didn't. It is most likely an authentic 1st century artifact of palestinian provenance. The controversial part is whose bones it contained. That unfortunately is not answer by the article and probably cannot be answered in principle. Believers will believe it is James the Just's ossuary and nonbelievers won't and there is no irrefutable argument either way. This probably does nothing to dent the mythicist case.

godfry n. glad

With regards the BAR article on the James ossuary, Layman did ask:

I'll bet they didn't. If they did, they'd be making an unsupported claim, which BAR already has with this teaser:

<a href="http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbbar2806f1.html" target="_blank">http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbbar2806f1.html</a>

godfry n. glad

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

As quoted elsewhere:

godfry n. glad

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... All chalks in the Jerusalem belong to the Menuha Formation of Mount Scopus Group Sequence of the Senonian period. Generally the lower part of the Menuha Formation was exploited around Jerusalem during the 1st and 2nd centuries CE and several chalk stone quarries were discovered from that period in the Jerusalem area. The studied ossuary is made of this chalk.
- see BAR Vol. 26 No. 6 pg. 29; letter from the State of Israel, The Ministry of National Infrastructures Geological Survey


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah... And this prompts the question, "Were any other locations, away from Jerusalem, exploiting the lower part of the Menuha Formation of Senonian limestone during the 1st and 2nd centuries?"

That the chalk of the ossuary is the same as that found in quarries from around Jerusalem does not exclude it from coming from that area, but the Menuha formation is so extensive that it could have come from a 1st century quarry in the Ashqelon area, or anywhere else that the Menuha Formation has surface or near-surface outcroppings. That includes an area far beyond the immediate area of Jeruslem.

godfry n. glad