Steven Carr

<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/8t4/8t4051.html" target="_blank">http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/8t4/8t4051.html</a>

Christian scholars, such as NT Wright, dismiss this with great disdain
:-

'Joseph" and "Jesus" are two of the most common male names, with Judah—or Judas—not far behind.

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.'

So much for this latest relic, which Christians around the world are laughing at.

Apikorus

Er...has N.T. Wright weighed in on the James ossuary? The Christianity Today article you linked was from 1998.

Steven Carr

Yes. Strange isn't it. People find an ossuary with the names Jesus, Joseph and Mary , and Christians ridicule the idea that it had anything at all to do with their Jesus, because it casts doubt on their beliefs.

However, a box with fewer names is seized upon as evidence because it does not directly contradict their claims.

Double-standards?

Do you believe Wright's arguments that these names were so common that such a find proves nothing?

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

Steven Carr

<a href="http://www.escape.ca/~jclong/webdyer.htm" target="_blank">http://www.escape.ca/~jclong/webdyer.htm</a>

'"I thought it was April Fool one day early," said Professor Geza Vermes, an expert in early Judaism, when told that the BBC would air a
whole program on the find. "A Jewish archeologist, seeing those names,
would simply think, 'Oh, more of them.'"'

<a href="http://www.shine.org.uk/howmuch.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shine.org.uk/howmuch.htm</a>

'One had the name ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ on it! However this is hardly evidence against Jesus’ resurrection as names like Jesus and Joseph were very common Biblical times. It was as if today we had found a John and a David!'

<a href="http://www.newsherald.com/archive/religion/ba041198.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newsherald.com/archive/religion/ba041198.htm</a>

'There was no proof the tomb they examined was authentic, but they knew such headlines would sell newspapers. The whole episode turned out to be nothing but cheap sensationalism to attract readers.

But could this have been the tomb of Jesus? The probability is enormously high that it was not. The names "Mary. Jesus," even "Judah," were the most common names used in Jesus' day. It would be like archaeologists finding a tomb in America two thousand years from now with the names Joseph, John, Robert, Ted, and Andrew and claiming it was the famous Kennedy family of our day.'


And similar Christian invective is even now being poured on to claims about the recently discovered ossuary.

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

Layman

Except of course you are badly misrepresenting the evidence here. No Ossuary with the names Jesus, Joseph and Mary has ever been found.

What actually was found was a tomb, with numerous ossuaries in it, including: Jesus, Joseph, Matthew, Judah, Mary, Mary (again). None of the ossuaries listed "Jesus, Joseph, and Mary" on it. That's blatantly wrong. Did you read this before posting it?

What they did find that some people found suggestive is that the ossuary for Jesus said, "Jesus, son of Joseph" and that a Mary (or two) were also found in the same tomb. Of course, Mary is "by far the most common female name in the period." Estimates are that around 1/4th of women were named Mary.

And yes, Jesus and Josephs are common names two. So "Jesus, son of Joseph" is not sufficiently impropable to draw an inference that it is the Jesus of the New Testament.

But as discussed below, merely attesting to "Jesus, the son of Joseph" is to vague to reach a conclusion about specific identity.

Had you bothered to read your own article you would have realized that the recent find had more names than the previous one. The old find had two (Jesus and Joseph), whereas the new one has three (James, Jesus, and Joseph). Whereas Jesus and Joseph are common names, James is much less so (only about 2%).

Biblical Archaeology Review on the frequency of the names:

"The names James (Jacob), Joseph, and Jesus were all fairly common among Jews at the turn of the era. ...Rachel Hachlili has studied names used at this time in all types of inscriptions. Joseph appeared in 14 percent, Jesus in 9 percent, and James/Jacob in 2 percent of the cases. ...in Jerusalem during the two generations before 70 C.E., there were therefore about twenty people who could be called 'Jacob son of Joseph broth er of Jesus.'"

So "James" is a much less common name than Joseph and Jesus. So adding it to the same ossuary greatly changes the probabilities.

However, what makes this case significant is not that the names simply "appear" on the same "box," but they do so in a particular combination: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

Moreover, the forthcoming article contains statistical analysis concluding that only about 20 of the 40,000 Jewish males existing in Jerusalm in that time-frame would have fit that description. So we are already focusing the field down significantly. No such statistical analysis narrowed down the subjects of "Jesus, the son of Joseph." Nor would it have produced such results.

