Vorkosigan

That's certainly hogwash. I just put up a post at XTALK; the actual number is well over a hundred, probably. BAR is lying; 21 is the figure for only one generation, but there are about 7 possible generations.


>>Using a rough birth rate figure for pre-industrial societies of
>>about 45/1000, that
>>means that there would have been roughly 1800 births annually, with
>>about 36 named
>>JAMES each year (never mind the circumcision waiting period). That yields 5400
>>JAMES in the population over that time (about 7 generations worth,
>>more or less),
>>that gives us about 140 JJJs in the population during that period.
>>Of course, this is a
>>very crude estimate. This is probably not "hundreds," but it seems
>>a robust enough
>>figure.

Vorkosigan.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Layman

Ah, a leading scholar is simply "lying" to us about this. Have you read the piece yet?

As I understand it, the inscription evidence writing-style-analysis narrows down the time frame significantly from 30 BCE to 70 CE.

But since I haven't read the article yet, I'll have to rely on those who have. Anyone read this point?

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Kosh

Which writing style? The first inscriber who wrote "James son of Josepth", or the second inscriber who wrote "brother of Jesus"? (ref: Altmans review of the inscription).

Layman

I think you are jumping to unsupported conclusions if you are accepting Altman's views as established.

Are you a member of cross-talk?

Have you seen the errors other informed commentators have reported about her analysis on cross-talk (especially the alleged misspelling of Jesus--it was not--and her claim that it was excised--it was not, it was incised)?

Did you know that she has not seen the ossuary, but was relying on some pictures of it?

Or that she has not communicated with the widely respected experts (Lamarie and McCarty) who have concluded that the inscription is genuine?

Sauron

Indeed. We know that it extends at least into the Judean desert. From the Israel Geological Society website - a photo of the Menuha formation in the Judean desert:

<a href="http://www.igs.org.il/photos/RW_menuha_big.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.igs.org.il/photos/RW_menuha_big.jpg</a>

And apparently it extends as far as the southwestern part of the Negev desert (near the modern Egyptian border) as well. There is a description of a survey expedition on the same website, that mapped some of that same Menuha formation down in the Negev:


PS - To see these, you may have to go to the homepage:
<a href="http://igs.org.il/siteFrame.asp?sector=home.html" target="_blank">http://igs.org.il/siteFrame.asp?sector=home.html</a>

Then type "Menuha" into the search engine.

So the Menuha formation is apparently a locally widespread phenomenon.

Butters

You guts got way to much time on your hands.

Jayhawker Soule

Just shut up with the damn 'fat jokes'.

Layman

That is an interesting question.

Do you have an answer? We have evidence of such quarries in the Jerusalem area. How much evidence do we have of such quarries in other areas? Or, perhaps more relveant: To what extent are other limestone ossuaries from other regions made of limestone from the same source as the James Ossuary?

Kosh

I don't have access to the list. Why don't you post the information here or in the other thread where her first posts placed?

Jayhawker Soule

It's quite some chat, and a lot more interesting in my opinion than the ossuary drivel.