Possible Earliest Artifact Identifying Jesus? [Archive]

zakur

21st October 2002, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
This raises a point that I've always found facinating in the whole Jesus story, and I would appreciate the insights of anyone who has looked into the situation.

James, so far as I understand, is Jesus' brother. Is he an older sibling? Younger sibling? How many other siblings might there have been?

If James is older, is Mary his mother and what does that do to the whole virgin thing?

If James is younger, is Mary his mother? What does that do (if anything) about Mary as a holy vessle? Was Joseph James' father? So, Old Joseph, it seems was quite capable of begatting a son, why should anyone assume Jesus isn't Joe's natural born offspring?

Just some questions that trouble me from time to time... This from National Geographic's article (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html) on the discovery:He is referred to as the brother of Jesus in both the Bible and in contemporary historical accounts. In Matthew 13:55-56, for instance, Jesus is said to have four brothers and two sisters. But the exact nature of these relationships—whether they were full siblings by blood, half siblings, or cousins—has been open to interpretation.

"If you're Catholic, you think they're cousins because the perpetual virginity of Mary is official church doctrine," said Witheringon. "But there are a lot of problems in the historical record with that."

"When James is referred to as the 'brother of our lord' in the New Testament, the word used means 'blood brother,'" he continued. "It would have to be qualified in context to mean something different."

A second interpretation is that James and the other siblings are half-brothers and -sisters, Joseph's children from a prior marriage.

headscratcher4

21st October 2002, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by zakur
This from National Geographic's article (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html) on the discovery:

Thanks, Zakur:

All of which begs the question....I don't recall from my Gospel readings any previous marriage for Joseph. Also, given the virgin mary's status -- i.e. mother of god -- and Jesus' father -- i.e. the big kahoona (sp?) -- why would Joseph's children be any blood relation at all -- other than in the quaint, modern "foster" brother/sister sense? Anyway, thanks for the info.

Uther

21st October 2002, 02:44 PM

I like how Chris Rock put it in Dogma: "Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility."

-Uther

Captain_Snort

21st October 2002, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Uther
I like how Chris Rock put it in Dogma: "Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility."

-Uther

Think, Joseph and Mary, married but not consumated

Mary: 'Hey honey, I'm late'

Joseph: 'Late? what do you mean'

Mary: 'I'm pregnant, up the duff, bun in the oven'

Joseph: 'erm how?"

Mary: 'well this big bloke with wings came down and told me I was'

Joseph: 'ok, I believe you, pack up we need to find a barn in bethlehem now'

somehow I think not.....

Gregor

21st October 2002, 03:59 PM

The law recognizes exceptions to the rule that hearsay is not admissible in court. One exception is an admission against interest - the thought being you wouldn't have said something that was adverse to your interests, so it was probably true.

John 7:42 - The Jews and Sadducees were confused about Jesus because they said "wasn't the Messiah supposed to come out of Bethlehem and be of the line of David?"

Since the apostles, who were debating with the Sadducees about Jesus' status as the Messiah, did not say "but he was from Bethlehem and Joseph was from the line of David!" we can logically assume that he was neither - as far as John knew.

LizardPeople

21st October 2002, 04:44 PM

Another article at http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html

The most interesting point they make is that including the name of a brother on one of these is kind of odd, and indicates the brother (Jesus) may have been a person of some significance.

Marc

21st October 2002, 05:01 PM

I like the Kinneson take.

"Are you sure it was god? Not that I'm doubting you honey, you just don't know what I'm going through at work.

I tell ya, he better be the ONLY son of god, you get what I'm saying honney?"

UKDan

21st October 2002, 05:22 PM

Jesus had a brother?

How did I manage to get this far in life without knowing that?

Was his name James Christ? I bet he had a fun childhood.

PotatoStew

21st October 2002, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by LizardPeople
Another article at http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html

The most interesting point they make is that including the name of a brother on one of these is kind of odd, and indicates the brother (Jesus) may have been a person of some significance.

Nice article, and that is an interesting point to consider. And while I realize that CNN's website is not exactly a scholarly source, it's still good to see the quote, "most scholars agree that Jesus existed" from a presumably impartial source.

I also liked this quote from the article: "The boxes 'are not popular on the market because ... people don't want a bone box in their living room'". :)

Loki

21st October 2002, 11:46 PM

UKDan,

Jesus had a brother?

Rest easy ... the Catholic church rides to your rescue! From here (http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/quizzes/bvm6.htm) :

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity, even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man (Cf. DS 291; 294; 427; 442; 503; 571; 1880). . . . Para. 500: Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus (Cf. Mk 3:31-35; 6:3; 1 Cor 9:5; Gal 1:19). The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus," are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary" (Mt 13:55; 28;1; cf. Mt 27:56). They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression (Cf. Gen13:8; 14:16; 29:15; etc.).
It would appear that Jesus was an only child ... perhaps explaining his "I'm the centre of the universe" attitude?

Mossy

22nd October 2002, 12:39 AM

Loki,

Are the Catholics the only denomination that believe in the perpetual virginity?

I don't see this as a problem for other Christian denominations. Mary was a virgin for Jesus' birth - his brothers and sisters were normal birth.

Personally, I would love for this to somehow be archaeologically linked to the New Testament - so the argument about whether or not he really lived could be finally answered (since there will never be any way to prove he didn't exist).

-Ed

Soubrette

22nd October 2002, 03:54 AM

From the link provided by Lizard People:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html

The collector, who is Jewish, was not aware that Jesus had a brother. He discovered the interest in the object only when he met Lemaire at a dinner party last spring and asked him to decipher some Aramaic written on a number of collectibles, Shanks said.

The box owner "didn't realize the significance," Shanks said. "He threw up his hands, 'How could the Son of God have a brother?'"

Do Jewish people believe that Jesus was the son of God?

I was under the impression that they considered him another prophet - in which case would there be any problem with him having a family?

However I will confess my knowledge of the Jewish faith is even less reliable than my scanty knowledge of the Christian faith:)

Sou

Mossy

22nd October 2002, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by Soubrette

Do Jewish people believe that Jesus was the son of God?

Ha! Good catch!

I knew a guy once who explained to me that when he said he was Jewish - it was in reference to his race and not his religion. On the issue of religion, he said he was Christian.

Maybe that's the case here - or maybe there is just something not quite right with that story?
-Ed

Ben Shniper

22nd October 2002, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Mossy

Ha! Good catch!

I knew a guy once who explained to me that when he said he was Jewish - it was in reference to his race and not his religion. On the issue of religion, he said he was Christian.

Maybe that's the case here - or maybe there is just something not quite right with that story?
-Ed

The Jew could have meant it hypothetically, as in "If this was the son of G-d, then how could he have had a brother."

Odds are this is another fake like the shroud, possibly faked by the merchant.

-Ben

Mike B.

22nd October 2002, 05:21 AM

I think it is a well established fact that Jesus had at least one brother James. He was one of the leaders of the early church in Jerselum. Saul/Paul mentions him a few times in his letters (brother of the Lord). And remember these letters go back to the first Xian generation.

Apparently, James did not like the fact that Paul who never met Jesus was taking the religion away from Judiasm.

James is also mentioned in a short reference in Josephus as being killed by Annus the high priest in 62CE..."James brother of Jesus who is called Christ"

Hard to say Xian interlopation since it would read "James brother of Jesus Christ the messiah" or something like that.

The Catholic Church is simply engaging in rank special pleading to say that he did not have brothers, the oldest gospel Mark (c70CE) quite clearly says he does. I think it is close to the beginning...I suppose they wish to maintain the virgin thing at all costs. I would assume this is a later addition to the story...

My guess is this is a forgery, but then who knows? Perhaps?

headscratcher4

22nd October 2002, 05:58 AM

When considering Jesus and the Christ family, more particularly family relationships in and about Jerusalem of the 1st Century, a question occurs to me. I would apprecate bible scholars or amature anthropologist opinion.

There is much speculation that Jesus had a brother: James -- despite the Catholic Church's late 19th Century doctrinal marginalization of him. There is also some suspicion that Peter, at least, was married (and how that might affect the ban on married priests in the Catholic church is another question for another day). However, given what we know, and the outline of the story of Jesus' life provided in the bible, here is my question:

Could Jesus have been married as well? Would not a man coming of age in that society at that time have been at least ceremonially married, and sometime well before the age of 33? Wouldn't it have been common for a young man of that time and location to have been married to a second or third cousin from the same town/village from whence he came? WOuld an un-married man of Jesus' age have been unusual? Wouldn't you expect several more of the apostles to have had wives, families, children?

Any thoughts, speculation, assertions or possible answers are appreciated.

Gregor

22nd October 2002, 06:10 AM

Headscratcher - I think you're hiding your light under a bushel, and you are aware of this debate.

There is an interesting argument (see e.g. Baigent, Holy Blood Holy Grail) that asserts that Jesus was, in fact, married. The argument goes:

(1) It was the norm for rabbis to marry. (2) The wedding mentioned in John was Jesus' own - there was no reason for a guest to serve the other guests it was the groom's job, there was no reason for a guest to turn water into wine.

22nd October 2002, 06:10 AM

Could Jesus have been married as well? Would not a man coming of age in that society at that time have been at least ceremonially married, and sometime well before the age of 33? Wouldn't it have been common for a young man of that time and location to have been married to a second or third cousin from the same town/village from whence he came? WOuld an un-married man of Jesus' age have been unusual? Wouldn't you expect several more of the apostles to have had wives, families, children?

There is (heretical) speculation that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen. The wedding at Cana is supposed to be Jesus's wedding, on of the evidences of which is that when the party ran out of wine the guests complained to Jesus which makes perfect sense if he was the host and no sense if he was not.

Flaherty

22nd October 2002, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by BobM
The names are common, but what are the chances of them occuring in triplicate with the proper relationship like that?

I mean.. Bob Mayer is a common name. I've met 3 of them, not counting myself. But none of them have fathers named Karl, and brothers named Nick and/or Joe.

I'd say a better question would be "is this just a fake?" Which that article doesn't elaborate on.

According to the article at ABCNEWS.com, the archaeologist says it is "very probable" the artifact refers to the Biblical Jesus. However, the same archaeologist says that although the names James, Joseph, and Jesus were commonplace, he estimates that in Jerusalem at that time there were about 20 people named James who also had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus. Twenty. That means that there is about 1 in 20 chance -- 5% -- that the inscription refers to the Biblical Jesus. How is 5% considered "very probable?"

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jesus021021.html

Skeptical Greg

22nd October 2002, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
When considering Jesus and the Christ family, more particularly family relationships in and about Jerusalem of the 1st Century, a question occurs to me. I would apprecate bible scholars or amature anthropologist opinion.

There is much speculation that Jesus had a brother: James -- despite the Catholic Church's late 19th Century doctrinal marginalization of him. There is also some suspicion that Peter, at least, was married (and how that might affect the ban on married priests in the Catholic church is another question for another day). However, given what we know, and the outline of the story of Jesus' life provided in the bible, here is my question:

Could Jesus have been married as well? Would not a man coming of age in that society at that time have been at least ceremonially married, and sometime well before the age of 33? Wouldn't it have been common for a young man of that time and location to have been married to a second or third cousin from the same town/village from whence he came? WOuld an un-married man of Jesus' age have been unusual? Wouldn't you expect several more of the apostles to have had wives, families, children?

Any thoughts, speculation, assertions or possible answers are appreciated.

Have you ever seen the series of books that began with:

"Holy Blood, Holy Grail "
Michael Baigent Henry Lincoln Richard Leigh

They support the idea that the descendants of Jesus are alive today.

headscratcher4

22nd October 2002, 06:20 AM

Gregor:

no, at least not intentionally hiding my "light" under a bushel (an interesting phrase, where from?).

My questions arise merely from a rather dilitantish interest in this subject. I have read a lot on the subject -- Wilson, et. al. -- of Jesus and the proof or lack of proof of his historical existence. Indeed, I am vaugely aware of the book that you mentioned, but read it many years ago and don't recall much about it thesis (indeed, till you mentioned it, I had forgotten it, but maybe that is why the ideas were somewhere in my otherwise small brain).

Anyway, just to lay my cards on the table, I believe that a historical Jesus is more likely than not. I do not think that Jesus is the son of god (I am an agnostic). I think Paul is the real problem here, and I like to speculate and think about how all of it came together (I like history...though I am especially interested in the Byzantine Empire and the Crusades). Anyway, just like to hear other opinions and what those more knowledgeable on the subject think of the sometime troubling or absent details of the Jesus story (as opposed to the big picture).

Skeptical Greg

22nd October 2002, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Flaherty

According to the article at ABCNEWS.com, the archaeologist says it is "very probable" the artifact refers to the Biblical Jesus. However, the same archaeologist says that although the names James, Joseph, and Jesus were commonplace, he estimates that in Jerusalem at that time there were about 20 people named James who also had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus. Twenty. That means that there is about 1 in 20 chance -- 5% -- that the inscription refers to the Biblical Jesus. How is 5% considered "very probable?"

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jesus021021.html

I would like to be able to say 'It's a fake/hoax'.. But we do not have proof of that so far.

It just seems to me, the owner of this thing, had to have lived in a vacuum, if they were unaware of the significance of the inscription on it.

Mike B.

22nd October 2002, 06:28 AM

I think the reason they are saying one in twenty is probable is that the only other time they found a brother reference on one of these boxes is when the brother was important...Since James was head of a new religion based on his brother...

Of the twenty were there other James who would have reason to mention their one brother Jesus...
as opposed to other siblings?

If this is genuine, and that is a BIG if, I would think it is indeed likely to have been from Jesus's brother.

headscratcher4

22nd October 2002, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Have you ever seen the series of books that began with:

"Holy Blood, Holy Grail "
Michael Baigent Henry Lincoln Richard Leigh

They support the idea that the descendants of Jesus are alive today.

Yes, I am aware (though never finished) Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It was just too speculative and oogly/boogly.

Actually, my question arises not out of some strange belief that decendents of Jesus are still about, forming part of the illuminati or the families of the idiot crowned heads of Europe. Rather, my question is purely anthropological. I assume Jesus, if he existed, was essentially, a motivated, auto-didactic peasant. I assume his wife, if he had one, was a peasant too and that any children he had just became part of the peasant society in to which they were born...i.e. if Jesus' direct genes are still gene pool, they are general and not focused in Scotland, or Southern France, etc. (heck, if they are anywhere in Europe, than it is likely that anyone with European roots alive today, has em').

