Apparently, a stone ‘bone box’ has surfaced in a museum
So what are we looking at? A coincidence? A forgery?
If it really is the ossuary of James, then that not only means Jesus existed, but that more of the details in the New Testament will have proven to be true. Doesn’t mean he’s the son of God, but it does raise the likelihood that other historical episodes in the gospels are true.
It sure looks like the insciption is quite old, but that doesn’t mean the era of Jesus. There was a whole industry in fake biblical relics back around the turn of the first century.
It’s sufficient for me. But it’s probably not sufficient for, say, Clairobscur, who might argue that even if you prove that every disciple and every other character beside Him in the New Testament lived, that would prove nothing about whether Jesus did.
—If it really is the ossuary of James, then that not only means Jesus existed, but that more of the details in the New Testament will have proven to be true.—
I’m not sure what additional details you mean. It would establish more concretely that there really was a James who really was the brother of Jesus, but most people already thought that Paul’s references to this established that connection pretty well, considering that Paul is one of the few sources we know of writing in his own hand under his own name, as well as an early one.
What I wonder is what impact this might have on the debate of what relation James actually was to Jesus. Some people argue that he was a cousin, some that he was a step-brother from a previous marriage. For James to be the full brother of Jesus would obviously be problematic for the idea of a virgin birth (since Joseph wasn’t supposed to be involved with that, and some people even refuse to consider the possibility that Mary was ever anything but a virgin throughout her life (poor Joseph! and poor Mary!).
Of course, this find wouldn’t really cast much new light on the discussion, because any of these possibilities could arguably be consistent with the inscription, except perhaps the cousin theory.
—Doesn’t mean he’s the son of God, but it does raise the likelihood that other historical episodes in the gospels are true.—
How so? It suggests that James died, but we already knew that.
Is anyone seriously claiming that Jesus a/k/a Joshua-bar-Joseph never lived? I’m a stone-cold atheist and I don’t have any problem accepting that he once lived, just as I accept the once-existence of Emperor Claudius, who also lived around that time. I just think many of the miracles and such attributed to Josh were fabricated or wildly embellished.
Now, finding actual bones and whatnot would contradict the Resurrection story, but I’m sure there are ways around it.
Most scholars agree that evidence points to the existence of an historical Jesus. But all we know about him from non-biblical accounts is that he lived and was crucified.
What I meant by saying that this helps corroborate other historical facts is that whenever you find archaological evidence to support any ancient writings, it helps to validate them. If you read 50 facts in a book, and discover hard evidence that 20 of them occured pretty much as the book suggested, then it makes it more reasonable to assume that other events that you do not currently have evidence for also happened. More so than if you had no hard evidence at all.
Doesn’t mean it all happened. But it could mean that not only was there a Jesus, but that there was a last supper, there were 12 disciples, etc. Maybe a small cult wandering the area which gained mythic status because of the spectacular death of their leader and the subsequent tireless promotion by Paul coupled with a message that resonates with people.
Plus, if it’s real, it’s just an astonishing find. To have the actual ossuary of the brother of Jesus would be a major historical artifact.
You state that you think “many of the miracles and such attributed to Josh(?) were fabricated or wildly embellished”. Does this mean you possilbly believe in at least one full fledged miracle as recorded in the Bible as attributed by Jesus?
Apos I was wondering the same thing as you. The inscription would seem to be bad news for the “cousin theory” (for those not already immersed in this debate: the theory that the word “brother” meant merely “close relative … which could be brother, cousin, uncle etc” in various places where it is used in the gospels) but not necessarily for the “half-brother theory” (the one that says Joseph was widowed with kids prior to Mary).
I’m basing this merely on my gut reaction that the first use of “brother” feels like the sort of colloquialism that wouldn’t be used in formal settings like inscriptions. IANAFirstCenturyHistorian so take that with as many grains of salt as you like. On the other hand, if they were actually a half-brother relationship I would expect to see this referred to as being “brothers” in all contexts, simply because I can recall many MANY cases of half-sibling relationships in the bible which are referred to simply as being “brothers” or “sisters”.
In fact, I’m not even sure if Hebrew/Aramaic HAD a distinct word for “half-brother”. Anyone know?
The only details I can think of that this might confirm about James are (a) that he existed and (b) that he died in Jerusalem before about 80AD. Both of which are actually details out of Josephus, not the gospels, anyway.
But hey, it’s all data…
What I want to know is: Why is it empty? Did someone loot the coffin for relics at some point? Or was he actually buried somewhere else?
Well, on the SDMB, there have been some who have claimed that there is no real evidence that he existed. Of course, the overwhelming majority of historians and archaeologists believe otherwise.
There are also a tiny handful of authors who claim that Jesus never existed. Rather than being actual historians though, they are actual dabbler writing outside their fields of expertise – and it shows.
