Sauron

Anything about the geology tests done on the box itself?

Sauron

I'm not sure why you would do that. Here is at least one error from the BAR article:

The 20-inch-long box resides in a private collection in Israel. Like many ossuaries obtained on the antiquities market, it is empty. Its history prior to its current ownership is not known.

When the NYT article has already established:

It somehow fell into the hands of looters, who then turned a profit selling it on the antiquities market.

Obviously BAR leaves out a lot of things that the NYT article saw fit to include and clarify. You might want to consider that, when thinking about GSI reports as well.

Apikorus

"It counts for more than anything else anyone has come up with."

That comports perfectly with everything I've said. Namely, there is absolutely nothing to connect this ossuary with a Jerusalem tomb, aside from the alleged word of the Arab antiquities vendor, as remembered fifteen years later by the eccentric collector, as related by Hershel Shanks. Virtually every archaeologist I know would consider this to be of essentially zero probative value. Indeed, it is the sort of rumor which Shanks is fond of putting in a BAR article, but would never see the light of day in a more serious journal.

"And you are, of course, discounting again BAR's report of the GSI's deterimination."

This is utterly wrong, as I've explained. To reiterate, I'll be curious as to what the IGS studies claim to establish, but even if they could unambiguously identify a specific Jerusalem quarry from which this ossuary came, and even if by some other means it could be conclusively established that the ossuary were fabricated or even inscribed in Jerusalem, that still would say nothing about the location of the tomb in which it was found. As Rahmani points out, ossuaries fabricated in Jerusalem were used in a wider area, which included Jericho.

You had asked how many ossuaries came from Jericho. The answer is to be found in the Table of Tomb Groups (Rahmani, pp. 304-307). A total of 49 of the 897 ossuaries were recovered from Jericho (excavated by Hachlili and Killebrew). Of these, eight were inscribed in Greek, six in Hebrew/Aramaic, and three in combined Jewish and Greek scripts. The remaining 32 were apparently uninscribed. Thus, only six of the 143 Jewish script only ossuaries were recovered from Jericho.

Before you get all excited about this statistic, though, let's look a bit more closely at the alleged statement of that Arab antiquities dealer:

"The antiquities dealer told him it was found in the section of Jerusalem called Silwan, just south of the Mount of Olives."

According to the Table of Tomb Groups, only five (perhaps six) of the 897 ossuaries were recovered from Silwan village (excavated by S. A. S. Husseini), but none of them was inscribed.

Are you still comfortable to rely on the testimony of this antiquities dealer?

(There's another side to this story, but I'll leave that for a little bit later...)

Sauron, I must say I think it a bit unfair to slam BAR for failing to indicate that the ossuary fell into the hands of looters. I suspect there is no firm evidence to this fact, yet it is almost certainly true nonetheless. That is, sadly, the process by which many items turn up on the antiquities market. For BAR to say that the prior history of the Lemaire ossuary is unclear is perfectly accurate, I would guess.

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

Sauron

In perousing the Christianity Today article, I found more evidence that either:

a. the GSI report is available at large, or

b. that individuals who have read the GSI report are being interviewed and passing along the findings

Note that this mentions the same kind of test that the NYT article mentions. Also, if my guess is correct, Christianity Today also doesn't redact the GSI data to try and prove that it came from the Jerusalem area - the fact that they left out any such reference is interesting.

<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/141/11.0.html" target="_blank">http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/141/11.0.html</a>

But experts consulted by BAR and Christianity Today seem satisfied that it really is a 2,000-year old artifact. BAR editor Hershel Shanks asked for an analysis by the Geological Survey of Israel. Retired Wheaton College professor John McRay, author of Archaelogy and the New Testament, says the survey's lab report was convincing. "Six different pieces of the patina of the stone were looked at through that laboratory," he said. "It was verified, by people who are not Christians, that the date on this is first century and there is no evidence of recent disturbances of the box."

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

Jayhawker Soule

From the State of Israel, The Ministry of National Infrastructures Geological Survey: Note the part about "exploited ... during the 1st and 2nd centuries CE".

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

Sauron

So now we have to find out the extent of the Menuha formation, to see if it only exists around Jerusalem, or if it extends to other areas.

Sauron

And apparently it DOES extend to the Judean desert. From the Israel Geological Society website:

<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 to the southwestern part of the Negev desert as well:

<a href="http://igs.org.il/siteFrame.asp?sector=home.html" target="_blank">http://igs.org.il/siteFrame.asp?sector=home.html</a>

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.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Vorkosigan

You have no concept of scope. Jesus was no doubt prominent in the Christian community in Jerusalem and among his family members. And probably one or the other or the other or both performed the burial of James.

Saying that someone is prominent in a small group is not the same as saying that they are socially prominent and thus worthy of being named one the tomb of a brother, as archaeologists have implied is a trend (probably incorrectly). You're simply mixing up two different versions of the word, and refusing to admit that you are doing it.

I also think its likely that Jesus was prominent in Jerusalem for a time.

Now you're bringing in the other definition of prominence that you are using. A very lawyerly tactic, this.

In any case, Jesus flamed out in the 30s. Assuming Ant.20.200 records a successful stoning, James died 30 years later. Prominent briefly is not the same as prominent for several decades.

Saying that someone is not prominent unless he was "known at large" is vague, general, and unhelpful.

Thanks, Layman. Please supply a quantitative measure of "prominence" as well as evidence showing at what precise level of prominence it becomes OK to be listed on a tomb inscription.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Steven Carr

The obvious reason why a brother would be named on a coffin, is if they are twins, and die (perhaps in stillbirth) so shortly together that the burials (or placing in the ossuaries) took place closely together.

If two brothers were put in ossuaries in the same day, that would be a motivation to record such a tragic loss.

Jayhawker Soule

Or, perhaps a relative won a prize of N free letters from his local engraver, and didn't want some of the prize to go unused. Or, ...

After a while this speculation begins to take on a character similar to that shown by those who weave tales to reconcile the conflicting reports about Judas. It strikes me as unnecessary effort. There is clearly no basis for making any assumption about this 'James' other than the fact that he's a dead Jewish male with a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>