(Besides, I always thought if he had children, they would have been mentioned in the gospels, I mean, how could Grandma Mary, standing at the base of the cross at the crucifiction not take in little Billy-Bob and Alice?).

No, my questions arise out of interest in whether 12 un-married men roaming around the countryside in Galilee would have been common, understandable, likely, etc. In other words, the details of the Gospels, not the big picture.

headscratcher4

22nd October 2002, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by Mike B.
I think the reason they are saying one in twenty is probable is that the only other time they found a brother reference on one of these boxes is when the brother was important...Since James was head of a new religion based on his brother...

Of the twenty were there other James who would have reason to mention their one brother Jesus...
as opposed to other siblings?

If this is genuine, and that is a BIG if, I would think it is indeed likely to have been from Jesus's brother.

One reason, suppose a Jesus (not the Jesus, but one of the other Jesus in the neighborhood), was a successful merchant and his younger brother James died. Maybe that Jesus paid for the box, and had his name inscribed on it for that reason... sort of like naming a college building after your father/son/daughter/wife, but making sure that somewhere in the inscription it is recognized that you, the big money guy, is providing the funds. There is a least one logical explaination for the box. James was the brother of an important religous leader OR James was the brother of Jesus the merchant who paid for the box. I am sure we could come up with others....

Afterthought, I was looking at the article again, if scholars are sayint this has a probability of being authentic, doesn't that cause some problems for the current Marian theology of the Vatican? To maintain it's doctrine, won't the Vatican have to find a way to dismiss this? Or, will we see them redefine "brother". Just so it is clear, I think this is all an academic exersize and doesn't change or force reconsideration of anyone who doubts the alleged divinity of Jesus.

Mike B.

22nd October 2002, 06:36 AM

Headscratcher4,
I believe the Gospels say specifically Cephas (Peter) had a mother-in-law and left his family to follow Jesus.

As far as Jesus is concerned, I would check out "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus Vol. 1" by John P. Meier. It is sober in its analysis.
As far as Jesus having or not having a wife, Meier thinks not. It was not unheard of at the time for religious figures like some Essenes to practice celibacy and live a monastic life.

22nd October 2002, 06:38 AM

Mike B.

22nd October 2002, 06:40 AM

Headscratcher4,

You could be right about that. I am not an expert on ossuaries. However, are there other examples of people who paid for the box having their name put on it?

I am guessing if brothers were paying for boxes we would see "brother of" more commonly.

RonSceptic

22nd October 2002, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Have you ever seen the series of books that began with:

"Holy Blood, Holy Grail "
Michael Baigent Henry Lincoln Richard Leigh

They support the idea that the descendants of Jesus are alive today.

Sorry to dissapoint you but these books have been thoroughly debunked. A BBC program called 'The History Of A Mystery' revealed that the parchments which Lincoln et al drew so many conclusions from was in fact a 1950's forgery. In fact you get to see the actual parchment, signed by the artist! (Lincoln only ever saw copies).

The whole 'Priory of Zion' thing was also a hoax by a certain Msr Plantard. You may recall that Plantard is named in the books as the lineal descendant of Christ!! Lincoln was completely fooled by the entire charade.

The book is a good story, but very poor history.:cool:

Mike B.

22nd October 2002, 06:44 AM

I think the Catholic Church has been using the most specious reasoning to get rid of Jesus's brothers. Even when it says so clearly in the text. They say cousins. There is a word for cousin...

My guess is they will continue to maintain their Virgin thing...Hey it has been successful...Just look at Randi's commentary about Our Lady of Gudalope.

PotatoStew

22nd October 2002, 07:13 AM

Gregor:

The wedding mentioned in John was Jesus' own - there was no reason for a guest to serve the other guests it was the groom's job, there was no reason for a guest to turn water into wine.

Jesus didn't actually serve the guests... in fact, turning the water to wine would be more like serving the groom since it would probably be embarrasing for him to run out of wine. Plus there are several other elements in the passage that make it sound like Jesus was a guest, rather than the groom (emphasis added):

John 2:2 -- "Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding."

John 2:3 -- "When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, 'They have no more wine.'" (for BGreen... the guests didn't complain to him, only his mother)

John 2:4 -- "'Dear woman, why do you involve me?' Jesus replied" (if he was the groom, it would be obvious why she would involve him... it would be his responsibility)

John 2:5 -- "His mother said to the servants, 'Do whatever he tells you.'" (If it was his wedding, why would the servants need to be told to listen to him?)

John 2:9 -- "the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside" (Why is the groom mentioned distinctly from Jesus if they are the same person?)

You'd need to come up with some sort of methodology that allows those verses to be explained away while leaving the rest of the passage intact -- otherwise you are left with Jesus as guest or else you are left without any wedding at all.

Skeptical Greg

22nd October 2002, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Sorry to dissapoint you but these books have been thoroughly debunked. A BBC program called 'The History Of A Mystery' revealed that the parchments which Lincoln et al drew so many conclusions from was in fact a 1950's forgery. In fact you get to see the actual parchment, signed by the artist! (Lincoln only ever saw copies).

The whole 'Priory of Zion' thing was also a hoax by a certain Msr Plantard. You may recall that Plantard is named in the books as the lineal descendant of Christ!! Lincoln was completely fooled by the entire charade.

The book is a good story, but very poor history.:cool:

I was dissapointed by about page ten or so.

Headscratcher4 asked for : " Any thoughts, speculation, assertions or possible answers are appreciated."

Did I mention 'credibility'?

I do not even agree with you that it is ' a good story ' .

UKDan

22nd October 2002, 07:18 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mike B.

"My guess is this is a forgery, but then who knows?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What, the bible?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The box owner "didn't realize the significance," Shanks said. "He threw up his hands, 'How could the Son of God have a brother?'"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My sentiments exactly. I think he may have been being ironic here - aren't Jewish people good at that?

Its interesting that the catholic church obsess about whether Mary was a virgin even after Jesus was born. Why does it matter?

I've read one of the Holy Grail books (or something similar). If I remember rightly they're not very sholarly and seem to be firmly in the Templar conspiracy mode.

It did make me think though and there were a number of points which stayed with me.

- the authors claimed the belief that MM was Jesus' lover was shared by Da Vinci and pointed out the figure to the side of Jesus in the Last Supper is suspiciously feminine and cosy to Jesus. Every time I look at a copy I can't help agreeing.

- They also pointed out a number of similarities between pagan myths and the stories in the bible, including the resurrection. In earlier religions, a female deity was always involved in the ressurection story in some way (Isis I think being one example). From this they postulated that MM could originally have been deified. They also thought that the strong cult of MM in certain countries and the veneration of Black Madonnas may be a throwback to this. Even if these assertions are spurious I am sure other scholars have identified connections between the bible and pagan myths and I would be interested in any relevant links.

Skeptical Greg

22nd October 2002, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by PotatoStew
Gregor:

Jesus didn't actually serve the guests... in fact, turning the water to wine would be more like serving the groom since it would probably be embarrasing for him to run out of wine. Plus there are several other elements in the passage that make it sound like Jesus was a guest, rather than the groom (emphasis added):

John 2:2 -- "Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding."

John 2:3 -- "When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, 'They have no more wine.'" (for BGreen... the guests didn't complain to him, only his mother)

Why would Jesus' mother concern herself with this?

John 2:4 -- "'Dear woman, why do you involve me?' Jesus replied" (if he was the groom, it would be obvious why she would involve him... it would be his responsibility)

John 2:5 -- "His mother said to the servants, 'Do whatever he tells you.'" (If it was his wedding, why would the servants need to be told to listen to him?)

Why should the servants listen to Jesus' mother?

John 2:9 -- "the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside" (Why is the groom mentioned distinctly from Jesus if they are the same person?)

You'd need to come up with some sort of methodology that allows those verses to be explained away while leaving the rest of the passage intact -- otherwise you are left with Jesus as guest or else you are left without any wedding at all.

I realize you are addressing the issue of the suggestion that this was Jesus' wedding, and I would agree within the context it is doubtful. Even more so, in the context of what we have available concerning Jesus' ministry and the beliefs of early Christians.

Just thought I would point out a couple of other mysteries in this story.

( addressing his mother as "Dear woman" sounds strange, as well as disrespectfull also.)

headscratcher4

22nd October 2002, 07:35 AM

( addressing his mother as "Dear woman" sounds strange, as well as disrespectfull also.)

It is my recollection that Jesus was not particularly patient or friendly with his mother or family...James, as I understand it, emerges in various letters as a leader of the Jerusalem church AFTER the death of Jesus. He is rather dismissive of his mother in other parts of the Gospels as well...I think. Is this impression false?

Beth Paulkey

22nd October 2002, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Gregor:

no, at least not intentionally hiding my "light" under a bushel (an interesting phrase, where from?).

No one answered this for you? Matthew 5:

5:14
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

5:15
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

22nd October 2002, 08:18 AM

t is my recollection that Jesus was not particularly patient or friendly with his mother or family...James, as I understand it, emerges in various letters as a leader of the Jerusalem church AFTER the death of Jesus. He is rather dismissive of his mother in other parts of the Gospels as well...I think. Is this impression false?

Which reminds me of an old joke, in case you haven't heard it.

Jesus was walking around one day when he saw a woman being stoned. Jesus asked what was going on. A man replied

"She is an adulteress, and according to our law is to be stoned to death!"

Jesus raises his arms and calls out, "Whosoever among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone."

The crowd grows quiet and ashamed, dropping their stones. But then an old woman in the back picks up a stone and hits the poor adultress right on the head.

Jesus glares at her and says, "Mother, sometimes you make me soooo mad!"

Tricky

22nd October 2002, 08:35 AM

I wonder how carefull the inscriptions have been checked. Assuming the engraving was done very shortly after the slabs were cut, the degree of weathering on the inside of the engravings should be about the same as that on the flat part of the slabs (minerals weather when exposed to oxygen as well as through other processes). If there is a great difference in the amount of weathering, then the engraving was done well after the slab was cut.

Does anyone know if this sort of analysis has been done?

RonSceptic

22nd October 2002, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

I was dissapointed by about page ten or so.

Headscratcher4 asked for : " Any thoughts, speculation, assertions or possible answers are appreciated."

Did I mention 'credibility'?

I do not even agree with you that it is ' a good story ' .

This book does come up from time to time in various threads. The debunking is not widely known, as far as I can see, so I usualy chip in with my two cents whenever the topic is raised.

I would guess that the book is still selling well to this day. But then when has truth ever been important when it comes to selling books? Maybe they should move it to the fiction section.

Skeptical Greg

22nd October 2002, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
I wonder how carefull the inscriptions have been checked. Assuming the engraving was done very shortly after the slabs were cut, the degree of weathering on the inside of the engravings should be about the same as that on the flat part of the slabs (minerals weather when exposed to oxygen as well as through other processes). If there is a great difference in the amount of weathering, then the engraving was done well after the slab was cut.

Does anyone know if this sort of analysis has been done?

It is doubtful. If this had been done, whichever side the results supported, would be screaming loud and clear.

The type of test you suggest, is what I'm anxious to hear about.

Walter Wayne

22nd October 2002, 09:28 AM

headscratcher4

Since have done some reading on a historical Jesus. I was wondering if you believed the account in the bible is

1. based on the myth a single man

2. based on an "amalgamation" of several men, as there may have been many messiahs walking around Jerusalem in those days

I am curious since I have heard the second idea put forward once in awhile, however with little argument.

Anyone else have an opinion.

Walt

headscratcher4

22nd October 2002, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by wwayne
headscratcher4

Since have done some reading on a historical Jesus. I was wondering if you believed the account in the bible is

1. based on the myth a single man

2. based on an "amalgamation" of several men, as there may have been many messiahs walking around Jerusalem in those days

I am curious since I have heard the second idea put forward once in awhile, however with little argument.

Anyone else have an opinion.

Walt

My personal opinion -- non-expert! -- is that much of the story comes down to Paul and how Paul interpreted Jesus (who he may have seen/been aware of as a contemporary, but apparently never actually met). In otherwords, the Jesus we know today is in my mind the creation of Paul, as my readings have lead me to believe that without Paul, Peter, James and others who knew Jesus would likely have had the man and his ideas/words absorbed into prevailing Jewish tradition (where, arguably, Jesus would have remained a minor figure/Martyr to Rome, etc.). IMO.

Skeptical Greg

22nd October 2002, 09:39 AM

Supercharts

22nd October 2002, 09:54 AM

Paul Johnson's book The History of Christianity opens with the Council at Jerusalem. Johnson refers to this as the first “council” of the Church.
As Johnson tells the tale Paul and Peter go to Jerusalem to confer with James, Jesus' brother, over admitting 'gentiles' into the Church. Paul wanted to convert the gentiles and not make it a requirement that they convert to Jewish dietary laws and not have to be circumcised. James represented Christianity as a Jewish sect. Paul represented Christianity as being universal and separate from the Jewish religion. The upshot was that in Jerusalem converts had to be Jews but elsewhere they did not. [Bringing Peter with him gave Paul legitimacy]. Converts outside of Jerusalem could continue eating pork and keep their foreskins.

Brown

22nd October 2002, 10:12 AM

The comments above reminded me of the following dialog from a Christmas play (which was, I think, reported in Reader's Digest):

Joseph: May I have a room, please?

Innkeeper: I'm sorry, but we're full.

Joseph: Look, are you sure you can't give me a room? My wife is pregnant.

Innkeeper: Hey, that's not my fault.

Joseph: Well, it's not mine, either!

22nd October 2002, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by wwayne
Since have done some reading on a historical Jesus. I was wondering if you believed the account in the bible is

2. based on an "amalgamation" of several men, as there may have been many messiahs walking around Jerusalem in those days
[/B]

I read an interesting conjecture in the The Hiram Key (Knight and Lomas, 1996), a book that speculated about the origins of Freemasonry. The book was an entertaining read but was, as a whole, difficult to swallow. The conjecture that caught my eye, however, proposed a twist on the "amalgamated Jesus" theory. They claim he was an amalgamation of two men: Jesus, king of the Jews and Jesus, son of God. The former was the Jesus crucified in the Bible, the latter was Barabbas, whom the Jews chose to release from crucifiction instead of Christ.

