Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Probability of "JAMES"

Expand Messages
  • turton
    I was thinking about this message from Jack Kilmon the other day... ... Ad hominems aside, using figures from Rahmani -- as I recall -- JAMES occurs about 2%
    Message 1 of 37 , Oct 27, 2002
      I was thinking about this message from Jack Kilmon the other day...

      >Doherty has already claimed "hundreds" of Jakobs, sons of Josephs, brothers
      >of Jesuses in Jerusalem's population of 40,000 and equates the ossuary to
      >Noah's Ark and the 7Q "New Testament" fragments. But what would you expect.
      >Archaeological evidence backing up Josephus on James will not sell Jesus
      >myth books.

      Ad hominems aside, using figures from Rahmani -- as I recall -- JAMES occurs about
      2% of the time on ossuaries. Assuming that this is roughly reflective of the population
      at large (iffy), that gives us about 800 JAMES at any given time (using the 40,000
      figure above). That means that there must be about 21 instances of JAMES the son of
      Joseph the brother of Jesus in the population of Jerusalem at any given time. (.19
      X .14 X. 02 X 800). But let's look at it another way....

      At least the way I read this, the box could appear any time from 20 BCE to 70 CE, a
      span of 90 years. Further, the period sixty years prior to this time must also be taken
      into account, since anyone born since about 80 BCE could be buried after 20 BCE, and
      of course, infant and toddler deaths would mean that JAMES would appear on soft
      limestone ossuaries right up to the final moment of use. The total population of
      JAMES, over 150 years, is therefore quite large, and thus the odds of finding a JJJ
      increase correspondingly. The odds of *finding* a genuine JJJ ossuary are different
      from the odds of one being produced; finding one being a function of the density of
      such objects within the search area (all other things being equal!). As the generations
      unfold, the number of genuine JJJ ossuaries increases through accumulation,
      although the "rate of production" does not change (assuming for the nonce that
      production outweighs ossuaries lost to war, destruction, re-use, etc).

      Using a rough birth rate figure for pre-industrial societies of about 45/1000, that
      means that there would have been roughly 1800 births annually, with about 36 named
      JAMES each year (never mind the circumcision waiting period). That yields 5400
      JAMES in the population over that time (about 7 generations worth, more or less),
      that gives us about 140 JJJs in the population during that period. Of course, this is a
      very crude estimate. This is probably not "hundreds," but it seems a robust enough

      Michael Turton
      Chaoyang University
      Taichung, Taiwan

      Sent via the EV1 webmail system at mail.ev1.net
    • DaGoi@aol.com
      In a message dated 10/31/2 10:59:42 PM, Ed wrote:
      Message 37 of 37 , Nov 2, 2002
        In a message dated 10/31/2 10:59:42 PM, Ed wrote:

        <<I for one would not find it surprising if James the Just was accommodated
        such a manner. Assuming that the family came from Galilee as the Gospels
        say, I doubt that they'd have a tomb in Jerusalem, and something had to be
        done with his remains.>>

        First off, I suppose that the number of graves is a function not only of
        population density, as one has stated, but also that people wanted to be
        buried around Jerusalem, on like holy ground.

        Secondly, I'm not sure of the connections between the Mount of Olive (xian)
        ossurarys and Bethany, whether these were just assumed because of the names
        or whatever, but neither Bethany nor Bethlehem is as far away from Jerusalem
        as Galilee. That there was some tenuous relationship of the family with
        Bethlehem is stated in the literature at a time when the family and those who
        knew about it most probably was extent (see our previous discussion on the
        probable persistence of the family). These were Galileans, but were related
        to the area.

        assuming of course that this is the correct area for the contextless ossuary.

        Bill Foley
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.