Biblical Archaeology and the James Ossuary

[Andrew]

Two part series:
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1180609.html?view=print
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1189304.html?view=print

[Dr.GH]

I am surprised that so long a time has passted without some comment on the webpages you have cited.

The Jame Ossuary is quite interesting, isn't it?

On the one hand are many people's hopes that this is scientific "proof" of the existance of Yeshua. On the other, there are those who reason that the fact that there are serious discrepancies in the inscription is a blow aginst the existance of the same persons mentioned.
Does this seem well thought out to you?

[stevencarrwork]

But there is a genine ossuary from the first century with the name of Jesus on it.

http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/1996a/msg00145.html

Absolutely nobody has ever disputed the genuiness of this claim.

Let us see the atheists try to say there is no archeological evidence of the existence of Jesus in the first century AD, when the evidence is literally rock-solid. What more proof could they want?

[Yog^sothoth]

Well, there could be a problem with a box with the name of jesus on it that was supposed to hold his bones me thinks....coincidentally, you should go watch the movie The Body with antonio banderas. It is on that very subject!

[Andrew]

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1193746.html
Third part

[rogerthomas]

04-01-2003 @ 09:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
stevencarrwork:

But there is a genine ossuary from the first century with the name of Jesus on it.

http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/1996a/msg00145.html

Absolutely nobody has ever disputed the genuiness of this claim.

Let us see the atheists try to say there is no archeological evidence of the existence of Jesus in the first century AD, when the evidence is literally rock-solid. What more proof could they want?

Actually, there are two. One was found in a family grouping with mary, joseph, and I believe james also. Most people don't realize that every 4th woman was named mary back then....An ossuary with jesus's name would not be uncommon if they were to catalog each one they found I think. It is foolish to place any weight on such a thing.

[Sozo]

A story on the ossuary of James on Dateline right now!

[Woman]

It's going to be a long time before any concensus opinion about the bone box will be forthcoming.

I've been keeping track on this site, which is excellent for anyone interested in Biblical archeology with a fairly balanced record.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/index.htm

I'm fascinated by archeology and anthropology of the secular kind and of this kind as well.

The History Channel will have a good show on Sunday about the ossuary.

From what I gathered so far, the jury is still out on the inscription's authenticity. What will it mean if they cannot falsify it? It may well mean that the first 1st Century evidence of a historical Jesus exists. Beyond that I don't know how it will be interpreted, I guess it depends on your beliefs. The Catholics will not be pleased as they deny that Christ had siblings. The atheists will say, big deal, it proves nothing except the names were common. The Christians will read a lot into it and the rest of us will be left wondering if there is more evidence of a historical Jesus out there.

[quetzalphoenix]

Today @ 02:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70201#post70201)
Sozo:

A story on the ossuary of James on Dateline right now!

Yes, but did you notice any slant to the story, with the presupposition that there is no "scientific" (whatever that is supposed to mean) evidence for Jesus' existence unless this box is proved. As if the existence of historical texts is not enough...do we have the same archaeological proof for the existence of Socrates? I would like to find a Greek coffin with the words "Joe, cousin of Socrates" written on it. Otherwise, I refuse to believe he existed. Plato made him up to fit his agenda.:hrm:

[Woman]

quetx:

Yes, but did you notice any slant to the story, with the presupposition that there is no "scientific" (whatever that is supposed to mean) evidence for Jesus' existence unless this box is proved. As if the existence of historical texts is not enough...do we have the same archaeological proof for the existence of Socrates? I would like to find a Greek coffin with the words "Joe, cousin of Socrates" written on it. Otherwise, I refuse to believe he existed. Plato made him up to fit his agenda.

I'm not sure that anyone really believes that this box can prove anything. Whether it's a fake or not, there isn't a great deal that can be "scientifically" deduced.

Also remember we have the works of Socrates. It would sure be great if Christ had written.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 05:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70426#post70426)
Woman:

quetx:



I'm not sure that anyone really believes that this box can prove anything. Whether it's a fake or not, there isn't a great deal that can be "scientifically" deduced.

Also remember we have the works of Socrates. It would sure be great if Christ had written.

I am of the mind that there is something fishy about it. I am not totally convinced of the inscriptions second half authenticity. But my mind could change plus we can never be sure that it is Jesus of Nazareth on the box anyway.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Rusty T]

Also remember we have the works of Socrates. It would sure be great if Christ had written.

Do we actually have the writings of Socrates? I thought most of what we know about Socrates and his teachings are from Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes.

tizzi

[Woman]

Tiz - LOVE that avatar!

Ya know, you're about ol' Soc. Mostly Plato, if I remamber.

[Pilgrim]

The History Channel will have a good show on Sunday about the ossuary.