The authors state that Barabbas is translated as 'Bar':='son of' + 'Abba':='Father' == 'Son of God'. Noting that early translations of Matthew 27:16 actually refer to Barabbas as 'Jesus Barabbas', the authors claim a stunning discovery: the Jews chose to have their kingly messiah crucified (as 'king of the Jews') instead of their priestly messiah. They base this on what they call 'a traditional requirement for there to be two messiahs...A kingly messiah from...the royal line of David would be joined by a priestly messiah from the tribe of Levi'.

This is, of course, very speculative and not peer reviewed, but is nonetheless an interesting assertion.

P.S.

Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere.

corplinx

22nd October 2002, 11:08 AM

In my catholic education, I met catholics who did not believe the virgin myths. Some people proposed that these beliefs came from the borg era of the church where they assimilated the beliefs of others to bridge christianity to them. In other words, the virgin Mary was a compromise to widen early christianity's appeal.

Unfortunately, as I am not an early christian scholar I have no idea if this is historically correct. Is there historical reference for when Mary first became a semi-deity in christian world?

Of course, all this is moot seeing as how if this artifact's inscription is genuine it will be virtually impossible to prove if the Jesus mentioned is Jesus of Nazareth.

LizardPeople

22nd October 2002, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Beth Paulkey

5:14
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

5:15
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Paul actually posted bible verses relevant to the discussion at hand? I can't believe it! I've never...

...oh...

Beth Paulkey.

ReasonableDoubt

22nd October 2002, 11:28 AM

PotatoStew

22nd October 2002, 11:32 AM

Tricky:

I wonder how carefull the inscriptions have been checked. Assuming the engraving was done very shortly after the slabs were cut, the degree of weathering on the inside of the engravings should be about the same as that on the flat part of the slabs (minerals weather when exposed to oxygen as well as through other processes). If there is a great difference in the amount of weathering, then the engraving was done well after the slab was cut.

Does anyone know if this sort of analysis has been done?

and Diogenes:

It is doubtful. If this had been done, whichever side the results supported, would be screaming loud and clear.

The type of test you suggest, is what I'm anxious to hear about.

From the cnn article (emphasis added):

Two scientists from the Israeli government's geological survey tested the box last month, inspecting the surface patina and inscription under a microscope. They concurred that the object is more than 19 centuries old, the archaeology magazine reported.

It sounds like they did something like that. I mean, if that's such an obvious test *to us*, I'm sure the professionals are thinking along those lines as well.

As far as screaming loud and clear goes, if the test showed the inscription was done *later* then there would probably be loud and clear screaming because that would disprove any claims about the box. However if the test showed the inscription dated to the time of the box, I doubt there would be much screaming about it, because while that would support the claims it wouldn't definitively prove them.

PotatoStew

22nd October 2002, 11:37 AM

Also, from http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/4340094.htm :

Otherwise, however, the ossuary passed all its tests. Scientists from the Geological Survey of Israel confirmed to Biblical Review's Shanks that the limestone ossuary was typical of biblical Jerusalem. The Survey also said its surface patina matched patina in the grooves of the characters, indicating that box and inscription were the same age.

Fitzmyer was at first puzzled by some of the Aramaic characters, but found them used in a book of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Aramaic, which uses the Hebrew alphabet, was probably the most widespread language in biblical Jerusalem.

So yes, the test has been done, and it passed.

PotatoStew

22nd October 2002, 11:41 AM

another article, from the Biblical Archaeology review:

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbbar2806f1.html

Walter Wayne

22nd October 2002, 11:43 AM

Thanks guys to the quick answer to my question, and the link to the previous thread.

Walt

Skeptical Greg

22nd October 2002, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by PotatoStew
Also, from http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/4340094.htm :

So yes, the test has been done, and it passed.

Skeptic that I am, I have to say 'what' test/s?

I do not believe that 'microscopic' examination has become an accepted (sole) method of archeological dating.

I will indeed have to agree that this is an interesting find, beyond the 'hoax' category, when I see some independant analysys.

PotatoStew

22nd October 2002, 12:23 PM

Skeptic that I am, I have to say 'what' test/s?

I do not believe that 'microscopic' examination has become an accepted (sole) method of archeological dating.

The microscopic analysis shows that the inscription is as old as the box. They probably date it through other methods.

I will indeed have to agree that this is an interesting find, beyond the 'hoax' category, when I see some independant analysys.

Independent of what? Does the Geological Survey of Israel have some sort of bias that would make them fudge the findings? You make it sound like the thing is being analyzed by tektonics.org or something. ;)

Gregor

22nd October 2002, 12:36 PM

What if the box read:

"Here lie the bones of Yeshua of Nazareth, teacher and prophet, murdered by Pilate"

This thread and my question makes me think of the novel Gospel - a story of a religious scholar whose quest is to find a missing Gospel. The mysterial gospel tells the story of an apostle looking for Jesus's body which was purportedly taken off the cross and entombed in Egypt.

At the ultimate point of the story, on the doorsteps of the tomb, the apostle decides that he really doesn't want to find the body and destroy his faith.

It's a great read.

wert

22nd October 2002, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by PotatoStew

You make it sound like the thing is being analyzed by tektonics.org or something. ;) *recalling a past time when PS publicly defended JP Holding and his Tektonics site right here on these forums*

Skeptical Greg

22nd October 2002, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by PotatoStew

The microscopic analysis shows that the inscription is as old as the box. They probably date it through other methods.

Not exactly the same as " the patina of the box and insription are uniform. i.e. the same age."

There is no information about how age was determined. Only that these types of boxes have only been found to exist in the time frame suspected, and that it contains mold growth similar to that found on other boxes.

Independent of what? Does the Geological Survey of Israel have some sort of bias that would make them fudge the findings? You make it sound like the thing is being analyzed by tektonics.org or something. ;)

I really have no information about the " Geological Survey of Israel ".. Tell me why I should accept their assessment of an artifact without a second, third or other opinion. If the article is genuine, it can't possibly hurt.

I wouldn't for a moment suspect that you would grasp something like this so eagerly, just because it happens to add weight to your core belief system. Any more than you might suspect I would reject it for the same reason.;)

PotatoStew

22nd October 2002, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by wert
*recalling a past time when PS publicly defended JP Holding and his Tektonics site right here on these forums*

:D I was just saying to myself, "I bet wert will have something to say about this" ...where's my application for the million?

I would still defend tektonics, where appropriate... however the point is that scientific analysis of an archaeological find is out of their realm of expertise. Now you will ask "What *is* their realm of expertise" or make some joke about how their realm of expertise is soliciting donations or something, and then I'll say their realm of expertise is researching and reporting the findings of scholars who are knowledgeable in the areas of debate that they cover, and then you'll say... well, whatever. All that is irrelevant to this thread.

Diogenes:

There is no information about how age was determined. Only that these types of boxes have only been found to exist in the time frame suspected, and that it contains mold growth similar to that found on other boxes.

Well, that's something, isn't it? But yes, it would be nice to have a run down on both how the age was determined and how it is *usually* determined by archaeologists.

I really have no information about the " Geological Survey of Israel ".. Tell me why I should accept their assessment of an artifact without a second, third or other opinion. If the article is genuine, it can't possibly hurt.

You're right of course... further opinions couldn't hurt, no matter if it's genuine or not. I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't get further opinions... just giving you some good-natured ribbing.

wert

22nd October 2002, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by PotatoStew

You make it sound like the thing is being analyzed by tektonics.org or something. ;)
Originally posted by PotatoStew

I would still defend tektonics, where appropriate... Disparage Tektonics in one breath, Praise them in another.

No amount of rationalization makes it any less hypocritical. :rolleyes:

The Central Scrutinizer

22nd October 2002, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by UKDan
Jesus had a brother?

How did I manage to get this far in life without knowing that?

Was his name James Christ? I bet he had a fun childhood.

He's not the bloody messiah. He's just a very naughty boy.

PotatoStew

22nd October 2002, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by wert

Disparage Tektonics in one breath, Praise them in another.

No amount of rationalization makes it any less hypocritical. :rolleyes:

Great rebuttal.

Butter is great on bread, but it sucks as a building material. Oops, I'm being hypocritical again. :rolleyes:

wert

22nd October 2002, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by PotatoStew

Great rebuttal.
Thanks!

You sucked up to JP Holding shamelessly whilst he was here, in effect, "apologizing for the apologist", now you disparage his Tektonics site to make a point.

Yep, hypocrisy.

PotatoStew

22nd October 2002, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by wert
Thanks!

You sucked up to JP Holding shamelessly whilst he was here, in effect, "apologizing for the apologist", now you disparage his Tektonics site to make a point.

Yep, hypocrisy.

Ok, let me try to walk you through this wert...

1) Tektonics doesn't do scientific analysis, hence it's not disparaging to imply that they shouldn't be doing it, it's just a recognition of the limits of their expertise.

2) Diogenes (the person I was talking to) would most likely suspect tektonics of having bias, because they are an apologist website, and he holds the opposing viewpoint. Hence, my using them in my statement is a recognition of the fact that Diogenes would probably suspect them of bias, not an assertion that I personally think they are biased. Hence, no disparagement, just a recognition of Diogenes' probable views on the site.

Anything outside of those two points is brought to the matter at hand by you not by me. If you thought I was implying something other than those two points, you were mistaken. It's ok. It happens.

If you insist on maintaining your claim that my statement was disparaging and hence hypocritical, then the onus is on you to actually demonstrate why my statement must be construed as disparaging, despite the explanation I just gave. Simply repeating "It's disparaging! You're hypocritical!" is nothing more than an unsupported claim.

Gregor

22nd October 2002, 02:16 PM

Central Scrut

I loved your LOBrian reference.

I was watching "Meaning of Life" this weekend (for the 25th time).

Why don't people produce and market intellectual and funny films that poke fun at mainstream religion? MOLife and LOBrian are chalk-full of wonderful, arcane references.

I guess the same reason that we'll never elect a president whose an open atheist - the great unwashed find thinking too hard.

Skeptical Greg

22nd October 2002, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Gregor
Central Scrut

I loved your LOBrian reference.

I was watching "Meaning of Life" this weekend (for the 25th time).

Why don't people produce and market intellectual and funny films that poke fun at mainstream religion? MOLife and LOBrian are chalk-full of wonderful, arcane references.

I guess the same reason that we'll never elect a president whose an open atheist - the great unwashed find thinking too hard.

Don't forget Mel Brooks' ' History of the World '..:D

stamenflicker

22nd October 2002, 02:27 PM

Headscratcher,

I just heard about this today-- somehow I missed it in your post yesterday. I think this is very interesting, and even though early indications seem to indicate it is authentic... I have my doubts. I agree with an earlier poster about the blatant lack of Christian artifacts. Humanity is almost too nostalgic to have not saved something...

The idea that this box was just milling around and no one noticed it seems suspect. But the inscription was in Aramaic, which may have made it difficult to read. A few people here were surprised to learn Jesus had a brother-- maybe that's what the guy meant when he said, "I thought Jesus was God's son and didn't have any brothers." Not meaning he believed in the Christian claims, just that it had never occurred to him that the bible would bother mentioning a brother, since it seemed so illogical. A lot of his intent could have been lost in translation, or like most media outlets, we only got the soundbyte.

Having evacuated my home last month due to a train derailment and a massive chemical spill here in Knoxville, I will say that when you have to evacuate, you aren't thinking much about your stuff. You are thinking mostly about your family and their safety. I can only imagine how incredible the evacuation of Jerusalem must have been in 70AD. I suspect folks just left stuff everywhere while the city burned. Who knows how many of these little trinkets were buried in the rubble. And its not like the Romans were going to let folks walk in and reclaim anything.

So I suppose it is possible. If it does prove to be authentic, then it seems a stretch to conclude that the box can't be included in the historical evidence-- I saw someone's odds above. It would be possible like the rich merchant analogy, but unlikely due to the inscription of the brother, which it seems is fairly unusual.

As far as your question regarding marriages and culture HS, I will reread them and post what I know. Off hand, I think it is unlikely that Jesus was married at the time of the 12 disciples. The fact that we don't know much about him prior to the age of 30 or so supports the notion that these 12 men around him wrote only what they knew of the guy, not supplementary material. I have seen more serious scholarship done on Jesus' missing years that involved submerging himself in the Essene culture and this seems more likely to me, both for Jesus and his cousin John. The language Jesus employs throughout the gospels is reminsent of some of the Dead Sea scroll stuff I've read.

Flick

stamenflicker

22nd October 2002, 02:32 PM

Why don't people produce and market intellectual and funny films that poke fun at mainstream religion? MOLife and LOBrian are chalk-full of wonderful, arcane references.

I think the best religious humor out there now has to be the Simpsons. It's no LOB, but some of it cracks me up. I will say however that it is odd to find a decent Christian person portrayed in film these days. There have been a few, but they are just as hard to find as folks taking jabs.

Flick

wert

22nd October 2002, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by PotatoStew

Ok, let me try to walk you through this wert...Well, ya see...

You were the very first one to mention Tektonics in this thread. No one else saw fit to bring them into this discussion.

And IMHO, you did so in a disparaging way.

All else is pedantic rationalization and spin on your part.

I'm quite content to let our readers decide for themselves.

I even remember a few long time users of the forums expressing their dismay at your shameless kowtowing to JP *aka Robert Turkel*.
:)

Tricky

22nd October 2002, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by PotatoStew
Also, from http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/4340094.htm :

So yes, the test has been done, and it passed.
Thank you PS. I can see no flaws in the testing procedure. It seems likely to be a genuine biblical-age artifact, even if it is not of biblical significance.

Brown

22nd October 2002, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by stamenflicker
[E]ven though early indications seem to indicate it is authentic... I have my doubts. I agree with an earlier poster about the blatant lack of Christian artifacts. Humanity is almost too nostalgic to have not saved something...Sad, but true, the business of religious artifacts is rife with fraud. At this point, I see no reason to believe that this artifact is any different. It is very likely that it is either a forgery or not what it others have claimed it to be.

It also reminds me of the much-hyped mini series from 1978 called "The Word," in which a fraudulent gospel was passed off as the real thing. And the supposed author of the the gospel? Why, none other than James, the brother of Jesus.

kedo1981

22nd October 2002, 02:58 PM

This kind of find raises the bar on the whole debate, I’m not saying we should stop talking about it but unless you read Aramaic or are a PHD in archeology all we can do is quote from articles out of magazines. And our banter is mote for lack of expertise.

