Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 10-23-2002, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
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?

Nothing. My mistake. Sorry. They found a family tomb with all those names. One of the boxes had Jesus, son of Joseph on it.

Ted Hoffman · 10-23-2002, 09:56 AM

It's a fraud.
Take it from Me.
* No clear dating system used.
* No evidence that the limestone was from Jerusalem as its claimed
* No one saw it being excavated
* No one knows from whence it was found.
* GThomas tells us Jesus did not recognise James as his brother.
* It has no established archaeological value.

Its crappy.

Case closed.

Corwin · 10-23-2002, 10:05 AM

I'm not so sure it's a fraud exactly... but clearly a lot of people are jumping to conclusions that simply aren't warranted.

Assuming it IS a first century artifact from somewhere around Jerusalem... it still doesn't prove the point that a lot of people would like to think it proves. (That it's the ossuary of the brother of Jesus of Nazareth.)

Toto · 10-23-2002, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
It's a fraud.
. . ..
* GThomas tells us Jesus did not recognise James as his brother.

. . .

I would not want to judge anything a fraud based on GThomas or any other Gospel.

Sauron · 10-23-2002, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad:
[QB]Layman did ask:

The information provided there, if I remember correctly, indicated that the community was constructed and inhabited by Hellenistic Jews during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE and that ossuaries from that period were recovered and turned over to the Israel Antiquities Authority (which contradicts the claims in the article that the practice ended in 70 CE).

Indeed. That appears to be what Rahmani also indicates:

<a href="http://www.academy.ac.il/catalogue/cath_arch.htm" target="_blank">http://www.academy.ac.il/catalogue/cath_arch.htm</a>

Quote:

164
L.Y. Rahmani
A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel
Published jointly with the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Far more than an illustrated catalogue, Rahmani's volume covers every aspect of the study of the ossuaries used in Jewish burial from around 20 BCE through the mid-third century CE: terminology, materials, form, the artisans and their work, inscriptions and marks, ornamentation and ornamental motifs, architectural and ornamental parallels, possible foreign influences, and the question of the possible relationship between the Christian reliquary and the Jewish ossuary.

1994. ix + 307 pp., 135 pls. 22 x 31 cm. Cloth. $60
ISBN 965-406-016-7

Layman · 10-23-2002, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
[QB]Layman, it seems to me that Fitzmyer has likely been misquoted or else has misspoken. Most of the ossuary inscriptions are in Aramaic, not Greek.

....

"From these inscriptions, it can be concluded that in and around Jerusalem and Jericho even the lower classes of the Jewish population knew some Greek. This knowledge was probably limited to everyday speech and in general did not include profound familiarity with the language, its grammar, or its literature..."[/i]

So much for the "overwhelming majority" of ossuary inscriptions being in Greek. This really struck me as odd, I must say. Jerusalem and Jericho, from which we derive almost all our knowledge of Jewish burial practices of the period, were not strongly Hellenized, as were the Galilean cities in the north. It simply makes no sense that a vast majority of inscriptions from those cities should be in Greek (unless the sample is unduly weighted by contributions from the era after the bar Kokhba revolt, when Jews were forbidden from entering Jerusalem).

Thank you for the information. I'll see what else I can find before repreating this argument. I actually was kinda surprised myself, but I assure you I quoted the articles accurately.

Quote:

Similarly, Layman, your own arguments seem to conflict. You at once want the ossuary to be rare because it is in Aramaic, but yet appropriate for James and his non-Hellenized, Jewish-Christian group. But there's nothing particularly rare about first century CE Jews from Jerusalem speaking or writing in Aramaic. Indeed it was more common for them to do so in Aramaic than in Greek.

I fail to see any "conflict." I was operating under the assumption that Fitzmyer was correct and Aramaic inscriptions on ossuaries were less common than greek ones. If that where true, I simply pointed out that James, as a non-hellenized Jew, would have probably been buried by people using Aramaic. I was not saying that speaking/writing Aramaic was particularly rare, relying on Fitzmyer I was saying it was rare that such inscriptions were in Aramaic.

Quote:

Regarding the frequency of names, Rahmani writes,

"Including variants and contractions, 147 names, nicknames, and probable names are inscribed on the ossuaries. Of these, 72 are Jewish; 44 of the Jewish names occur only in Jewish script; twelve are names in Greek script only, and the remaining appear in both scripts..."

"The Hebrew masculine names most frequently found in these inscriptions are: Simon (26 examples), Joseph (19), Judas (18), Lazarus (16), John (12), Ananias (10), Jesus (10), and Matthew (8). The most common feminine names are: Salome, including Salomzion (26), Maria (20), and Martha (11)."

