Layman

What is your source for this?

Steve Locks

Did someone assume NT reliability there...

The NT also doesn't have Jesus buried in a casket.
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Radorth

That's true, you didn't. But then you are denying it is from the first century when nobody else really is. They are arguing that even if it is first century, it doesn't mean much because there is a good chance it has nothing to to with Christ. No need for yet another conspiracy theory at this point.

So I ask again, are there any Christian relics AT ALL dated from the first century? If not then your conspiracy theory has no legs at all.

Rad

FunkyRes

For that matter you could also claim the NT is wrong about who his dad is, and grab any set of boned labeled Yeshua.

Without the New Testament description of Jesus, we have nothing to go on as far as determining wether or not the piece fits the puzzle.

Apikorus

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.

The figure of 895 ossuaries is presumably the number listed in the catalog of the collections of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). I have the catalog in front of me right now: A Catalog of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel, by L. Y. Rahmani (IAA, Jerusalem, 1994). "In all, 897 specimens are listed in the catalog, including inscribed fragments." (Unless otherwise noted, all quotes are from Rahmani.) Rahmani is a leading expert on the subject, and his work is cited in Rachel Hachlili's article on ancient Jewish burial in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. (Fitzmyer, on the other hand, is not an expert on Jewish inscriptions or burial practices, and was quoted in the WP as citing the work of another scholar.)

"Of the 897 specimens included in this catalog, about 227 soft limestone ossuaries are inscribed... Inscribed ossuaries from outside the Jerusalem and Jericho areas are (Rahmani also notes that six hardstone ossuaries were inscribed, bringing the total number of inscriptions to 233.)

"Several different scripts appear on the 233 inscribed ossuaries in this catalog. 143 of these ossuaries bear Jewish script only whereas 73 of them bear Greek script; an additional fourteen (perhaps fifteen) are inscribed in both Greek and Jewish script..."

"The single conclusion which may safely be drawn from the ossuary inscriptions, most of which are from Jerusalem, is that Jewish script was preferred, although with a heavy admixture of 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..."

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). 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.

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.

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.)

Incidentally, the prevalence of various scripts (Jewish (i.e. Aramaic) versus Greek) was strongly dependent on the location of the tomb. The Greek:Jewish ratio was 7:2 at Kidron Valley a, but was 1:6 at Kidron Valley f. At Giv'at Hamivtar, only Greek inscriptions were found, while at Talbiyeh (southern slope), only Jewish script was used. Since apparently nothing is known about the origins of the James ossuary, we really can't say much regarding the significance of its bearing the Jewish script, although as I explained a majority of the ossuary inscriptions were in the Jewish script.

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.

Note to Sauron: according to Rahmani, two of the ossuaries bear inscriptions in Latin script, and one in Palmyrene.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

leonarde

The references to the limestone of the ossuaries
rang a bell since one of the (more obscure)skeins
of evidence as to the origin of the Shroud of Turin has to do with the traces of limestone grit
found in the fibers of the Shroud.
In 1982 it was found that these traces of limestone were of the particular type found in the
Jerusalem area: travertine aragonite limestone.
For a quick look at this see:
<a href="http://www.shroudstory.com/fabric.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroudstory.com/fabric.htm</a>

(right hand side of page is about the limestone).

Cheers!

leonarde

Another take on the same thing: The above is from:
<a href="http://www.observations.net/shroud.html" target="_blank">http://www.observations.net/shroud.html</a>

Cheers!

WalrusGumBoot

The arguments going on here are unbelievable! An empty tomb of a Pharoah is unearthed, and nobody doubts that this Pharoah existed. Some inscriptions are carved in a stone, and it makes the the history books as fact. However, when the subject of Jesus of the bible finally has evidence (outside of the NT) that he actually existed, then suddenly archaeological evidence has somehow been "tampered" with.

I realize that this is a tough pill to swallow to those who believe Jesus was a mythical character, but the question becomes then, What will it take to "prove" that Jesus of the bible actually existed? I think we all need to come to grips with the fact that he was a real person. From that point, it is up to your discretion who he actually was.

Steven Carr

The website claims 'Researchers may have uncovered the first archaeological evidence that refers to Jesus as an actual person and identifies James, the first leader of the Christian church, as his brother.'

Of course, there has been other archaelogical evidence that refers to Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

Christians ridiculed this, in clear and certain terms.

NT Wright wrote :-
'Discovering a tomb with these names in one family is rather like an archaeologist two thousand years hence finding an English tomb with parents called Philip and Elizabeth and children called Charles and Anne, and claiming that this must be the British royal family. The Israeli archaeologists, none of them interested in defending Christianity, were the first to pooh-pooh the idea of this being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.'

You can only imagine the similar scorn Layman must now be heaping on the latest find.

Steven Carr

Not many people were called Pharoah.

Jesus is the Greek version of the Jewish name Joshua.

How many Joshuas and James have there been?