I must admit this adds fuel to the theist flame, but my lack of knowledge may be hampering my judgment.
I wonder why they would not have written,” James brother of Jesus called Christ”.

stamenflicker

22nd October 2002, 03:02 PM

I wonder why they would not have written,” James brother of Jesus called Christ”.

That is an interesting point. But the word Christ is of Greek origination. Then again, maybe the guy was charging by the letter. :)

Flick

Loki

22nd October 2002, 03:03 PM

crindt,

... the latter was Barabbas, whom the Jews chose to release from crucifiction instead of Christ.
I believe that modern research (ref: 'Life Of Brian') has confirmed that in fact they attempted to released Roger (the robber and rapist), Reginald and Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer before settling on releasing Brian.

Loki

22nd October 2002, 03:06 PM

Flick,

What is your opinion on the lack of Christian 'locality' - none of the actual "historical sites" are known. Why would his tomb go unmarked? You hinted earlier at the destruction of the Temple as a likely cause - is that the only explanation?

Brown

22nd October 2002, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by kedo1981
I wonder why they would not have written,” James brother of Jesus called Christ”. Or "James, the brother of Joses," or some other legitimate, full-blooded brother. If memory serves, another brother was named "Judas." Perhaps Joseph had an alliteration fetish, or perhaps Mary just wanted to hand down clothes to the brothers without having to sew new monograms on them.

Skeptical Greg

22nd October 2002, 03:28 PM

I can't pass up the opportunity to wax a bit facetious, and point out, that it is still a bit sad that we are scrambling around this artifact, in our endeavor to answer questions about the veracity of the whole " is/was Jesus really what/who so many have claimed him to be" question..:confused:

I mean, is this really all, the all powerful, loving creator of the universe can give us, to bring us into the one true way?

(Yes, I know there are those who will say he has given us so much more. But think about it, these will include the same ones who are making such a big fuss over this new 'carrot'. Why the need to keep shoring up this rock-like faith that they have?)

Loki

22nd October 2002, 03:32 PM

(Mike B. wrote) : I think it is a well established fact that Jesus had at least one brother James. He was one of the leaders of the early church in Jerselum. Saul/Paul mentions him a few times in his letters (brother of the Lord). And remember these letters go back to the first Xian generation.
...
The Catholic Church is simply engaging in rank special pleading to say that he did not have brothers, the oldest gospel Mark (c70CE) quite clearly says he does. I think it is close to the beginning...I suppose they wish to maintain the virgin thing at all costs. I would assume this is a later addition to the story...

(headscratcher4 wrote) : There is much speculation that Jesus had a brother: James -- despite the Catholic Church's late 19th Century doctrinal marginalization of him.

(corplinx wrote) : Is there historical reference for when Mary first became a semi-deity in christian world?
Mary's status goes back far beyond the 19th century. A quick example, St Jerome writing in 383 CE : THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY (http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-06/treatise/mary.htm)

You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.
So there you have it - Joseph was a life-long virgin also!!

Skeptical Greg

22nd October 2002, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Loki

Mary's status goes back far beyond the 19th century. A quick example, St Jerome writing in 383 CE : THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY (http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-06/treatise/mary.htm)

So there you have it - Joseph was a life-long virgin also!!

And that means.. (catches breath).. that ... that .. (catches breath again) that James must have been .... ADOPTED!!!

PotatoStew

22nd October 2002, 06:20 PM

wert:

Well, ya see...

You were the very first one to mention Tektonics in this thread. No one else saw fit to bring them into this discussion.

I mentioned it in passing, as a joke, and you saw fit to try to turn it into something more than it was and call me a hypocrite over it. So what's your point?

And IMHO, you did so in a disparaging way.

All else is pedantic rationalization and spin on your part.

I'll take that to mean that you can't actually demonstrate why my statement should be taken as disparaging, as I expected.

I'm quite content to let our readers decide for themselves.

Sounds good to me.

I even remember a few long time users of the forums expressing their dismay at your shameless kowtowing to JP *aka Robert Turkel*.
:)

LOL! That's funny... I don't remember that, but I do seem to remember at least one long time (atheist) member calling you an "*******." Too bad the thread is gone so neither one of us can support our claims.

stamenflicker

22nd October 2002, 06:53 PM

What is your opinion on the lack of Christian 'locality' - none of the actual "historical sites" are known. Why would his tomb go unmarked? You hinted earlier at the destruction of the Temple as a likely cause - is that the only explanation?

I think Christians were by and large a marginalized people until Constantine. They were expelled from Jewish synagogues in 90AD, perhaps earlier. Imagine trying to find evidence of the Native Americans 2000 years from now-- perhaps that's not a good example given the specificity of their culture, but maybe the Palestinians. We have almost a zero chance for artistic expression or architecture, no permenant homes to speak of... only a lot of death and martyrdom.

Flick

arcticpenguin

22nd October 2002, 07:07 PM

-----------------------
Why would his tomb go unmarked?
-----------------------

It was a perfectly good tomb! Only used for 3 days, for crying out loud. And they were Jewish. Like they're not going to put someone else's name on it and re-use it, or sell it?

PotatoStew

22nd October 2002, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
-----------------------
Why would his tomb go unmarked?
-----------------------

It was a perfectly good tomb! Only used for 3 days, for crying out loud.

lol! Another consideration would be that tombs are usually marked/remembered/visited/etc because in most cases there is someone important buried there. But if Jesus rose from the dead, then there wouldn't be any body in the tomb, so people might not have seen a reason to visit it or remember it.

ImpyTimpy

22nd October 2002, 07:23 PM

I disagree 100%. The site itself would've been considered very special/holy ground, so people would've flocked to it. Your argument only holds true if Jesus was just a human, but we're claiming that Jesus was God, therefore the site where he was buried and raised from the dead would've been one extraordinary piece of land.

Originally posted by PotatoStew

lol! Another consideration would be that tombs are usually marked/remembered/visited/etc because in most cases there is someone important buried there. But if Jesus rose from the dead, then there wouldn't be any body in the tomb, so people might not have seen a reason to visit it or remember it.

PotatoStew

22nd October 2002, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
I disagree 100%. The site itself would've been considered very special/holy ground, so people would've flocked to it. Your argument only holds true if Jesus was just a human, but we're claiming that Jesus was God, therefore the site where he was buried and raised from the dead would've been one extraordinary piece of land.

You may be right. Of course, at this point, we're both just speculating.

Mike B.

22nd October 2002, 07:41 PM

I don't think it is too surprising we do not have sites for a "marginal jew" on the peripheries of the Roman Empire. We don't even have a grave for Alexander the Great who conquered the whole world...

I am sure the destruction of Jerselum had something to do with it.

Also, John Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, seems to think that Jesus's body was thrown to the dogs, as many crucified people were.

Not all apparently were because a crucified skeleton was found formally buried in a dig in 1968, but it is something to consider. Just a theory...

The earliest resurrection talk: Saul/Paul does not mention an empty tomb but appearances: "First he appeared to Cephas, than to the 12, etc.

arcticpenguin

22nd October 2002, 07:47 PM

----------------------
You may be right. Of course, at this point, we're both just speculating.
----------------------

Speculating? I thought I was trolling. Oh well.

BTW, where is this "heaven" that Jebus ascended into?

22nd October 2002, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Loki

I believe that modern research (ref: 'Life Of Brian') has confirmed that in fact they attempted to released Roger (the robber and rapist), Reginald and Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer before settling on releasing Brian. [/B]

Ouch, I suppose I left that one out over the plate...(hmm, Melbourne)...er, wicket.

Nonetheless, I was curious if the 'Barabbas' translation was valid. If so, it's interesting, isn't it? Of course, I'm no biblical scholar---it may just be stupid.

Cheers.

(BTW, Melbourne's a great place, but I haven't been able to stoke up much of an interest in cricket).

ReasonableDoubt

23rd October 2002, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by stamenflicker
If it does prove to be authentic, then it seems a stretch to conclude that the box can't be included in the historical evidence-- I saw someone's odds above. I suspect that it is authentic, with a probative value somewhat equal to that of the Josephus reference to James.
Originally posted by stamenflicker
I have seen more serious scholarship done on Jesus' missing years that involved submerging himself in the Essene culture ...No, you haven't.
Originally posted by stamenflicker
The language Jesus employs throughout the gospels is reminsent of some of the Dead Sea scroll stuff I've read. You mean 'the language attributed to Jesus'. So What? The language attributed to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz is reminiscent of that used in Kansas at the the time.

Smalso

23rd October 2002, 04:08 AM

A couple of warning lights flashed on when I read the original article. One was the wording of the inscription. In the dim reaches of my memory I seem to recall that he would not have been called "Jesus" in Aramaic. That is the Latinization of the Greek (or something like that) for Yeshua (Joshua=deliverer) and the inscription would be something like "Yeshua bar Yosep" and whatever the Aramaic for "James" is. Maybe there will be more details later.

The other thing I thought odd was that the guy who has this thing will not reveal where he is keeping it because he does not want to pay for the insurance or something like that. Seems a strange way to treat afind of ths (supposed) importance.

Skeptical Greg

23rd October 2002, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
I disagree 100%. The site itself would've been considered very special/holy ground, so people would've flocked to it. Your argument only holds true if Jesus was just a human, but we're claiming that Jesus was God, therefore the site where he was buried and raised from the dead would've been one extraordinary piece of land.

Not a good argument.

Very few people considered Jesus special until long after his death.

And as PS alluded to, the ones who did think he was special, thought the tomb was a place he took a nap.

The Fool

23rd October 2002, 05:37 AM

My initial unsubstantiated guess would be that, at best, it is a very old artifact produced for sale by someone when making and selling fake religious relics was all the rage....eg shroud of turin, Some saints testicles in a pickle jar, enough pieces of the true cross to build a house, locks of Jesus's hair and all the other wacko stuff the church sold.....

Its often very difficult to tell if something is 1500 or 2000 years old. And I bet the guy who has it finds some origional excuse for not having it closely examined.....

At worst it is a very cheap and nasty contemporary fake....like the Hitler diaries.

PotatoStew

23rd October 2002, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by Smalso
A couple of warning lights flashed on when I read the original article. One was the wording of the inscription. In the dim reaches of my memory I seem to recall that he would not have been called "Jesus" in Aramaic. That is the Latinization of the Greek (or something like that) for Yeshua (Joshua=deliverer) and the inscription would be something like "Yeshua bar Yosep" and whatever the Aramaic for "James" is. Maybe there will be more details later.

From one of the links I gave on page 2 ( http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/4340094.htm ):

The box is an ossuary, used by Jews at the time of Jesus to hold bones of the deceased. The ossuary has almost no ornamentation except for a simple Aramaic inscription: Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui diYeshua (James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus).

ReasonableDoubt

23rd October 2002, 06:15 AM

For those who missed the PBS interview last night, see LINK TO JESUS? (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec02/jesus_10-22.html).

headscratcher4

23rd October 2002, 06:24 AM

It seems to me, in thinking more about all of this since yesterday, that there are a couple of observations that I would be interested to hear comments on.

IF authentic (and that means the "James" and his brother "Jesus" of the gospels), the box is only important if: a, you believe that Jesus didn't exist and that there is no individual at the core of what must then be the gospel myth; or, you are laboring under a doctrinal postion that claims (as noted above) that not only was Mary a virgin (Joseph too), but all family mentioned in the gospels are therefore "cousins".

First, if authentic, the box merely proves/suggests a "historical" Jesus at the core of the Christian myth. IT says nothing about the hitorical accuracy of the gospels, nor who Jesus was or what he did. Rather, at best, it merely suggests that in the circle around this "James" Jesus was important enough to be included as a name on the box. He doesn't have to be important in a very wide circle to be important to family and immediate followers. For example, someone killed at Waco with David Koresh could be burried under a tombstone saying "Believer in and Died with David Koresh at Waco." That inscription while demonstrating the importance of Koresh to that follower, might give little indication in two thousand years of the importance of Koresh outside of a very small community. Anyway, my point is that (since I have thought that Jesus may have been a historical personage) that this really changes little, save to move the discusion on to who was Jesus and what, if anything, he did, etc. -- where, for me at least the more interesting discussion has always been.

Second, a historical Jesus ties the person of Jesus to a chain of human connections -- brothers, sisters, cousins, parents, friends, etc. It makes claims for "virginhood" of either parent a little more difficult to hold. I think this has profound implications for the Catholic church, especially in this era when the Pope seeks to provide Mary with an almost co-equal status to Jesus. This is a theological debate, but given that so much of the story of Jesus is colored by the Catholic Church (as it was created during a period of Roman dominance prior to the reformation), it seems to me that it opens up a potential big problem for Rome. Do they admit the historical object as a proof of Jesus' existence, but not deal with the issue of how James was his "brother". Anyway, as pointed out, this may be a problem in the thological and academic battles within the church, but I think it is a problem nonetheless. In short, if the church can be wrong about Mary -- now increasingly prominent in its theology -- what else might it be wrong about?

Finally, as observed above, even if the box is pushing 2000 years old, it doesn't make it authentic. "Relics" were starting to be manufactured around the Jesus myth within three hundred years of his alleged existence. Lest we forget, Helen, the mother of Constantine journed to Jerusalem sometime in the early 4th century and found the "true cross" intact and waiting to be parcelled out to churches across the empire for the edification of the masses. In short, by the early 300s (maybe 270 years after Jesus' death), they were finding relics everywhere. Now, would someone who knows a little about archeology tell me if you can test for a difference between a stone inscription carved 1700 years ago versus one carved 1900? What is the level of accuracy of the testing available?

An additional thought, the box is allegedly inscribed indicating that James was the brother of Jesus. The argument, I am sure, will be made that this proves that Jesus was an important man. Indeed, to James, but to anyone else at the time? Remember, at the time of James' death, Xians were a small sect, secretive and isolated. Indeed, their founder, Jesus, had been executed (according to the gospels) not only through the power of the occupying Romans, but also at the behest of the religious and civil authorities in the city and country. It seems to me that if burials and funerals were public in ancient Jeruselam, the inscription might argue against its authenticity. Jame's box, placed in a catacomb or public ousiary (sp?) indicating that he is the borther of a criminal might be pushing it...also, wasn't James himself a martyr? Would "criminals" executed by the state have been given the right to burry the body?

