Freethought & Rationalism Archive

K · 10-22-2002, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Why is it that everyone seemed to be bending over backward to proclaim the "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph" ossuaries, which were from the same tomb, as "coincidence," while the same is not applied to the James ossuary, which we don't even know it's origin before it came into the possession of the current owner?

I think that's obvious. An ossuary for the biblical Jesus would imply that he didn't rise from the dead. And that would be pretty damn upsetting to a lot of people.

Layman · 10-22-2002, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by K:


I think that's obvious. An ossuary for the biblical Jesus would imply that he didn't rise from the dead. And that would be pretty damn upsetting to a lot of people.

The comparison is overly simplicistic. As I discuss above. There are many more deliniators for the recent find that were absent from the previous find.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

FunkyRes · 10-22-2002, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MortalWombat:
Why is it that everyone seemed to be bending over backward to proclaim the "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph" ossuaries, which were from the same tomb, as "coincidence," while the same is not applied to the James ossuary

If I understand correctly, it was not uncommon for lots of bone boxes from different families to be in the same tomb.

Thus there would be no established linkage between those common names in the same tomb.

Apikorus · 10-22-2002, 11:44 AM

Layman, these statistical analyses help contextualize the find, but ultimately don't make a compelling case. Regarding Murphy-O'Connor's skepticism of Joseph's Jerusalem burial, one could always speculate that his ossuary was moved from Galilee to Jerusalem to be in the family tomb. There's really very little to go on, and stranger things have happened.

Incidentally, Gal 1:19 refers to iakobos kurios adelphos = "James, the Lord's brother". One might then also draw attention to the fact that such an identification is lacking in the inscription at hand, despite the fact that by 63 CE Jesus' followers had come to recognize him as divine.

Personally, I'd be delighted if it turned out that this ossuary could somehow be connected with James, Joseph, and Jesus of the New Testament, though I doubt that will ever happen.

MortalWombat · 10-22-2002, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FunkyRes:


If I understand correctly, it was not uncommon for lots of bone boxes from different families to be in the same tomb.

Thus there would be no established linkage between those common names in the same tomb.

There is at least one common linkage: the Jesus ossuary said "Jesus, son of Joseph", and there was also a Joseph ossuary in the same tomb.

Layman · 10-22-2002, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
Layman, these statistical analyses help contextualize the find, but ultimately don't make a compelling case. Regarding Murphy-O'Connor's skepticism of Joseph's Jerusalem burial, one could always speculate that his ossuary was moved from Galilee to Jerusalem to be in the family tomb. There's really very little to go on, and stranger things have happened.

I think that if the statistical limitation to 20 people is persuasive, then the case is very strong indeed. Because 20 is just the starting point. You can further increase the probability that it is the New Testament James by the other deliniators: the very fact that there is an inscription (uncommon, suggesting importance), that the inscription is in Aramaic (uncommon, suggesting nonhellenized Jew), that the inscription refers to a brother (uncommon, suggesting importance of brother). All of these "uncommon" elements, however, match well what we know about James.

And finally, I'm interested in if the "20" number is for the entire era of Ossuary use (20 BC to 70 CE) or if its limited to the dating of this particulary ossuary to the "middle of the first century." If the latter we have another significant deliniator that matches -- again -- with what we know of James (his death in 62 CE).

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

FunkyRes · 10-22-2002, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Please refresh me: What was the date of ossuary James' death? How was this datum arrived at?

60 - 70 AD, arrived at by the style of aramaic script and the fact that at 70 jerusalem and this tradition were destroyed.

Quote:

...unless a variant reading of the ossuary is possible, making Jesus Joseph's brother and not James's...

I don't believe that is possible.
I'm not a scholar, though. Still- no scholar has suggested it.

Quote:

...unless the bone box's Jesus refers only to a locally significant landowner, as has been posited

possible.

Quote:

Only if this "decent argument" holds up under reasonable scrutiny. Any number of complications, including those I've just listed, generate reasonable doubt as to whether this ossuary, and not any other, or none at all, belongs to the James of the NT.

The only possible complication is that Jesus paid for the burial, and hence was mentioned.

Quote:

The connection still doesn't hold. Even if we grant that an Historical Jesus existed, and even if we grant that Josephus's testimony is valid, we still don't have a clear link between this particular artifact and the James, Joseph and Jesus of scripture/Josephus.

Better proof than we have for a lot of other things scholars claim (Q for example)

Quote:

Josephus actually doesn't help any more than the NT does, in connecting James with Jesus. The question remains, how can it be said conclusively that this box actually had Jesus Christ's brother's remains in it, and not some other James' bones?

It's highly likely, not 100% conclusive.
Highly likely is extremely useful, though.
Lots of history is written on the most likely scenario, even without conclusive proof.

Layman · 10-22-2002, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:

Incidentally, Gal 1:19 refers to iakobos kurios adelphos = "James, the Lord's brother". One might then also draw attention to the fact that such an identification is lacking in the inscription at hand, despite the fact that by 63 CE Jesus' followers had come to recognize him as divine.

One could draw such attention to that fact, but one is assuming a lot if they use it as evidence this could not have been Jesus.

First, it mitigates none of the deliniators I have identified.

Second, our understanding of how Jesus' (and James') family understood Jesus is very limited. Certainly taking Paul's usage as common to them is misplaced. I doubt that they called James "the brother of the Lord" because they knew him. And they knew Jesus.

MortalWombat · 10-22-2002, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:

...that the inscription refers to a brother (uncommon, suggesting importance of brother).

As I indicated earlier, if he was important enough to include his name, then why not the fact that he was the Messiah?

Layman · 10-22-2002, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MortalWombat:


As I indicated earlier, if he was important enough to include his name, then why not the fact that he was the Messiah?

This is an unfounded, speculative, argument from not-quite-silence.

First, burial customs are inherently conservative. And it was customary to refer to relatives by name.

Second, James' family was Jesus' family and there is no reason to think they only referred to Jesus as "Christ" or "Messiah." They knew Jesus and were familiar with him.

Third, its possible that those who buried James did not share our elevated Christology.

That's just off the top of my head.

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

10-22-2002, 11:44 AM	#134
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Layman, these statistical analyses help contextualize the find, but ultimately don't make a compelling case. Regarding Murphy-O'Connor's skepticism of Joseph's Jerusalem burial, one could always speculate that his ossuary was moved from Galilee to Jerusalem to be in the family tomb. There's really very little to go on, and stranger things have happened. Incidentally, Gal 1:19 refers to iakobos kurios adelphos = "James, the Lord's brother". One might then also draw attention to the fact that such an identification is lacking in the inscription at hand, despite the fact that by 63 CE Jesus' followers had come to recognize him as divine. Personally, I'd be delighted if it turned out that this ossuary could somehow be connected with James, Joseph, and Jesus of the New Testament, though I doubt that will ever happen.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.