Just a note on the following revival of an old controversy:
A tomb in a suburb of Jerusalem excavated in 1980 is made up of bone containers with names of some of Jesus’ household customers. Some historians believe this tomb could have contained the bones of Jesus of Nazareth, although other people are skeptical. In this article, an ossua (Aryeh Shimron)
A new piece of evidence is reigniting controversy more than the possible bones of Jesus of Nazareth.
A bone box inscribed with the phrase “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” is most likely joined to a tomb in Talpiot, Israel, the place the bones of individuals with the names of Jesus’ household members are buried, in accordance to a new chemical analysis. Aryeh Shimron, the geologist who performed the analyze, claims that for the reason that it is so not likely that this group of biblical names would be identified collectively by opportunity, the new results propose the tomb after held the bones of Jesus. Historians put Jesus’ beginning at some time in advance of four B.C. in Nazareth, a compact village in Galilee.
It is badly written. what most scholars and others do nor realize is that the first century continued for 67 years AFTER Jesus’ death. (Give or take 4 to 8 years depending upon his birth).
many women could have named their child after Jesus because they saw how good a man Jesus was and wanted their children to be influenced by his life. Naming children after famous or good people is not new or rare.
In other words, Talpiot is NOT the tomb of Jesus and his family. It doesn’t matter if the soil matches on the ossuaries or not, there is nothing there linking those remains with Jesus of the Bible.