In the end, with the possible exception of problems for Catholic doctrine (and even then, I suspect it will be ignored), the finding of this box really changes little. It doesn't prove anything about Jesus one way or the other. We have Paul to thank for Jesus Christ -- and that remains, it seems to me, the most influential (if not accurate) of sources. Funeral boxes for family members says little about the Sermon on the Mount, the raising of Lazerus, or what happened after a crucifiction.

wert

23rd October 2002, 07:16 AM

[i]Originally posted by PotatoStew
wert:

I mentioned it in passing, as a joke, and you saw fit to try to turn it into something more than it was and call me a hypocrite over it. So what's your point?

Not matter how you spin it, call it a "joke" or whatever, it does demonstrate hypocrisy.

You kissed JP Holdings ass when he was here, giving support and credence to his views and tekton site, then you turn around here and use his credibility as a "joke".

Can you spell H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y boys and girls? :)

I'll take that to mean that you can't actually demonstrate why my statement should be taken as disparaging, as I expected.Hm... we'll just leave it to our esteemed readers to decide for themselves eh? :)

LOL! That's funny... And true!

I don't remember that, but I do seem to remember at least one long time (atheist) member calling you an "*******." Also true!

Doubtless a very astute JREF'er! :)

PotatoStew

23rd October 2002, 07:27 AM

Hm... we'll just leave it to our esteemed readers to decide for themselves eh?

Yup. Decide for yourselves, esteemed readers. Was my original comment hypocritical, or is wert merely trying to slander me with unsubstantiated claims?

PotatoStew

23rd October 2002, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
For those who missed the PBS interview last night, see LINK TO JESUS? (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec02/jesus_10-22.html).

Nice link, RD. So it looks like *so far* it is thought to be authentic, and has been examined by at least a few different experts.

(edited to add):

By the way, the second "it" in my second sentence above refers to the ossuary, not to your link, which I'm sure is authentic (although it probably hasn't been examined by any experts). Sorry for any confusion. :)

ReasonableDoubt

23rd October 2002, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by wert
Can you spell H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y boys and girls? :) Yes. I can also spell p-u-e-r-i-l-e and i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t, which pretty much exhausts everything that can be said about your contributions to this thread.

Personally, I think you need a Time-Out - at least until you have something useful to say. :rolleyes:

Mike B.

23rd October 2002, 08:12 AM

Interesting points, Headscratcher,

An authentic box would be important in confirming the history of the early church, and that Paul was correct in labelling James, the brother of the Lord.

But beyond that it doesn't tell us anything we do not already know.

Just a very interesting find...

ReasonableDoubt

23rd October 2002, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by PotatoStew
Nice link, RD. So it looks like *so far* it is thought to be authentic, and has been examined by at least a few different experts.The folks involved are highly respected scholars with appropriate expertise. I think they are due a cautious presumption of authenticity deserving of continued peer review.

Authenticity, of course, makes the evidence no less circumstantial. At the same time, at some point the accumulation of circumstantial evidence becomes such that the mythicist argument shares the same fate as supernaturalism, i.e., "death by a thousand cuts". I'm not yet willing to admit that we've reached such a point, but I am glad that I have a subscription to BAR. ;)

ReasonableDoubt

23rd October 2002, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
"Relics" were starting to be manufactured around the Jesus myth within three hundred years of his alleged existence. Lest we forget, Helen, the mother of Constantine journed to Jerusalem sometime in the early 4th century and found the "true cross" intact and waiting to be parcelled out to churches across the empire for the edification of the masses. In short, by the early 300s (maybe 270 years after Jesus' death), they were finding relics everywhere. This is really bad. :eek: First of all, there is a difference between Helena finding the "true cross" and the manufacture of relics. There is also a difference between Helena finding the "true cross" and insisting the "they were finding relics everywhere". Finally, Helena finding the "true cross" is legend, not fact.See, for example:Her greatest fame Helena acquired by an act for which she was probably not responsible, i.e. the finding of the True Cross. Her presence in Jerusalem and the description Eusebius presented of her stay in the Holy Land led ultimately to connecting Helena with the discovery of the Cross. Remains of the Cross were already venerated in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem at the end of the 340s as is clear from sermons of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (Cat. 4.10, 10.19, 13.4 PG 33, 467ff, 685-687, 777). After 7 May 351, Cyril wrote the Emperor Constantius II that the Cross was discovered during the reign of Constantine I; the bishop gives no indication who discovered the rel ic (Ep. ad Const., 3 PG 33, 1168B). The Emperor Julian believed in the discovery of the relic; he rebukes Christians for worshipping the object (Contra Gal. 194C).

The legend of Helena's discovery of the Cross originated in Jerusalem in the second half of the fourth century and rapidly spread over the whole empire. Three versions of the legend came into existence in Late Antiquity: the Helena legend, the Protonike legend and the Judas Kyriakos legend.

[see Helena Augusta (248/249-328/329 A.D.) (http://www.roman-emperors.org/helena.htm); emphasis added - RDDo you have any proof that "Relics" were starting to be manufactured around the Jesus myth within three hundred years of his alleged existence.", or did you simply presume this to be the case?

wert

23rd October 2002, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt

Personally, I think you need a Time-Out - at least until you have something useful to say. :rolleyes: Yes, father. Perhaps next time I should ask your kindly permission to make a simple aside? :rolleyes:

I merely made one small statement which PS then proceeded to make into a federal case. Slander eh? Hmph. Methinks some take their personal feelings of self importance to new heights. :)

wert

23rd October 2002, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by PotatoStew

Yup. Decide for yourselves, esteemed readers. Was my original comment hypocritical, or is wert merely trying to slander me with unsubstantiated claims?
^ Loves to beat that dead horse. :)

What's next? A new thread? A poll to vindicate you against my pernicious "slander"? :rolleyes:

ReasonableDoubt

23rd October 2002, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by wert
Perhaps next time I should ask your kindly permission to make a simple aside. Having made your "simple aside", do you have anything to add to the topic at hand?

headscratcher4

23rd October 2002, 09:40 AM

RD:

Touche. Thank you for the citation.

As I have noted, I am not a scholar on this particular topic, just a diletante and speculator. I appreciate the information.

I have read much Byzantine history, and clearly Byzantine culture accepted the myth/legend that Helen found the true cross during her pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the early 4th Century (for this, I can only cite that I have read John Jules Norwich's excellent history of the Byzantine Empire, as well as Stephen Runciman's excellent histories of the Crusades and Byzantine History).

I assumed (making an ass of me? :) ) that any cross or pieces of a cross discovered in the 4th century is/was a manufactured relic -- the history of manufactured relics (at least in midevil Europe) is pretty well established (as an aside, I note that in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, along with the Mohamed's tooth, they have the fore-arm -- I think -- of John the Baptist, which I believe was recovered from the Byzantines when the Turks sacked the city in 1453). You are right in noting that I have nothing but subsequent mythology to rely on in any assertion that Helen, the mother of Constantine, found such a relic.

I do note, however, that histories of the crusades are filled with Knights returning home with "relics" acquired while in the Middle East...for example, I believe that the spear that pierced the side of St. Andrew, was convienently located by one of the monks accompanying the crusaders just before a critical battle. As to when relics were being found and/or manufactured, I'll grant you I have no specific knowledge.

I guess my quesiton to you is: do you think that pieces of the "true cross" that were being venerated in the 340s were really parts of the "true cross?"....I have no reason to think they are...legend isn't sufficient proof for me. Thus, till shown otherwise, I have to conclude that such a relic (whether found by Helen or not) was "manufactured" to serve a religious purpose rather than actually being the cross on which Jesus' was crucified.

Anyway, I am not sure what point I am trying to make save that I believe that many relics that were proffered by the midevil church as objects of veneration are/were forgeries (this may be ignorant predjudice...and, as always, I will bow to better, more well informed information). How early such relics began to appear I do not know...and am interested to learn more. However, it seems to me that if pieces of the true cross were appearing in 340, than they were being manufactured not too long before that (again assuming -- with all the problems that entails-- that the true cross didn't survive the period of Jesus's immediate life) -- putting it, by my calculation -- only about 300 years after Jesus' death (not too many years latter, in the big scheme of time, than the 270 years I posited in my above post).

wert

23rd October 2002, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Having made your "simple aside", do you have anything to add to the topic at hand? Nope. Not really. Was quite content to make a small factual aside and leave this thread alone.

But.....

....PS insisted upon taking offense at a simple opinion of mine and wouldn't let it rest.

I made a small statement of fact.

"PS praises tekton in one breath and treats them as a joke in another".

PS disputed this. and I stated (and it was an opinion girls and boys) that I felt it was a bit hypocritical for him to do so.

If he wants to think that's "slander" and get nasty about it, then I suggest he try some of the decaffeinated brands. :)

Oh well, why the hell not? Something on topic.

The provenance of the find may lend credence to a historical Jesus. But so what? The find doesn't support the divine Jesus we find in the bible in any way.

It's an interesting find that people are reading too much into...

PotatoStew

23rd October 2002, 10:25 AM

headscratcher:

IT says nothing about the hitorical accuracy of the gospels

I think "nothing" is a bit extreme... surely it says at least a little bit. The gospels say Jesus was a real person, and that Joseph was his father (at least in a practical sense, if not biological), and that James was his brother. If the box is authentic, then it shows at least those points are accurate, which is something. Not a lot, I admit, but not "nothing" either.

You bring up a good point about the implications for the catholic church though. As the PBS interview points out, the box clearly says Joseph is James' father, so at the very least that would seem to rule out any idea of James and Jesus being cousins.

ReasonableDoubt

23rd October 2002, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I guess my quesiton to you is: do you think that pieces of the "true cross" that were being venerated in the 340s were really parts of the "true cross?" I think it absurdly unlikely.
Originally posted by headscratcher4
Thus, till shown otherwise, I have to conclude that such a relic (whether found by Helen or not) was "manufactured" to serve a religious purpose rather than actually being the cross on which Jesus' was crucified. Perhaps it was an early example of "pious fraud". On the other hand, and in my opinion more likely, perhaps some 1st century Christian found a cross or some similar remnant in the area and superstitiously presumed to be the "true cross". If Josephus is to be believed, finding a crucifix would not constitute a supernatural event.

Why, other than bias, would you choose 'manufactured relic' as your default? Doesn't it make more sense to await the evidence and subsequent peer review?

headscratcher4

23rd October 2002, 10:48 AM

Stew:

Thank you, point well taken. As I indicated earlier, I accept the likelyhood that Jesus was a historical person, and even that the Gospels attempt (through a certain prism) to recount what the author believed to be the life and mission of Jesus. The point I inarticulately was trying to make is that the existence of the the box does just, and only, what you indicated: that at best, and if authentic, it merely confirms that there was a man named James who had a brother called Jesus and a father named Joseph. And, archeologically speaking, the fact that Jesus' name was on the box might indicate that someone, in some context (and this is very unclear to me, as noted above) may have considered Jesus an important enough figure to recognize him on the box as James' brother.

It, however, seems to me that this says nothing about why "Jesus" was important -- for miracles? For standing up to Rome? For being a preacher? For being the Messiah? For being the founder of the family business that James ran (i.e. the church at Jerusalem)?

At the same time, it isn't any alternative confirmation of the working of miracles, raising from the dead, etc. It doesn't confirm crucifixtion or resurection (indeed, notably silent...why not James, son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus who arose from the dead...." that, at least would put why Jesus was "important" in context). It doesn't confirm mission, or occupation (maybe, Jesus was recognized as a really important carpenter...I know, that is facitious, but it does underscore that we know little/nothing about the circumstances of the creation of this box, if authentic). All it confirms is that there was a man named James with a brother named Jesus. It doesn't tell us, for example, that in the niche next to this box, was another empty box, with the words Jesus, son of Joseph and brother of James (again, facitious, but also pointing out how, where, etc. of the finding of the box are not inconsequential to determining authenticity).

Finally, as there really is not theological truth about Jesus that can be gleaned from this find, I do note, like some others have, that the box indicates that James was the brother of Jesus, it in no way indicates that Jesus was considered the messiah by his brother or James' contemporaries (i.e. ...brother of Jessus, King of the Jews and Annoited of God" or whatever the appropriate phrase for the messiah would be...).

Anyway, it is a facinating archeological story, and one well worth watching.

Stew, what is your understanding, is it similar to mine and that James, too, was martyred? If he had a box, why wouldn't Jesus have had one also -- other than not enough time to prepare one, of course :). Might there have been a box for Joseph too (I wonder if families were burried together?). The problem with archeology, of course, is that it only tells you/confirms what you find, it occasionally tells you something about what you don't find, but often as not, that is speculative.

headscratcher4

23rd October 2002, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
I think it absurdly unlikely.
Perhaps it was an early example of "pious fraud". On the other hand, and in my opinion more likely, perhaps some 1st century Christian found a cross or some similar remnant in the area and superstitiously presumed to be the "true cross". If Josephus is to be believed, finding a crucifix would not constitute a supernatural event.

Why, other than bias, would you choose 'manufactured relic' as your default? Doesn't it make more sense to await the evidence and subsequent peer review?

Well, perhaps I should have used the words "pious fraud" -- though, without intending to impune the belief of the creator of a "pious" fraud, it seems to me that at some point it is, essentially, "manufactured" -- somehow somebody, whether in the first, second or third century had to believe a piece of wood was the true cross and than convince others that is was so.

I admit to bias, because I don't believe pieces of the true cross were lying about. Your point has some plausibility, but like my speculation on the potential manufactured nature of the relic, your position is just as speculative that the "true cross" was found lying about sometime in the 1st century (agreed, a non supernatural event) and it just happened to be held and venerated for another 200 years but only mentioned (as your citation indicates) begining about 340.

Anyway, with respect to this particular item, I am sorry I indicated that my default position is that it is a fraud. I've no idea...it seems to me that it is as likely to be real (as I think Jesus and James were historical persons) as not. However, as indicated above in another posting, I am not sure that it in anyway necessitates a change in my skepticism over who Jesus is alleged to have been, what he did, etc. In any event, I am perfectly willing to hear the peer reviewed conclusions on this particular object and to learn what others think, and to change my views (re-examine my bias) accordingly.