Finally, you ignore one of the main points of every article on this issue: It is very rare for ossuaries to mention a persons' brother. The typical writing is "son of XXX." This suggests some prominence for the "brother" in this case: Jesus.

Obviously not.

There is much more reason to suspect the recent find refers to the New Testament James. Of course, I'm reserving my final judgment on this until after I read the article and see responses to it from the scholarly community. It sounds good, but I always like to see statistical analysis for myself.

Also, there have previously been found ossuaries which said, "James, the son of Joseph" and no one has claimed that it was the James of the New Testament's ossuary. It was not until the "brother of Jesus" deliniation was found that scholars got excited.

I believe Wright's arguments were correct as to the previous find. I have no idea what he thinks about the new find. But the arguments he made would not apply because of the important differences in the two finds. I do know that J.D. Crossan--hardly a Christian apologist--finds the latest find "very credible."

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

Vorkosigan

It's a ridiculous example of NT scholar double standards. The ossuaries may or may not reflect the actual distribution of names in Palestine of the time. It turns out that ossuaries were used after 70 CE, so the possibility that this one comes from the period in question is further reduced. The object was not found in situ so its date cannot even be guessed at. Finally, the statistics prove nothing. One of the "Jesus, son of Joseph" ossuaries could well be our Jesus, and the James one belong to some other James. Without better information there is no way to know. Whatever errors Carr has made, his main point, that NT scholars operate with clear evidentiary double standards, is sound.

This suggests some prominence for the "brother" in this case: Jesus.

It does not. There is only one other case. Basic statistical rule: you cannot generalize from a sample of 1.

Second, you cannot have it both ways. When we complain about the lack of records on Jesus, apologists whine that he wasn't prominent...but for this ossuary, when he needs to be prominent, he suddenly becomes "prominent." The fact is that there were numerous Jesus' in Jerusalem who might one way or another have been though of as "prominent," even if we accept this shaky reasoning you've been promoting here.

Vorkosigan

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

Mageth

I'd be more impressed if it said "James, son of Joseph, half-brother of Jesus" or "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus (Son of God)."

Apikorus

Layman, suppose this James/Joseph/Jesus ossuary originated in a tomb in which there was a second ossuary with the inscription Bubba, son of Jesus. Presumably that would be the end of the line for your hopeful, maximalist interpretation, since tombs were generally for families, and, you would surely insist, Jesus had no son named Bubba. Or, worse yet for you, perhaps Lemaire's ossuary was sitting right next to one which bore the inscription "Jesus, son of Joseph". In either case, I suspect you'd shift to a position like Wright's in 1996, ridiculing the significance of the find, drawing snide analogies to the British royal family, etc. I agree with Michael that there's a whiff of a double standard being applied here.

The obscure origins of Lemaire's find make it difficult to assess its significance. A small amount of additional information, were it available, could easily have devastating consequences for your interpretation. That means the maximalist view is not terribly robust.

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

Layman

The hey-day of ossuaries was prior to 70 CE. Of course that is not the only form of dating evidence. The analysis of the type of Aramaic writing is also important confirmation.

Carr's errors were significant and rendered null his claim that the rejection of the earlier ossuary find was hypocritical for those who believe that this ossuary find is significant and may prove to be James, the brother of Jesus.

Actually, no, you are missing the point. We've never claimed that Jesus was not considered prominent by the Jerusalem Church. Obviously he was. And it is the New Testament church (or James' family) that probably buried James after he was martyered. In fact, Jesus was possibley or probably prominent for a time in Jerusalem as well (which is one reason why Josephus mentions him).

But noting that Jesus' family or the Jerusalem Church would have thought him significant does not mean that the whole Roman world would have.

Layman

Well, you can always hypothesize evidence that will render any claim less significant.

Carr and Turton are off base by implying a double standard. I've highlighted the important differences between the two finds and Carr badly misrepresented the nature of the earlier find.

A true double-standard would exist if one of the already discovered ossuries of "James the son of Joseph" had been trumpeted as THE ossuary of James.

And I've told you that I'm withholding final judgment on this issue until I have a chance to review the statistical arguments at issue. You and I agree its most likely a legitimate archeological find. Whether this can be taken as probably being that of James of the New Testament rests on the statistical information. That debate should be interesting and I await to see how various scholars reacts.

But when Carr completely distorts the evidence of a previous find to claim a double standard, then I would hope we would all call him on it and correct him.