Layman

First, Lamarie was putting the date at 63 CE because of James' death. Other evidence suggests that it was between 20 BCE and 70 CE, when such ossuaries were used by the Jews in Jersualem. The article makes that clear, sorry if I did not.

Second, it's unusual that any inscription was found at all. Most ossuaries did not have them, suggesting that those who did were notable persons. Which is why the owner of this ossuary even bothered to call anyone at all--the inscription was there and it was long.

Third, your last piece there is misleading. It is not unusual to mention the father, which is a familial relation. But it is unusual to refer to a father and a brother. Perhaps you missed this part:

Radcliffe Emerson

All I said was it would just prove he existed and I didn't believe the supernatural stuff. I typed not one word about it not proving anything.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

Layman

I want to correct myself. Above I said that Lamarie did not date this to 63 CE. I was wrong. Apparently they can limit the time frame down by a significant degree based on the kind of Aramaic writing on the ossuary.

This from an interesting piece on the find at National Geographic's website:

<a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html" target="_blank">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html</a>

It also comments on something I had wondered about. Catholic scholars may not be too happy with this find, as it calls into question the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. James is clearly called the Son of Joseph and Brother of Jesus.

MortalWombat

If I recall, paleography has never been accurate enough to give dates more precise than to about + or - 25 years or so. So a mid first century dating would put it anywhere from ~25 to ~75.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: MortalWombat ]</p>

MortalWombat

I still would like to know where he got the precise 63 AD date. I still suspect it's because of Josephus' date of James' death at 62. There's no way a paleographer would have given a precise date as this based on paleographical evidence.

Layman

No I think you are right. The paleography places this to the middle of the second century. Lamarie is relying on the Josephus reference to pinpoint it.

Have a little patience guys, this is brand new stuff. I know it may depress you and could hurt Doherty's book sales, but the information is still coming in.

Gooch's dad

Layman,

Middle of the 2nd century? Was that just a slip-up?

I also think Lemaire is being entirely misleading by claiming to date the writing to 63 CE.

But I also think this does create a fairly good puzzle for Doherty & company to chew on. I seem to remember some fundies posting a reference to these ossuaries about 6 months ago in yahoo chat--I wish I'd saved the link, because I remember specifically that the site claimed that there were 'Christian inscriptions' on some of the ossuaries, including a cross. That would make it a lot more convincing.

-Kelly

Bede

[pedantic]
It's epigraphy for inscriptions, guys, and paleography for writing.
[/pedantic]

This is find interesting, but as no serious scholar is arguing Jesus did not exist, it is perhaps of curiosity value rather than telling us anything new.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Layman

Yes it was. My mistake.

Well, please do not base that on my accounts. I was so interested in this that I 'rushed' to the presses. I haven't read his article yet and from what I have read he seems pretty straight forward about this and is not misleading anyone. Perhaps it is I who have misrepresented him.

I think those are different ossuaries, there is nothing specifically Christian about this inscription, other than its possible reference to New Testament figures.

Layman

Well, it does have theological significance as well. Apparently some Protestants are pointing out that this conflicts with Catholic Dogma about the perpetual virginity of Mary.

<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>