PotatoStew

23rd October 2002, 11:20 AM

Stew, what is your understanding, is it similar to mine and that James, too, was martyred? If he had a box, why wouldn't Jesus have had one also -- other than not enough time to prepare one, of course

My understanding is that James was martyred, but I know this only from the various links that have been posted in this thread. As for why Jesus wouldn't have a box... my personal opinion is that it's because there were no bones to put in it, because he was resurrected. However, if the skeptics are right, and this is not true, then he may well have a box -- somewhere.

It doesn't confirm crucifixtion or resurection (indeed, notably silent...why not James, son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus who arose from the dead...."

I don't think you can legitimately say "notably" silent unless it can be established that it was a common practice to put notable deeds along with the names on the ossuaries. If none (or very few) of the other 900(?) or so ossuaries that they have contain reference to anything other than names then that absence in this case isn't notable, it's probably expected.

headscratcher4

23rd October 2002, 11:24 AM

Again, pont well taken. I say "notably" because with the hindsight of 2000 years, it merely seemed to me that if your brother was important because he was believed to be the "messiah" (as opposed to a really good carpenter), that would have been a pretty important thing...but, as you note, it may not have been the practice, and I shouldn't impose my current sensibilties on their sensibilities/customs, etc.

PotatoStew

23rd October 2002, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Again, pont well taken. I say "notably" because with the hindsight of 2000 years, it merely seemed to me that if your brother was important because he was believed to be the "messiah" (as opposed to a really good carpenter), that would have been a pretty important thing...but, as you note, it may not have been the practice, and I shouldn't impose my current sensibilties on their sensibilities/customs, etc.

It would have made things much easier if the inscription said "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus who rose from the dead and by the way all that stuff about the miracles was true." :)

headscratcher4

23rd October 2002, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by PotatoStew

It would have made things much easier if the inscription said "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus who rose from the dead and by the way all that stuff about the miracles was true." :)

Indeed, but I bet there would still be many battles over what is intended by even so blunt a message... All hail the Judean Peoples Liberation Front!:)

Soubrette

23rd October 2002, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by PotatoStew

It would have made things much easier if the inscription said "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus who rose from the dead and by the way all that stuff about the miracles was true." :)

"James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus who rose from the dead and by the way all that stuff about the miracles was true allbeit still within The Laws of Physics just not accessible or knowable by humans at this time."

:p

Sou

PotatoStew

23rd October 2002, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Soubrette

"James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus who rose from the dead and by the way all that stuff about the miracles was true allbeit still within The Laws of Physics just not accessible or knowable by humans at this time."

:p

Sou

:p :D

ReasonableDoubt

23rd October 2002, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
...it seems to me that it is as likely to be real (as I think Jesus and James were historical persons) as not. However, as indicated above in another posting, I am not sure that it in anyway necessitates a change in my skepticism over who Jesus is alleged to have been, what he did, etc. Certainly nothing about the current development touches on much beyond the question of historicity.

Loki

23rd October 2002, 02:17 PM

Potato,

Just a little detail on the 'Gospel relevence' of the box - isn't this an example of pattern fitting? A bit like getting 9-1-1 in the New York lottery? Even if the box is completely authentic, there seem at least 3 viable explanations :

1. It is a box that was created for *the* James, brother of *the* Jesus*, son of *the* Joseph.
2. It is a box that was created for another James, brother of another Jesus, son of another Joseph. Purely random conincidence that the names match - a coincidence we are lead to believe is quite possible (although I wonder how the odds have been calculated - seems a little like "roll your own" to me!)
3. It is a box that was created for another James, brother of another Jesus, son of another Joseph. The father Joseph was an early christian, and named his sons according to what he believed.

Surely, even precisely dating the box to 100 CE would leave all three of these alternatives as viable? The "pressure" to select option 1 over the other two comes purely from a human/christian need to 'find validation'? What possible evidence or process is there to determine which of these 3 options is "the truth"?

zakur

23rd October 2002, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Loki
Just a little detail on the 'Gospel relevence' of the box - isn't this an example of pattern fitting?I read an article from Radio Free Europe (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/10/23102002155823.asp) that addresses the problem of "pattern fitting" by Biblical Archealogists:It is common among many Christian believers to hold that the Bible is sufficient authority for all that it contains. Even so, the faithful ardently welcome extra-Biblical evidence of Biblical truths. "BAR" Managing Editor Feldman: "Well, there are people for whom the Bible is sufficient. But I think that even for many devout Christians and Jews or what have you, that whenever you come across an object or a site that is associated with a Biblical event or a Biblical person, there's an immediacy that is just very powerful. And even if it's no more than just a confirmation of one's beliefs, it is still very powerful confirmation."

This eagerness to find historic evidence, writer Lazare says, contributes to a problem. In his "Harper's" article, Lazare says that many Biblical archaeologists make the nonscientific error of beginning from a set of beliefs and then fitting the evidence they discover into those beliefs: "[This view] tends to assume that whatever archaeologists find will somehow buttress Christian or Jewish faith, and tends to look at it from that perspective."

Lazare continues: "Well, the 'Biblical Archeology Review' is a very interesting publication. It's kind of imbued with that kind of mentality. It's a magazine that's written for and read by believers."

Not so, says "BAR's" Feldman: "Well, we try to be impartial. We've been accused of having a point of view, but we've been accused of having contrary.... You know, some people think we're too liberal and some people think we're too conservative. So, I like to think that we're just right -- somewhere in the middle."A CS Monitor article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s04-usgn.html) quotes an expert who believes the "fit" is too good:Experts already disagree about the authenticity. Crossan figures it's most likely credible. But Robert Eisenman, author of "James the Brother of Jesus" worries the inscription is too good to be true. "It's too pat," he says. "Why add 'Jesus' to the inscription? It's like someone wanted us to be sure."

ReasonableDoubt

23rd October 2002, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Loki
Surely, even precisely dating the box to 100 CE would leave all three of these alternatives as viable?Yes, though not all logical possibilities are co-equally viable. Your option #3 seems like a stretch.
Originally posted by Loki
The "pressure" to select option 1 over the other two comes purely from a human/christian need to 'find validation'? Much as the "pressure" to select alternative explanations might well be driven by a need to validate a mythicist position.
Originally posted by Loki
What possible evidence or process is there to determine which of these 3 options is "the truth"? None - a frustrating fact that no one disputes.

corplinx

23rd October 2002, 05:08 PM

I haven't read anything from anyone who is declaring that this was "the" jesus. Have I missed those articles or are people drawing their skeptic guns out of their holders a bit too fast?

Now, people are talking about the _possibility_ of this box being a link to an actual Jesus and the _implications_ of it. Face it, a concrete link to the historical Jesus is big news. I haven't read of anyone jumping the gun yet and setting up a shrine to relic and claiming that touching cures warts yet, but feel free to post links to articles that do so we can make fun of them.

zakur

23rd October 2002, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
I haven't read anything from anyone who is declaring that this was "the" jesus. Have I missed those articles or are people drawing their skeptic guns out of their holders a bit too fast?

Now, people are talking about the _possibility_ of this box being a link to an actual Jesus and the _implications_ of it. Face it, a concrete link to the historical Jesus is big news. I haven't read of anyone jumping the gun yet and setting up a shrine to relic and claiming that touching cures warts yet, but feel free to post links to articles that do so we can make fun of them. Well, I think the original report from Biblical Archaeology Review (http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbbar2806f1.html) says unequivocally that this is the ossuary of the James, brother of the Jesus:Evidence Of Jesus Written In Stone
Ossuary Of Jesus’ Brother Backs Up Biblical Accounts

After nearly 2,000 years, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus has come to light literally written in stone. An inscription has been found on an ancient bone box, called an ossuary, that reads “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” This container provides the only New Testament-era mention of the central figure of Christianity and is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus.

PotatoStew

23rd October 2002, 06:10 PM

Loki:

Just a little detail on the 'Gospel relevence' of the box - isn't this an example of pattern fitting? A bit like getting 9-1-1 in the New York lottery? Even if the box is completely authentic, there seem at least 3 viable explanations :

1. It is a box that was created for *the* James, brother of *the* Jesus*, son of *the* Joseph.
2. It is a box that was created for another James, brother of another Jesus, son of another Joseph. Purely random conincidence that the names match - a coincidence we are lead to believe is quite possible (although I wonder how the odds have been calculated - seems a little like "roll your own" to me!)
3. It is a box that was created for another James, brother of another Jesus, son of another Joseph. The father Joseph was an early christian, and named his sons according to what he believed.

Surely, even precisely dating the box to 100 CE would leave all three of these alternatives as viable? The "pressure" to select option 1 over the other two comes purely from a human/christian need to 'find validation'? What possible evidence or process is there to determine which of these 3 options is "the truth"?

I think RD had a good response to this. I would only add that I think number 3 is very unlikely, since ossuaries weren't done much after 70ad (according to the various links) that would only leave about 40 years for this hypothetical Joseph to convert to Christianity, have two sons, name them James and Jesus, and have James die and Jesus become important enough to be included in the engraving. Possible I suppose, but seemingly far-fetched, IMO.

As far as the other two, sure, either is possible. How the probabilities are assigned, I don't know. From some of the interviews, the scholars examining the matter seemed to think it was unlikely that that particular name combination would exist in a second instance (not impossible, just unlikely, and certainly it couldn't hurt to look at the assumptions or data that led to tha conclusion), so considering that the combination appears in another source in exactly that manner (the NT) it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to think that the two instances may be related.

That being said, I don't think there is any way to figure out which option is "the truth". Most of the experts interviewed in the other links seemed to say as much, and no one here on the board has claimed otherwise (I'm not sure why BAR sound so much more certain of the conclusion).

Zakur:

But Robert Eisenman, author of "James the Brother of Jesus" worries the inscription is too good to be true. "It's too pat," he says. "Why add 'Jesus' to the inscription? It's like someone wanted us to be sure."

That seems sort of unreasonable to me... if it doesn't say Jesus, it's not evidence. If it does say Jesus, it's too perfect, so it's not evidence. It's a "no win" situation. Besides, some of the interviews explained why Jesus' name would be on there... he was an important figure. If there were no examples of this on other ossuaries, it might be suspicious, but since it's a known practice, I don't see why it should be considered a problem.

ReasonableDoubt

23rd October 2002, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by zakur
Well, I think the original report from Biblical Archaeology Review (http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbbar2806f1.html) says unequivocally that this is the ossuary of the James, brother of the Jesus: Shameless advertising. It will be pretty sad if the actual article reads anything like that.

Skeptical Greg

23rd October 2002, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by PotatoStew

Zakur:

That seems sort of unreasonable to me... if it doesn't say Jesus, it's not evidence. If it does say Jesus, it's too perfect, so it's not evidence. It's a "no win" situation.

On the surface this (no win) seems like a reasonable lament. However, I would suggest the 'too perfect' verdict, carries more weight, in light of the fact, that after 2000 years, it "... is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus."

Besides, some of the interviews explained why Jesus' name would be on there... he was an important figure.

.. but there is the rub.. Important to whom? It is quite clear he wasn't very important, to very many people till many years after his supposed death.

His apparant lack of importance is exemplified in all of the 'missing archeological evidence', that would make this find less questionable.

If there were no examples of this on other ossuaries, it might be suspicious, but since it's a known practice, I don't see why it should be considered a problem.

.. again not quite true .. it is my understanding that the " son of - brother of " phraseology may not be very common at all. Rather, we would expect to see one or the other.

Kimpatsu

23rd October 2002, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
I am on thin ice here, but weren't these names quite common? :confused:
John, James, Joseph, Jesus and Judas were the most common names in Arimathea at the time. My own name, Anthony, is common today, and although my surname might not be quite so common, I put my full name into Google and searched just the United Kingdom, and still came up with an Anthony John Kehoe from Liverpool, and a doctor of the same name in Buckinghamshire.
Finding an ossuary engraved with these names is no great shakes. Besides, since it seems to have been robbed from a grave, it has no archaeological value, because it can't be dated in context now.
HTH.

stamenflicker

23rd October 2002, 08:04 PM

RD,

I suspect that it is authentic, with a probative value somewhat equal to that of the Josephus reference to James.

I agree.

No, you haven't.

It's good to see your week away didn't soften your assholish disdain.

You mean 'the language attributed to Jesus'.

Yes that's what I meant.

So What? The language attributed to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz is reminiscent of that used in Kansas at the the time.

Sigh.

Flick

PotatoStew

23rd October 2002, 08:51 PM

Diogenes:

in light of the fact, that after 2000 years, it "... is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus."

...

His apparant lack of importance is exemplified in all of the 'missing archeological evidence', that would make this find less questionable.

What archaeological evidence would you reasonably expect to find? Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, and didn't have its own architecture in the beginning, plus with the destruction of the temple and scattering of the Jews in 70ad as well as the early persecution of Christians, the odds are further decreased that we would have any significant archaeological evidence, even if Jesus was in fact an important person at the time.

Kimpatsu:

John, James, Joseph, Jesus and Judas were the most common names in Arimathea at the time. My own name, Anthony, is common today, and although my surname might not be quite so common, I put my full name into Google and searched just the United Kingdom, and still came up with an Anthony John Kehoe from Liverpool, and a doctor of the same name in Buckinghamshire.
Finding an ossuary engraved with these names is no great shakes.

Yes, but there are 58.8 million people in the UK, so it isn't all that surprising that your name would show up a few times. There were only about 40,000 people in Jerusalem at the time. If (just for the sake of argument) we say that the "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" combo is just as likely as the "Anthony John Kehoe" combo, then 3 out of 58.8 million translates to .002 out of 40,000 -- it doesn't even occur one time in 40,000. The "James, Joseph, Jesus" combo would need to be 500 times more likely than the "Anthony John Kehoe" combo to even find it once in ancient Jerusalem. So I'm not sure that you can really say finding those names are "No great shakes" just based on your google search.

Hopefully, as more info comes out about the ossuary, there will be better info as to the real odds of finding that name combo.

ReasonableDoubt

24th October 2002, 03:39 AM

stamenflicker wrote: I have seen more serious scholarship done on Jesus' missing years that involved submerging himself in the Essene culture and this seems more likely to me, both for Jesus and his cousin John. The language Jesus employs throughout the gospels is reminsent of some of the Dead Sea scroll stuff I've read.ReasonableDoubt wrote: No, you haven't. stamenflicker wrote: It's good to see your week away didn't soften your assholish disdain.You can show no "serious scholarship done on Jesus' missing years that involved submerging himself in the Essene culture", only speculation. You insist on proving yourself worthy of disdain.