The ratio 19/147 gives a 13% frequency for Joseph, and 10/147=7% for Jesus. This accords reasonably well with the frequencies of 14% and 9%, respectively, in the source you quoted. If your 2% figure is to be trusted, we'd expect 1/3 as many Jameses as Jesuses, which would mean roughly three instances. In fact there are five instances of James (Jacob), all in Hebrew. Two of them are with defective spelling (y`qb - cat. nos. 290, 865), and three are plene (y`qwb - cat. nos. 104, 396, 678). This would suggest a 3% frequency for Jacob. At any rate, as I cautioned you, we are dealing with extremely small numbers here.

Well, I have cautioned others and myself. Especially since we have not seen the arguments and do not know fully the methodology he used. However, I was under the impression that the names statistical analysis of names was not based only on ossuary inscriptions, but in all surviving inscriptions from that time period.

Perhaps I was mistaken.

Quote:

The mention of a sibling relationship is apparently quite rare, though not unique to the James ossuary. For example, no. 570 in the catalog bears the inscription Symy br `syh 'Hwy (d')Hnyn = Shimi bar Asiya akhui (d')Hanin = Shimi son of Asiya, brother of Hanin. This language exactly parallels that in the James ossuary. (If Lemaire and/or Shanks has done his homework, this should be mentioned in the BAR article.)

I suspect it will be. And I'd like to know more about this exception to the rule. Was Hanin someone of note? If so, this is actually confirmatory evidence.

Quote:

Finally, concerning the conservative nature of the inscriptions, this is largely true. However, certain unusually lofty relations were mentioned, such as in no. 871 where YeHohana is identified as the granddaughter of Thophlos, the high priest. It is natural to speculate that being brother to the Lord/messiah might merit special, explicit mention.

Of course, if Jesus was a prominent name, it's not unlikely that no such further clarification was needed. Afterall, this was not Jesus' burial site. It was James.

SillyMonkey · 10-23-2002, 11:52 AM

I found this information on a website. Not sure if it has any relation to the Hanin that was on the other ossuary...

Quote:

Josephus, in speaking of the younger Annas' affiliation to the Sadducees, says that they "are indeed more heartless than any other Jews when they sit in judgment" (Antiq. 20:199; cf. also Antiq. 13:294). In the Babylonian Talmud and the Tosefta there is a list of woes caused by high-priestly families. One of these is: "Woe unto me because of the house of Hanin, woe unto me for their calumnies" (Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim 57a; Tosefta, Menahot 13:21). The house of Hanin, a reference to the mighty family of Annas, is accused of calumnies, and one could easily include among these calumnies the persecution of Jesus and his first disciples, in which Caiaphas also played a decisive role.

Source:
<a href="http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/articles/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=1462" target="_blank">Jerusalem Perspective Article: To Bury Caiaphias, Not to Praise him.</a>

Toto · 10-23-2002, 12:24 PM

If the Hanin in "Shimi son of Asiya, brother of Hanin" is a reference to a high priest, it suggests the possibility that the "brother of Jesus" refers to one of the several high priests who were named Jesus in that time frame, except that I don't know of one whose father was Joseph. Or the Christians could argue that Jesus is the "high priest", as he is referred to in Hebrews. Or Jesus could refer to a number of other Jesus's, 27 of whom were notorious enough to be mentioned in Josephus.

This is all speculation. There does not appear to be a way of deciding which is most probable, given the small amount of information contained on the ossuary.

Apikorus · 10-23-2002, 02:04 PM

Layman: "Confirmatory"? Confirming what, exactly?

"Of course, if Jesus was a prominent name, it's not unlikely that no such further clarification was needed. Afterall, this was not Jesus' burial site. It was James."

Really? I'd think it might work exactly the other way. That is, since Jesus was such a common name, the author of the inscription would want to obviate any potential confusion between NT James' exalted brother and any of the hundreds/thousands of other potential Jesuses. So maybe ySw` hmSyH' = yeshua hameshikha or something related might be reasonably expected. It's all quite speculative, of course, but if James' brother with the ordinary name of Jesus was indeed understood to be of unique significance by the author of the inscription, a bit more oomph might have been appropriate.

There is no obvious historical candidate for Hanin in ossuary no. 570. Rahmani's own notes for this item state that it was "a common name for this period". Indeed, Hnyn or one of its variants (Hnn, Hnnyh, or Greek Aninas/Ananas/Ananias) appears in 14 inscriptions. I presume this particular character Hanin was likely of some special significance, for him to merit mention as Shimi's brother. Beyond that one shouldn't say much. Ditto for James' brother Jesus.

Sauron, I think it is wrong to characterize these ossuaries as the product of a "Hellenized" Jewish community. The fact that most of the inscriptions are in Hebrew/Aramaic (the differences are very slight - Aramaic bar/barat (son/daughter) occur two or three times more often than the Hebrew ben/bat - see Rahmani, introduction sec. 6E, p. 13) rather than Greek (as Layman's source erroneously stated) suggests that this community was not strongly Hellenized.

