Ted Hoffman

I noticed this too.
I would like to see the source of this claims - the same applies to Vorks claim that "...ossuaries were used after 70 CE".

Radorth

Intensity wrote

"GThomas tells us Jesus did not recognise James as his brother."

Which should be interpreted to mean exactly what then?

Rad

MortalWombat

Sauron linked to a source in another thread:

Layman

Are you being intentionally misleading about me? And to what purpose? I'd like to think not because you are an excellent poster.

The difference is obvious. I accurately quoted a report citing Fitzymer as claiming that there were more Greek than Aramaic inscriptions. Carr apparently did not even read his own source before posting it. He claimed the article said something that it clearly did not.

I passed on accurately what was reported about leading New Testament scholar, Ap. If the report was wrong then the report was wrong. I think you are overcompensating here.

I don't believe everything I read in the papers conclusively, but I think its a good place to start until I have reason to doubt them.

Where did I say that the name of James was rare?

Layman

"In the first century, ossuaries were used in the second of a two- stage burial process, when bones of the deceased were transferred from burial caves. Largely abandoned in 70 A.D., when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple, the practice offers a rare period of self documentation, with hundreds of names carved in stone."
<a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20021021/jesus.html" target="_blank">http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20021021/jesus.html</a>

"From the first century B.C. to about 70 A.D., it was the burial custom of Jews to place their dead
in a cave for a year, then retrieve the bones and put them in an ossuary. Several hundred such boxes from that era have been found—some ornately carved and others plain, some with feet and others without. The burial custom changed in 70 A.D., when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and torched the Temple there."

<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>

"Indeed, bone boxes or ossuaries were used between the 1st century BC and AD 70."
<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/search_content/1022/p01s04-usgn.html" target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/search_content/1022/p01s04-usgn.html</a>

Layman

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.

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

Saying that someone is not prominent unless he was "known at large" is vague, general, and unhelpful. The scope of the prominence is what is at issue here and its very likely that someone could be prominent in a local community, or even in one city or territory, but not to the Empire at large. John the Baptist is a good example, no one but Josephus and the Gospels even mention him. But John the Baptist was likely a prominent person in one particular place at one particular time. Much like Jesus.

Layman

And as I pointed out, this is an unpersuasive argument. The ossuary surfaced in Jerusalem. It was reported by the Arab dealer who sold it to have come from a site near the Mount of Olives. There was no reason for the dealer to lie about this. Many ossuaries have been found in that area. And there are reports that it is made of limestone from the Jerusalem area.

What is your evidence it came from somewhere else?

Layman

And with other names as well. But the only relationship established is on the ossuary of Jesus, "the son of Joseph."

So there was no basis for a statistical analaysis as has been offered in support of the latest find.

Why would I be ignoring this? Of what significance do you think it is?

Why not just recount Wright's argument? You've shown your representations of this article are somewhat suspect.

Yes we do. More than one.

MortalWombat

Doesn't that tell you something? The fact that there have been two ossuaries found bearing the inscription "Jesus son of Joseph" seems to indicate that we are dealing with very common names here.

Apikorus

"Where did I say the name of James was rare?"

22 Oct 12:24 pm: "James, however, appears to have been signficantly less common than either Joseph or James."

22 Oct 12:32 pm: The commonness of Mary's name is one of the reasons the find you referenced is so much less significant than the recent find. Mary - 25% James - 2 %."

23 Oct 1:03 pm: Whereas Jesus and Joseph are common names, James is much less so (only about 2%)."

23 Oct 5:58 pm: "While Jesus and Joseph were very common names, James was significantly less common than they were:"

So you didn't precisely use the term "rare", although the phrase "significantly less common" can easily be read to connote rarity.

Be that as it may, a frequency of 2% is slightly more popular than the name Richard in contemporary American society. Indeed I suspect it is perhaps more common still, since the name frequencies inferred from the ossuaries were based on the total number of inscribed names, which included both males and females. (Though male names were more commonly found on the ossuaries than female ones.)