ReasonableDoubt

24th October 2002, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
On the surface this (no win) seems like a reasonable lament. However, I would suggest the 'too perfect' verdict, carries more weight, ...I would suggest that any verdict is premature.
Originally posted by Diogenes
... in light of the fact, that after 2000 years, it "... is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus."This seems like a non sequitur. How is being "the first ever" evidence of being "too perfect"?

ReasonableDoubt

24th October 2002, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I put my full name into Google and searched just the United Kingdom ... Finding an ossuary engraved with these names is no great shakes. Darn. If only these highly respected scholars had access to Google they might have realized how underwhelming this is. Thanks. :rolleyes:

RonSceptic

24th October 2002, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

John, James, Joseph, Jesus and Judas were the most common names in Arimathea at the time.
HTH.

Prof Lemaire of Sorbonne University(apparently the worlds leading authority Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions) is quoted as stating that James, Joseph and Jesus were quite common in 1st century Judea. Of 233 ossuaries from the period found to date, 19 mention a Joseph, 10 a Jesus, and 5 a James.

Lemaire has calculated that, assuming each man had an average of two bothers, a total of 0.05% of the population would have fitted the ctireria 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus'. Given that there were around 40,000 males in Jerusalem in the mid 60's AD, that would mean around 20 men fitting the criteria.

So even if the box is genuine, it would still not be proof of the existence of Jesus Christ.

Skeptical Greg

24th October 2002, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
I would suggest that any verdict is premature.

I would agree. ' Verdict' was a poor choice of word .. I was just making an observation..

This seems like a non sequitur. How is being "the first ever" evidence of being "too perfect"?

I'll have to review the definition of ' non sequiter ' for my own enlightenment, however, I trust your use of it is correct.

With that in mind, if you did not get my point, I would suspect that you are not part of my target audience.

headscratcher4

24th October 2002, 06:29 AM

I may have mentioned this before and the conversation moved on, so if so, please excuse me.

One of the problems of this "find" from what I've read on the links provided here, is that the box was found in the hands of a private collector. One of the archeological issues, it seems to me, must be the context/site where the box was originally found...and so far as I can tell, that is an unknown. Did I miss something, or was there in one of the links a discussion of the original finding of the box?

My point is that without knowing more about the context of the finding of the box, location, other boxes near it, any contents now missing, etc. it would seem to be difficult to conclude that this may be a box for a James, maybe of the 1st Century (thopugh I suppose there are tests that can date it reasonably accurately), who had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus.

Much more than that, it doesn't tell us much. I mean it really doesn't confirm the bible, per. se., any more than any other archeological find. Indeed, while the "context" I seek might not reveal much more either, I think it important. Having King Tut's mask without knowing how it was found, what else was in the tomb, at the site, etc. Would tell us very little about King Tut except that a death mask was made for someone by that name (assuming that the name was actually on the mask, and if not, it would tell us nothing about King Tut specifically, only about Egyptian royal funierial art)...at least I think this is a fair analogy.

RonSceptic

24th October 2002, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

My point is that without knowing more about the context of the finding of the box, location, other boxes near it, any contents now missing, etc. it would seem to be difficult to conclude that this may be a box for a James, maybe of the 1st Century (thopugh I suppose there are tests that can date it reasonably accurately), who had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus.

But even if the box is genuine, it proves little. See my earlier post. The James,Joseph,Jesus combination is far from unique for that time.

headscratcher4

24th October 2002, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

But even if the box is genuine, it proves little. See my earlier post. The James,Joseph,Jesus combination is far from unique for that time.

Don't get me wrong...I completely agree with you (though apparently in a very inarticulate way), the box, by itself, proves little.

Skeptical Greg

24th October 2002, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by PotatoStew
Diogenes:

What archaeological evidence would you reasonably expect to find?

You would have to talk to some archeologists about that..

The part of my statement in quotes was from the article in the " Biblical Archaeology Review ". They seem to think it is significant that there is a lack of evidence, regarding the subject at hand.

Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, and didn't have its own architecture in the beginning, plus with the destruction of the temple and scattering of the Jews in 70ad as well as the early persecution of Christians, the odds are further decreased that we would have any significant archaeological evidence, even if Jesus was in fact an important person at the time.

Nothing for me to argue with there, unless you want to consider the following an argument.

1. It is assumed that person A is important (sort of a 'celebrity' of their time. We have credible ( something like the equivalent of a newspaper review of one of their concerts) evidence that they were . ( It is not my intention to speculate about who 'A' might be. We beat that one pretty hard recently.:) )

2. It is assumed that person B is important (sort of a 'celebrity' of their time). We have no credible ( assuming that 'anecdotal evidence' is not sufficienct by itself) evidence that they were.

Can we draw the conclusion that person B is just as likely to have been ' important ' as person A ?

I wouldn't.

ReasonableDoubt

24th October 2002, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
... the box, by itself, proves little. It is, at best, acknowledged circumstantial evidence - one more wet jacket suggestive of rain.

At the same time, I wish I could somehow manufacture and sell strung ossuary-limestone beeds to the more anxious skeptics. The idea would be for them to find some quiet place, perhaps light a candle, and finger their way through the string chanting: the box means nothing ... the box means nothing ... the box means nothing ... the box means nothing ... the box means nothing ...This is really fun to watch ... :D :) :D

ReasonableDoubt

24th October 2002, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
With that in mind, if you did not get my point, I would suspect that you are not part of my target audience. Your reasoning only works on your "target audience"?

PotatoStew

24th October 2002, 07:51 AM

Diogenes:

It is assumed that person B is important (sort of a 'celebrity' of their time). We have no credible ( assuming that 'anecdotal evidence' is not sufficienct by itself) evidence that they were.

The first problem is that I don't think that "anecdotal evidence" (by this I assume you mean the gospels) should be excluded for purposes of determining "celebrity" ...I'll grant you that I can see why you might not allow it for determining all the actual details, but I still think it shows "celebrity". For instance, 2000 years from now if all the evidence we have of Britney Spears is a few websites put together by her fans I still think it would be reasonable to conclude that she was a celebrity even if you didn't trust the details.

Can we draw the conclusion that person B is just as likely to have been ' important ' as person A ?

Even if you can't say it's "as likely" that doesn't mean you can say it's "not likely" (which seems to be what you are doing).

Skeptical Greg

24th October 2002, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by PotatoStew
Diogenes:

The first problem is that I don't think that "anecdotal evidence" (by this I assume you mean the gospels) should be excluded for purposes of determining "celebrity" ...

Where did I say " excluded " ?

Since you missed it, I said 'anecdotal evidence' is not sufficienct by itself '. Which implied, that anecdotal evidence, accompanied by archeological evidence would build a better case for 'A' or 'B'.

I'll grant you that I can see why you might not allow it for determining all the actual details, but I still think it shows "celebrity". For instance, 2000 years from now if all the evidence we have of Britney Spears is a few websites put together by her fans I still think it would be reasonable to conclude that she was a celebrity even if you didn't trust the details.

Oh, I would say recovering a few thousand CD's that could be dated to have been manufactured during Britney's lifetime, would be a bit more reliable than a recollection, written down 100 years after her death.

Even if you can't say it's "as likely" that doesn't mean you can say it's "not likely" (which seems to be what you are doing).

I make no pretense ( and I acknowledge, respectfully, that you don't either) about which camp I am in. That said, I find it pretentious of you to suggest, that I don't know that , scarcity of evidence does not equal bad evidence.

So how does it strengthen your position, to point out that I might 'think' - ' Not Likley ', when I point out that one position appears to be 'more' likely, than the other?

PotatoStew

24th October 2002, 09:23 AM

Diogenes:

Where did I say " excluded " ?

Since you missed it, I said 'anecdotal evidence' is not sufficienct by itself '.

Exactly... if anecdotal evidence is not sufficient by itself, and all we have is what you would consider anecdotal evidence, then you are saying that the anecdotal evidence *is not* sufficient, which sounds to me like you are excluding it. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting you or reading too much into your statement... if so, I apologize.

Oh, I would say recovering a few thousand CD's that could be dated to have been manufactured during Britney's lifetime, would be a bit more reliable than a recollection, written down 100 years after her death.

Probably more reliable, yes.

That said, I find it pretentious of you to suggest, that I don't know that , scarcity of evidence does not equal bad evidence.

Then what is your point? We agree that archaeological evidence would make it easier to say that it was more likely that he was important. Yet we also agree that this lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't. So why emphasize the "missing" evidence? (especially since "missing" seems to imply that it should be there, which hasn't been established by any stretch.)

So how does it strengthen your position, to point out that I might 'think' - ' Not Likley ', when I point out that one position appears to be 'more' likely, than the other?

I'm not trying to "strengthen" my position, I'm only saying that "less likely" than hypothetical person A does not equal "not likely". You seem to agree with this, which leaves me confused as to why you would say something like, "It is quite clear he wasn't very important, to very many people till many years after his supposed death. ...His apparant lack of importance is exemplified in all of the 'missing archeological evidence', that would make this find less questionable." which to me sounds like "not likely". But again, maybe I just misinterpreted you. Are you saying "less likely" or "not likely"?

RSLancastr

24th October 2002, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by PotatoStew
Jesus didn't actually serve the guests... in fact, turning the water to wine would be more like serving the groom since it would probably be embarrasing for him to run out of wine.Exactly. Once I was at a friend's wedding reception and they ran out of beer, and I made a run to the store to buy more.

In 2000 years, will this be "proof" that I was actually the groom?

RSLancastr

24th October 2002, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by corplinx
I haven't read of anyone jumping the gun yet and setting up a shrine to relic and claiming that touching cures warts yet, but feel free to post links to articles that do so we can make fun of them. That is because it is not in the hands of Catholics.

BobM

24th October 2002, 09:35 AM

Exactly. Once I was at a friend's wedding reception and they ran out of beer, and I made a run to the store to buy more.

In 2000 years, will this be "proof" that I was actually the groom?Probably not. But maybe proof that you turned money into beer?

Skeptical Greg

24th October 2002, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Your reasoning only works on your "target audience"?

I'm not concerned about my reasoning 'working' on anyone.

If no one got my point, I can assume I did not express myself very well.

If you didn't get it, the above could still apply, or it could mean, well, you just didn't get it.

ReasonableDoubt

24th October 2002, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'm not concerned about my reasoning 'working' on anyone.I see. :D

Skeptical Greg

24th October 2002, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by PotatoStew
Diogenes:

Exactly... if anecdotal evidence is not sufficient by itself, and all we have is what you would consider anecdotal evidence, then you are saying that the anecdotal evidence *is not* sufficient, which sounds to me like you are excluding it. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting you or reading too much into your statement... if so, I apologize.

I see your point here. I can't fault you for pointing this out. I can admit, ' I ' would tend to dismiss/exclude anecdotal evidence in the absence of other evidence.

You might be more inclined to consider the anecdotal evidence in light of other information that you consider valid.

Perhaps this is a case where we can agree to disagree.

PotatoStew

24th October 2002, 11:31 AM

Perhaps this is a case where we can agree to disagree.

I can agree to that. :)

24th October 2002, 12:41 PM

If you like the thread on Jesus, you chould also check the
things about Abraham:

http://www.piney.com/BabAbraham.html

ReasonableDoubt

24th October 2002, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by arivero
If you like the thread on Jesus, you chould also check the things about Abraham: ... Good grief. Stop polluting the thread. :rolleyes:

Loki

24th October 2002, 02:55 PM

ReasonableDoubt,

Much as the "pressure" to select alternative explanations might well be driven by a need to validate a mythicist position.
True enough - but I note with interest that the reporting of this find in the general press seems to emphasizing the possibility of being *the James*. Why this immediate slant towards the positive (not a verdict, just an angle)? Surely the sensible default is towards the negative, in the absense of any further evidence?

stamenflicker

24th October 2002, 03:26 PM

RD,

You can show no "serious scholarship done on Jesus' missing years that involved submerging himself in the Essene culture", only speculation. You insist on proving yourself worthy of disdain.

As usual you enter mid stream, get half the story, then show your ass. My original quote used the word "more" before the words "serious scholarship." That quantifier was a reference to early suggestions that Jesus may have been married-- I've read those sorts of things too.

But even if you want to throw my post out the context of the first half of this thread, we should still do a quick breakdown to determine where your issues are. Would it have been more pleasing to your tender sensibilities if I had posted this sentence instead:

I have seen more serious scholarship done on Jesus' missing years that SUGGESTS (instead of "involved") he had submered himself in the Essene culture...

???

Or is it the phrase "serious scholarship" that begins to wad the panty?
If so, is it the word "scholarship" or "serious" or a combination?

If you object to scholarship, then what do you consider to be scholarship? Do you reject periodicals? Journals? Dissertations? Because there has been "scholarship" on this topic in such publications.

Or is it just periodicals and journals that fail to fall into line with your skeptical view of ancient history?

Does saying that there is NO serious scholarship on the topic, mean there is no scholarship (you would be foolish to claim this), it is not scholarship you accept by your criteria, or the scholarship cannot be deemed serious?

Flick

ReasonableDoubt

24th October 2002, 03:59 PM

I have just received my copy of the much anticipated Biblical Archaeology Review. What a waste. There is zero substance beyond what is readily available on the news. In brief, it appears to be an interesting artifact of little or no probative value.

ReasonableDoubt

24th October 2002, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I have seen more serious scholarship done on Jesus' missing years that SUGGESTS (instead of "involved") he had submered himself in the Essene culture...Please reference the peer reviewed, serious scholarship suggesting that "Jesus had submered himself in the Essene culture."[/i]

stamenflicker

24th October 2002, 04:15 PM

Please reference the peer reviewed, serious scholarship suggesting that "Jesus had submered himself in the Essene culture."[/i]

Why should I? You could care less and I have better things to do with my time. On top of it all, you'd completely disregard anything I submitted as you have previously done-- skirting the issue and redircting me to a goose chase of your choosing.