The ossuaries date from 20 BCE to 250 CE, roughly. Some of the later ones (groups B5 and C2) were from Galilee and presumably (though Rahmani is silent on this) the inscribed ones within these groups were mostly in Greek. Greek was used in Jerusalem ossuaries, but as I've emphasized roughly twice as many of the 233 that were inscribed bore Hebrew/Aramaic inscriptions than Greek ones.

After 135 CE (end of 2nd Jewish revolt), the locations are confined to Galilee and southern Judea - Jerusalem was Judenrein by imperial decree.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

enemigo · 10-23-2002, 02:07 PM

I can't help but wonder what other clues were at the site where the ossuary was found that would have given more information about the family of this James. Were there other ossuaries? Perhaps there was an ossuary for his brother at the same location. Maybe other family members too (a son of Yeshua?). Of course, all of that is mere speculation, but is there any other information on where the ossuary was actually found? Or is the extent of the knowledge of its origin just some dealer acquiring it somehow and selling it to the current owner?

richard

10-23-2002, 02:04 PM	#209
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Layman: "Confirmatory"? Confirming what, exactly? "Of course, if Jesus was a prominent name, it's not unlikely that no such further clarification was needed. Afterall, this was not Jesus' burial site. It was James." Really? I'd think it might work exactly the other way. That is, since Jesus was such a common name, the author of the inscription would want to obviate any potential confusion between NT James' exalted brother and any of the hundreds/thousands of other potential Jesuses. So maybe ySw` hmSyH' = yeshua hameshikha or something related might be reasonably expected. It's all quite speculative, of course, but if James' brother with the ordinary name of Jesus was indeed understood to be of unique significance by the author of the inscription, a bit more oomph might have been appropriate. There is no obvious historical candidate for Hanin in ossuary no. 570. Rahmani's own notes for this item state that it was "a common name for this period". Indeed, Hnyn or one of its variants (Hnn, Hnnyh, or Greek Aninas/Ananas/Ananias) appears in 14 inscriptions. I presume this particular character Hanin was likely of some special significance, for him to merit mention as Shimi's brother. Beyond that one shouldn't say much. Ditto for James' brother Jesus. Sauron, I think it is wrong to characterize these ossuaries as the product of a "Hellenized" Jewish community. The fact that most of the inscriptions are in Hebrew/Aramaic (the differences are very slight - Aramaic bar/barat (son/daughter) occur two or three times more often than the Hebrew ben/bat - see Rahmani, introduction sec. 6E, p. 13) rather than Greek (as Layman's source erroneously stated) suggests that this community was not strongly Hellenized. The ossuaries date from 20 BCE to 250 CE, roughly. Some of the later ones (groups B5 and C2) were from Galilee and presumably (though Rahmani is silent on this) the inscribed ones within these groups were mostly in Greek. Greek was used in Jerusalem ossuaries, but as I've emphasized roughly twice as many of the 233 that were inscribed bore Hebrew/Aramaic inscriptions than Greek ones. After 135 CE (end of 2nd Jewish revolt), the locations are confined to Galilee and southern Judea - Jerusalem was Judenrein by imperial decree. [ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

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

10-23-2002, 09:56 AM	#202
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	It's a fraud. Take it from Me. * No clear dating system used. * No evidence that the limestone was from Jerusalem as its claimed * No one saw it being excavated * No one knows from whence it was found. * GThomas tells us Jesus did not recognise James as his brother. * It has no established archaeological value. Its crappy. Case closed.

10-23-2002, 10:05 AM	#203
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	I'm not so sure it's a fraud exactly... but clearly a lot of people are jumping to conclusions that simply aren't warranted. Assuming it IS a first century artifact from somewhere around Jerusalem... it still doesn't prove the point that a lot of people would like to think it proves. (That it's the ossuary of the brother of Jesus of Nazareth.)

10-23-2002, 12:24 PM	#208
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If the Hanin in "Shimi son of Asiya, brother of Hanin" is a reference to a high priest, it suggests the possibility that the "brother of Jesus" refers to one of the several high priests who were named Jesus in that time frame, except that I don't know of one whose father was Joseph. Or the Christians could argue that Jesus is the "high priest", as he is referred to in Hebrews. Or Jesus could refer to a number of other Jesus's, 27 of whom were notorious enough to be mentioned in Josephus. This is all speculation. There does not appear to be a way of deciding which is most probable, given the small amount of information contained on the ossuary.

10-23-2002, 02:07 PM	#210
enemigo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: atlanta, ga Posts: 691	I can't help but wonder what other clues were at the site where the ossuary was found that would have given more information about the family of this James. Were there other ossuaries? Perhaps there was an ossuary for his brother at the same location. Maybe other family members too (a son of Yeshua?). Of course, all of that is mere speculation, but is there any other information on where the ossuary was actually found? Or is the extent of the knowledge of its origin just some dealer acquiring it somehow and selling it to the current owner? richard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.