—What I meant by saying that this helps corroborate other historical facts is that whenever you find archaological evidence to support any ancient writings, it helps to validate them.—
Well, that might be useful if we ever wanted to compare the certainty of ancient history to modern history. But no one but the “you can’t prove George Washington existed!” camp really worries about doing that. People studying ancient history generally accept that we are going to be working with much more incomplete evidence, and balance things accordingly.
Given the amount of evidence usually counted on, I would say that most scholars feel that, say, letters from someone like Paul, who we are pretty certain existed, are “good enough” to establish with reasonable certainty that there was such a person as James. Histories like Josephus are a little less compelling, but still pretty trustworthy.
I argee that a find like this is monumental, but I just think that the range of likihood when you are considering ancient history is much more constrained, and the existence of James was already as likely as is considered necessary. Evidence beyond that is certainly great: but given the evidence previously available, it doesn’t radically transform the estimations of what was true in the same way as, say finding Jimmy Hoffa alive and well would today.
—If you read 50 facts in a book, and discover hard evidence that 20 of them occured pretty much as the book suggested, then it makes it more reasonable to assume that other events that you do not currently have evidence for also happened. More so than if you had no hard evidence at all.—
That’s true, but I’m not sure I entirely agree to quite the degree you seem to be arguing for. If an alien race excavating our nuked out planet finds a copy of the Bourne Identity, and then uncovers Paris, I’m not sure that they should conclude that this makes the Bourne Identity any more or less likely to be non-fictional. Maybe that’s just my bias, knowing all the facts and not considering their need to work out the truth with what little they have to go on. But the potential to make very unjustified conclusions using this sort of true by association is definately there. Even wildly divergent fiction uses all sorts of facts that can be confirmed: but it’s not clear how these confirmations should effect the probability of other elements in the text being true, because not all the elements are of the same sort.
The guy in the article estimates that, indeed, there probably would have been about 20 Nazarenes who would have had brothers named Jesus and fathers named Joseph (meaning that if we had an absolutely complete archeological record, the real surprise would be if we DIDN’T find MANY such ossuaries with this exact inscription on it)
However, the arguement goes that only one other ossuary found (and there are thousands that we’ve seen) had a brother’s name on it: suggesting that it only happened when a brother was worth mentioning. So in fact, we WOULDN’T expect to find others like this except for THE James of the Bible, unless one of those 20 other Jameses also had a famous brother named Jesus who was like, a rock star or something.
I agree that this does make a more convincing argument, but it is still speculation; perhaps (for example) the brother(called Jesus) was a particularly vain man and paid for the funeral, but on the understanding that he would get the credit for it.
A. I’m sure that a person named Jesus existed, although I very much doubt that he in any way resembled the figure in the Gospels.
B. I’d like to see a professional evaluation of the box before
i accept it as genuine. It is easy for even scholars to be taken in by forgeries if the will to believe is strong enough.
I don’t doubt that Jesus or his brother existed. I very much doubt that Jesus performed miracles or is god’s son. I think he may have been well-liked by his crew, but there is nothing about the ossuary that suggests that a supernatural link exists.
Oh but gobear, you know that “scholars” are just a bunch of atheists looking to overeducate our children away from God.
My take on this is that the box is reasonable evidence that the Jesus everyone means when they say “Jesus” - existed. Which isn’t great for the Earl Doherty’s of the world who think “the Jesus legend” was invented out of whole cloth. I join with others though in calling for some serious examination of this piece, to determine if it is what it is made out to be and not just another Shroud of Turin.
I do doubt that Jesus existed. I think their is sufficient evidence that he probably existed, and that this, if not a fraud, would futher add to the weight of the evidence (and quite a bit of weight). But it is very difficult to prove the existence of a human being in that time period and that place - unless they were important during their lifetime. Jesus was just important enough that there is some evidence for his existence, but the contemporary evidence certainly isn’t overwhelming.
(By the way, if this chest isn’t a fabrication, it is way cool.)
It could be an ancient hoax. Just cause someone inscribed some stuff on a box does not a miracle make. Even if Jesus did exist it does not make him magical. If this box floated 4 feet above the ground with no apparent cause, then I would be shocked. Or any similarly magical property.
We have video tapes now, so some modern day magic would go a long way for religion. How about Jesus shows up and instantly rebuilds the WTC. Then stands on top, gives a quick interview, and heads home. That would be proof of vast powers, this is just an old box with some writing on it. It could be a hoax or not (old or new), but either way it proves nothing mystical.
One of the stories I saw gave a dating of 40-70 AD for the box, though how they arrived at that wasn’t explained.
Mangetout does have a point that James, Joseph, and Joshua were as common in 1st Century Palestine as they are in 21st Century America; there’s no proof that this is James the Just, St. James of Jerusalem, brother of Jesus Christ, just a James who had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus.
However, it was pointed out that there is only one other case of an inscription on a tomb or ossuary where a brother is named. This would seem to indicate that the Jesus who was the dead James’s brother was somebody of some fame, though not necessarily the guy who died on Good Friday but didn’t stay dead.