Flick

ReasonableDoubt

24th October 2002, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Please reference the peer reviewed, serious scholarship suggesting that "Jesus had submered himself in the Essene culture."[/i] Why should I? ... you'd completely disregard anything I submitted as you have previously done-- skirting the issue and redircting me to a goose chase of your choosing.I'll let others evaluate the extent to which I've skirted the ossuary issue. With regard to your childish diversions, however, the issue is your credibility. Evade it if you wish ...

stamenflicker

24th October 2002, 06:58 PM

I'll let others evaluate the extent to which I've skirted the ossuary issue. With regard to your childish diversions, however, the issue is your credibility. Evade it if you wish ...

Surely you jest. I find it extraordinary that not only are published articles in recognized journals not enough "evidence" of scholarship for you, but instead you want only that which has been peer reviewed. I would think to get into most scholarly journals you be "peer" reviewed by the editors. Instead, you'd like me to not only find the article, or even "peers" who have cited the articles, but rather find people who have written a review of it.

I just did a quick search through my university databases of current journals and periodicals and found over a dozen relevant articles written since 1997 alone-- particularly regarding Jesus' alleged use of Dead Sea similar words and phrases, as collaborated with the 4th gospel, as well as similar eschatological themes. If you think for a second that I'm going to waste my time tracking down the reviews of these articles and their citations for you, then you are a fool. I suppose having numerous Phd's post on the subject in admirable scholarly journals is not quite enough for you.

Futhermore, if you want to talk about diversions then take a hard look at you pulling my entire sentence out of context to begin with... talk about diversions. I am quite comfortable with my credibility, if anyone would like to investigate the subject that's their business. In the meantime, you continue to operate outside the boundaries of "reasonable doubt" and have moved into "unreasonable doubt."

Flick

ReasonableDoubt

25th October 2002, 03:56 AM

Going back to the subject at hand, I was interested in reading the following from the State of Israel, The Ministry of National Infrastructures Geological Survey, as reported in BAR: ... All chalks in the Jerusalem belong to the Menuha Formation of Mount Scopus Group Sequence of the Senonian period. Generally the lower part of the Menuha Formation was exploited around Jerusalem during the 1st and 2nd centuries CE and several chalk stone quarries were discovered from that period in the Jerusalem area. The studied ossuary is made of this chalk.Note the part about "exploited ... during the 1st and 2nd centuries CE". Given that previous reports suggested a terminus of 70CE, this comment from the IGS more than doubles the time base by extending it another 130 years.

Furthermore, the articles estimate of the number of possible James son of Joseph brother of Jesusis based an assuming 2 generations over the time base 20 BCE - 70 CE, i.e., over 90 years. I'm in my late 50's and a proud grandfather. In 40 years I have every expectastion of being a great-grandfather.

All in all, what we seem to have in the BAR piece is an example of wishful thinking supported by innuendo based firmly on sloppy scholarship.

Skeptical Greg

25th October 2002, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
snip..

All in all, what we seem to have in the BAR piece is an example of wishful thinking supported by innuendo based firmly on sloppy scholarship.

.. wishful, inuendo, sloppy ..

Anthing else and there would be little to write about...

You have my vote..

Something I am curious about.. The BAR doesn't mind printing that " The ossuary has been dated to approximately 63 A.D. "

I wonder how this correlates to Christian scholars' estimate of when James actually died?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited: Just did a little reasearch ..

"The time of James' death by martyrdom is known, because Josephus (a non-Christian 1st century historian) recorded it as AD 62 or 63."

Hmmmmmm... I wonder who 'dated' the ossuary and what information they used..

Scholar: " Well, James died in 62 - 63.. Looks like we have a date for our ossuary.." :D
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------
P.S.
The message board over at the BAR is very akward to navigate, but I found this..

"Hello. One skeptic say that first part of inscription is good hebrew:"yakov ben yoseph" but last part is like nabatean aramean and paleographic is like diffrent hand. It is less readable and clumsier. Probably later adden."

As is, this is anecdotal, and of course 'inadmissable', but I haven't seen any referances to counter, credible analysation of this thing.

Does anyone know of any?

ReasonableDoubt

25th October 2002, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

As is, this is anecdotal, and of course 'inadmissable', but I haven't seen any referances to counter, credible analysation of this thing. See the Dr. Rochelle Altman Analysis (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/11211).

Please note that I have no basis upon which to judge her analysis and do not presume it to be accurate.

headscratcher4

25th October 2002, 08:09 AM

RD:

thank you for that most interesting link...she has some interesting points that seemingly the claimers for authenticity need to address.

This may be a stupid question (but that's yet to stop me from posing it :)) but can anyone comment on the grammer of the inscription? It says, so far as I understand it James son of josehp brother of Jesus. My question is grammatical, given an inscription like this (and I may have recorded it incorrectly, if so, my bad): how do you know it is James son of Joseph AND brother of Jesus, and not James son of Joseph (joseph) the brother of Jesus...in short, is there a reason to read this a James is Jesus' brother, and not James, nephew of Jesus?

Interested in views from folks with an archeological education/bent/understanding far deeper than mine...

Skeptical Greg

25th October 2002, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
See the Dr. Rochelle Altman Analysis (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/11211).

Please note that I have no basis upon which to judge her analysis and do not presume it to be accurate.

Excellent!

If we can verify Dr. Altman's credentials, it would seem her opinion should have as much weight as any other 'verified' expert.

My question would be: If the difference in the two parts of the inscription is so obvious, how does the other camp imagine for a moment, that the truth will remain hidden for any length of time?

Skeptical Greg

25th October 2002, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
RD:

thank you for that most interesting link...she has some interesting points that seemingly the claimers for authenticity need to address.

This may be a stupid question (but that's yet to stop me from posing it :)) but can anyone comment on the grammer of the inscription? It says, so far as I understand it James son of josehp brother of Jesus. My question is grammatical, given an inscription like this (and I may have recorded it incorrectly, if so, my bad): how do you know it is James son of Joseph AND brother of Jesus, and not James son of Joseph (joseph) the brother of Jesus...in short, is there a reason to read this a James is Jesus' brother, and not James, nephew of Jesus?

Interested in views from folks with an archeological education/bent/understanding far deeper than mine...

I'm not the expert you expect to hear from, but I would infer, that if the text , had appeared to be 'one' inscription, and not two parts, Dr. Altman might have addressed the grammar issue you bring up.

Dr. Altman, proceeding under the impression that she is looking at two different inscriptions, did not bother with the grammatical context, when viewed as a 'single' inscription.

(just noting my thoughts)

Skeptical Greg

25th October 2002, 08:37 AM

The thread in ReasonableDoubt's link is interesting.

More questions from both sides..

This caught my eye, regarding the ' uniform patina ', and how it might relate to the age of the object.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Considering the age of the object, if the second hand were three or even four
centuries later than the first it would be undetectable by patination
analysis. It would probably be undetectable if it were even later. This is
because a patina forms upon a "clean" surface relatively quickly (in
archaeological terms--usually only a couple of centuries, depending upon the
environment); but once the patina has covered the surface the process comes
to a virtual standstill, since the patina is primarily formed by the chemical
reaction of compounds in the environment with the surface. (Hence the
"cauliflower" pattern in this case.) "

----------------------------------------------------------------

ReasonableDoubt

25th October 2002, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
... how do you know it is James son of Joseph AND brother of Jesus, and not James son of Joseph (joseph) the brother of Jesus.I've read that the word ordering makes it unambiguous. On the other hand, I have a son-in-law who is an Orthodox Jew familiar with Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, and he tells me: The sentence is every bit as ambiguous as it is in English and, furthermore while the "son of" term is definitely Aramaic, the "brother of" term is Hebrew.Damned if I know who's right, but his wife makes one hell of a good Shabbat dinner. :D :) :D

26th October 2002, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
My question would be: If the difference in the two parts of the inscription is so obvious, how does the other camp imagine for a moment, that the truth will remain hidden for any length of time? [/B]

It could be argued that the second part was done after burial, for instance when moving the urn from one side to another. Hey, even if the second part were written in latin, you could argue that a paleochristian roman got the box!

This reminders me of the old joke:
-Are you interested also in some ancient coins? See I have one of Augustus: The incription reads "CAES. AUGUST. IMPER. 18BC"
-Wow! 18 BC! That is irrefutable.

Also, I find uneasy with the probability estimates. They should consider all the population of Israel, not only the ones living in Jerusalem, as they do not know where the urn was. On the other hand, the simple fact of the box being removed and preserved should, if authentic, to be taken in account.

Alejandro

Gregor

26th October 2002, 07:14 AM

I suspect that the refutation of the authenticity of the inscription (if a refutation occurs) will never be reported in the popular press.

While it makes news to say we mysteriously found a 2,000 year old bone box mentioning a "Yeshua," only archeologists will hear if it is determined that the "brother of Yeshua" phrase was written by someone centuries later. Hell - preachers today continue to cite Josephus as evidence of historicity, when all historians concede to at least some christian additions to his writings.

Skeptics - keep a watchful eye out. The shroud may have a new neighbor.

ReasonableDoubt

27th October 2002, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Gregor
Hell - preachers today continue to cite Josephus as evidence of historicity, when all historians concede to at least some christian additions to his writings. As an aside: it may be that your sentence is a bit misleading, since it suggests that "all historians" dismiss Josephus as probative. In fact only those historians who insist that the Josephus reference are complete interpolations are rejecting historicity. Those who merely "concede to at least some christian additions to his writings" are, in fact, supporting your dreaded preachers. By the way:Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist. In one book, by Freke and Gandy, the authors go so far as to state that no "serious scholar" believes that the passage has authenticity (p. 137), which is a serious misrepresentation indeed. [ see Kirby on TF (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html) ]We all have to be respectful of the facts, careful with our deductions, and aware of our biases. ;)

Gregor

28th October 2002, 05:59 AM

Thanks - and I concede that my FJ reference is something of a drive-by.

My point was that two weeks ago a preacher answering the question "Was Jesus real?" incorrectly asserted that historians agree that Joe wrote about Jesus. I think the link you reference would support the following statement: "In the past 70 years, only 4 historians (and none publishing since 1980) thought the entire passage was authentic. Everyone else (over 50 historians?) conceded to at least some interpolations."

By the way, the prior link appeared to argue that the inscriptions of names were in raised letters, rather than cut into the stone. The only photos I have seen show "cut in" letters. Was I mistaken about the refutation? The refutation seems suspect.

Skeptical Greg

28th October 2002, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Gregor

By the way, the prior link appeared to argue that the inscriptions of names were in raised letters, rather than cut into the stone. The only photos I have seen show "cut in" letters. Was I mistaken about the refutation? The refutation seems suspect.

Do you have any links to your 'Photo's' ?

I agree, that ' incision ' was my perception, but this can be misleading, depending on how the object was illuminated, when photographed.

Gregor

28th October 2002, 06:33 AM

Only cnn.com, today's story shows the carving.

Skeptical Greg

28th October 2002, 06:53 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gregor
Only cnn.com, today's story shows the carving. [/QUOTE

Image as Presented

http://diogenes.homestead.com/files/story.jpg

Same image rotated 180 degrees.

http://diogenes.homestead.com/files/story1.jpg

I doubt that Dr. Altman would put her reputation on the line for something as obvious as this, but I could be wrong.

According to the CNN story, we should have a more detailed analysys soon.

ReasonableDoubt

28th October 2002, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

I doubt that Dr. Altman would put her reputation on the line for something as obvious as this, but I could be wrong. At the same time, I must admit that I do not know what her reputation is. This Bio (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioudaios/bio/altman.html) may be of interest.

Skeptical Greg

29th October 2002, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
I also found the review by Paul Flesher, Director of Religious Studies Program at the University of Wyoming interesting. For example, Dr. Flesher writes: It may well be that the next issue of BAR, with its letters and poissible rebuttle(s), may well be more interesting than this one.

Interesting.

Great link. The complete article provides pretty convincing argument 'against' 1st century origin.

zakur

29th October 2002, 05:38 PM

For everyone still following this story, I thought I'd pass along this link:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james-bone-box.html

This web page is a repository for information and news articles on this recent find.

The page also has the text of a 1996 Associated Press story that illustrates this is not the first time that spectacular claims have been made for an ossuary unearthed at Jerusalem...

Baker

22nd June 2003, 11:05 AM

Update

JERUSALEM – The first archeological link to Jesus - a stone box said to hold the bones of his brother James - and a tablet detailing repairs to the ancient Jewish Temple are fakes, say officials of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA).
The announcement Wednesday ended months of professional speculation about the veracity of the timeworn relics, hailed as discoveries of stunning religious, historical, and contemporary significance.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0619/p07s01-wome.html

davefoc

26th November 2005, 09:33 AM

I thought people might be interested in a little update to James brother of Jesus Ossuary story:

Rough overview from my point of view:
Lots of people without the appropriate skill sets but with the appropriate biases decided to claim that the Ossuary was not a fake or was probably not a fake.

The IAA (Israel Antiquities Authority) has determined that it is a fake.

The alleged forger (Oded Golan) has been arrested for forging the inscription.

A shop owned by Golan with tools useful for forging antiquities was discovered.

Ancient text experts have suggested that just based on the text that the inscription is suspect because of unusual spelling. These unusual spellings are known on only one other artifact, and Golan had access to that artifact and that artifact might have served as source material for creating a fake inscription.

Other items that have passed through Golan's hands have been declared to be fakes by the IAA.

The Biblical Archeology Review that first published stories about it continues to push the idea that it might not be fake going so far as to publish a form where you can petition to reexamine the Ossuary for authenticity. The IAA has refused.

good overview article
http://www.davidrowan.com/2005/05/is-oded-golan-behind-biblical.html

esoteric scholarly criticism of IAA conclusion
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_HarrellrespondstoJAS.pdf

bbc article on Golan and his fakes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/solomon_prog_summary.shtml

Archeology article on the Ossuary and Golan
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/ossuary/

IAA final report
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Committees_report.htm

BAR petition
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbPetition.asp

One thing that I couldn't find was an update on Golan and the status of the charges against him. As late as April 2004 he was still out and about claiming that he was the victim of a great injustice at the hands of the IAA that was out to prove that only artifacts discovered at authorized dig sites are reliable and that artifacts without provenance are fakes.

My conclusion:
What a bunch of non-sense. This is a straightforward forgery case. Wishful and probably religiously biased views by pseudo-experts coupled with some potentially financially incentivized views by other experts allowed a routine hoax to be wildly misrepresented in the media.