Does Archaeology prove the Histories found in the Bible?

[Moral Orel]

how many combinations are possible that put Jesus as the significant brother, and james as the secondary. And that have a father named Joseph.

simply put, very few.

say we get three common names, John, jeff, and mark.

and put john as the significant brother, and jeff as the lesser. and mark as the father. I suggest in america you may have a few hundred, to be very generous. And in jerusalem at that time, you may have one, perhaps two. But again that is generous because it's not the names that are significant, it's the correlations to the other two. And that makes it rare in my opinion. But if you can provide a list showing I am wrong, here, I will love to be open mined. But rationally speaking I believe my illustration is sufficient.

Hmmm.... I've been thinking about this one, and I tend to agree to a point. Given a small population over a relatively small time period, there wouldn't be a ton of combinations that make this. I looked it up and found statistical analysis from a few sources that put it somewhere between 1 and 20.

I wonder though, why do you say Jesus was the significant brother? I mean, he was obviously significant because of history and the Bible, but I mean do you draw that conclusion somehow from the inscription on the box? It just says, "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" and that's it right? Where would the significant part come in?

But then if this ossuary is likely authentic because of the small amount of name combinations that are possible, then wouldn't that be evidence for the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" I mentioned? I mean, what are the odds of there being a Jesus, Mary, and Joseph all being buried together then?

 

[Hawkins]

To me, archaeology is more or less about a fluke which makes a location well preserved. It's a location subject to human interpretation. It's a rather weak evidence in support of a large scale activity such as a war or a cultural behavior of a branch of humans at that time. The existence of a historical figure with his sayings and deeds can hardly be supported by archaeology.