Apikorus

"It was found in Jerusalem."

Was it? Have the circumstances of its excavation now been cleared up? Surely you would not claim it was "found in Jerusalem" based on the location of the owner!

Layman

How do you know this? Is that the only market for artifacts?

Unless you have some evidence that the artifact was worth more because it was from near the Mount of Olives, you are engaging in unbridled speculation. Money might be a factor to fabricate such an ossuary (though $200 isn't much of an incentive), but you have not established why money would be an incentive to lie about where it came from.

Oh, so now we are back to claiming its a forgery. I was responding to claims that it was not a forgery but likely came from another place. Yes, if it was a forgery someone might have necessarily lied about where it came from. But that was not the starting point of the discussion. If it's not a forgery there is no reason to lie about its location and the report that it came from X place is a place is corrobrated because X place is a place where such things are feasibly found.

Who was this person? When did they examine the ossuary? And do they have more experience than the Geological Institute of Israel, who actually examined the ossuary and have a pretty thorough understanding of Israel's geography?

There is good reason to think it came from Jerusalem (report of the Arab dealer and the geology) and no good reason to believe the contrary.

You guys are stretching here. At least on the information as developed so far.

Layman

I've explained why I think this, Ap. The report of the Arab dealer, the use of Jerusalem limestone, and the corrobration that the reported site was a place where such ossuaries are known to have been found.

If it turns out that it could have come from someplace else, then the stastical evidence is called into question.

And I remind you (before you attack me on this again) I have not seen the statistical evidence and until I do I have not reached a conclusion on this relation of this artifact to James of the New Testament.

Okay???

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

Apikorus

"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?"

The relevance was to the isolated quotes you provided from the newspaper articles. Those quotes discussed the use of ossuaries in general, and were not restricted to limestone ossuaries. Of course I know full well that Lemaire's ossuary is of limestone. That's not the point.

Again, my issue is with inaccurate or misleading statements that have been made in the popular press, and which you have uncritically repeated several times in various threads here. None of these errors is in any way damaging to the case that the ossuary is a genuine first century CE relic. But they are erroneous statements nonetheless and I would once again caution you that not everything you are going to read on this in the newspapers or popular magazines will necessarily be accurate.

Layman

Actually, this is the point. The articles are discussing this particular ossuary find, not ossuary use in history.

Then I guess you are trying to pick a fight with me?

And I will caution you--again--that I have said many times I am holding out final judgment, but that nitpicking about irrelevant issues is simply that--nitpicking. Of course its possible that the scholars said that these kinds of ossuaries were not used except in a couple of rare instances in other geographic regions and the reporters oversimplified.

But when you swoop in on that to argue that they used clay ossuaries in another geographic region after 70 CE, you are making an irrelevant point.

This is a recent discovery. Very recent. I didn't even know the BAR article was released yet. And we are all interested in it and reading whatever we can find on it. And yes, as I have said on my own and in the face of your continuing criticism many times now, we should reserve final judgment until the scholarly community hashes these things out.

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

MortalWombat

Technically, the report of an anonymous collector who said he got it from an unnamed Arab dealer Which is the name of a type of limestone found in the area, and does not indicate that is necessarily came from Jerusalem proper. But do we know that they are not found elsewhere? These are some of the things I would like to have cleared up before people start making statistical claims.

Sauron

Not the BAR article - I thought you were accusing me of not reading your three recycled sources.


No, the Rahmani quote is still troublesome for you. The quotation that a cheaper variety of ossuary was manufactured in southern Judea speaks only to cost and manufacturing location. Presumably, since the word "cheaper" is used, the concern was over the cost of making the ossuaries from Jerusalem limestone. It says nothing about where such cheaper ossuaries were purchased and used. The inference is that the cheaper ossuaries were replacements for the costlier ones quarried in Jerusalem, and used in Jerusalem.

Rahmani's next comment makes that clear:

"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."


Yes, I think he does. Rahmani makes no comment at all that would lead one to think that ossuary burial was predominant pre 70 CE. As Apikorus writes:

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

Apikorus

Layman, you are referring to the report by Shanks of the story by the anonymous and secretive owner concerning the 15-year old tale of some unnamed Arab dealer who allegedly said it was unearthed south of the Mount of Olives? That's an absurdly thin reed to lean on!

Again, in case you did not understand, I cited Rahmani on the 2nd-3rd century Galilean clay ossuaries in part out of completeness and in part to point out that the sources you quoted erred when they said or strongly implied that ossuary reburial ceased after 70 CE. While the articles were of course written to discuss Lemaire's find, the (partially erroneous) information they conveyed was provided as context. As there were slight (or grave, as the misstatement concerning the relative frequency of Greek versus Hebrew/Aramaic inscriptions was) errors with these statements, I thought it appropriate to point them out, and to caution you and others that the popular press often makes errors of this sort. Given the detailed discussion going on here, I think this sort of warning is appropriate.

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

Layman

Of course they have been found elsewhere, but we have no reason to believe it was found elsewhere.

Why not read the article when it comes out?

Layman

Well, as I understand it, the stone it was made from came from the Jerusalem area (not in the city, but in a quarry near the city).

Are you saying that "Jerusalem limestone" was avaiable throughout Judaea? That would be important to know and I would appreciate the source of that information?