I saw the history channel story last night. One thing I found intersting was the figures on what percentage of people would have fit the ossuary inscription description.

Only 1 in 2000 would have been Jesus, brother of James, son of Joseph. Pretty high number but still far from absolutely confirming anything. (even assuming the inscription is authentic in all its parts.)

[SLPx]

Yes it is interesting. All it would "prove" is that a person named Yeshua with a brother James lived at the time.

What I find interesting is that for the Son of God, for whom wise men journeyed bearing gifts, whose birth was foretold, etc.etc., there is almost nothing written of him in his lifetime, and he toild most of his life - what little we actually claim to know about it - as a manual laborer.

Didn't his contemporaries know he was the Son?

Incredible...

[dizzle]

The Christian Reseach Journal this month has a very good "lay person" level article on it as well.

[Vorkosigan]

Today @ 02:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70817#post70817)
Pilgrim:
Only 1 in 2000 would have been Jesus, brother of James, son of Joseph. Pretty high number but still far from absolutely confirming anything. (even assuming the inscription is authentic in all its parts.)

Unfortunately, the number is bogus. It depends on things that can only be conjectured. We don't know where the box is from or where it was used, or who used it. What was the population of Jerusalem at that time? Did non-Jerusalemites use such boxes? Etc etc. Any number is built out of assumptions.

Vorkosigan

[quetzalphoenix]

Today @ 07:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70479#post70479)
tizzidale:



Do we actually have the writings of Socrates? I thought most of what we know about Socrates and his teachings are from Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes.

tizzi

Yes, that was my point. In fact, we have more textual evidence, and more reliable textual evidence, at that, about Christ's existence. So, while archaeology is important and can help clarify what is in these texts, I am frustrated when the media makes it sound as if it is more "scientific."

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 11:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70897#post70897)
Vorkosigan:



Unfortunately, the number is bogus. It depends on things that can only be conjectured. We don't know where the box is from or where it was used, or who used it. What was the population of Jerusalem at that time? Did non-Jerusalemites use such boxes? Etc etc. Any number is built out of assumptions.

Vorkosigan

According to them all those variations and contingencies had been considered in coming to the number. And they do know with reasonable surity from where and when the box itself is. It's the inscription itself that is widely questioned not the box.

[Sauron]

04-17-2003 @ 11:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71035#post71035)
Pilgrim:


According to them all those variations and contingencies had been considered in coming to the number.


I have never seen any numerical analysis that accounted for the items that Vorkosigan listed above. Do you have a link?


And they do know with reasonable surity from where and when the box itself is. It's the inscription itself that is widely questioned not the box.

Incorrect. The inability to ascertain provenance of the artifact is a known limitation that the researchers have reluctantly admitted to. There is no way to localize its quarrying, or even where it was used.

[Pilgrim]

Check out the History Channel home page. I am sure they will link to the show.

Again, I'm fairly sure you are wrong on that. The consensus is that it was from the Kidron in the 1st century.

[Dr.GH]

Dr. Rochelle I. Altman,
"The ossuary itself is undoubtedly genuine; the well-executed and formal first part of the inscription is a holographic original by a literate (and wealthy) survivor of Jacob bar Yosef, probably sometime during the Herodian period. The second part of the inscription bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition, probably around the 3rd or 4th centuries, and is questionable to say the least."

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm

Dr. Altman is in my opinion too severe in her assesment that the inscription is a fraud.

I can see a scenario in which the late addition of the "Brother of Yeshua" portion several centuries later is quite possibly the result of a local oral tradition that is made into text. Altman dated the late addition to the third or fourth centuries, or, about when Christianity was made the official religion of Rome, and such a claim of association would be seen as a positive one.

This timing does not suggest to me the type of fraudulent relics common from the various Crusades, or recent frauds created for the illegal antiquities market.

This does not demand that the oral tradition in of itself be accurate, nor does its accuracy bear on the claims for Yeshua's Divinity made by his followers. In this I would agree with quetzalphoenix that this box, or some other, is not a required piece of historical evidence for the existance of a particular Yeshua bar Yosef who's short career as a radical lead to the founding of Christianity.

[Sauron]

Today @ 07:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73109#post73109)
Pilgrim:

Check out the History Channel home page. I am sure they will link to the show.


The History Channel isn't exactly an authoritative source.


Again, I'm fairly sure you are wrong on that. The consensus is that it was from the Kidron in the 1st century.

Yes, I heard you the first time. My statement remains, and it reflects the comments of various experts who were interviewed.

[Pilgrim]

You're quite right, the history channel is more of a popular resource than an academic one. However it is a logical fallacy to assume that because of that its information is false.

[Andrew]

Here we go. lads:
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/18/wbox18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/18/ixnewstop.html

[Pilgrim]

Interesting story. Too bad they missed the show by a week.:doh: