The New York Times has an article in its Sci/Tech section about the discovery of a stone ossuary with the inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” It appears to be authentic, although of course it’s impossible to prove or disprove that it refers to that James that we know of from the New Testament.
Even if it were, the article goes on to say, it doesn’t tell us much that we don’t already know. Most scholars agree, (to quote Cecil), “he may or may not have been the Son of God, but he was probably the son of somebody.”
But, nevertheless, it’s cool to see this archeological find dovetail with the NT account (apparently, anyway). Hopefully they will be able to make a definite determination of it’s age/origin.
Actually, re-reading my OP, I guess it would be possible to disprove the ossuary being that of the NT James. If it turns out to be post-first century BCE, or if the inscription could be shown to be more modern, that would elimiate the possibility.
I just wanted to point out that I mis-spoke before any else had the chance!
Hmmph. I’ve tried 3 times now to read the article, including one time just going directly to the times website. Every time explorer quits. Maybe netscape will work.
In any case. I don’t see any reason why Jesus couldn’t have siblings. I mean, would Mary choose to remain celebate after his birth? Would Joseph? Both seem unlikely, even if they did believe their son was super-special.
The Catholic Church maintains that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. However, (and speaking as a practicing Catholic myself) there isn’t any biblical evidence to back this up. The bible only says that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Nevertheless, the official RC position is James was a cousin or some other close relative.
Personally, I don’t see any reason why Jesus couldn’t have younger (half-)siblings, and this is the position of most Protestant denominations. Another theory is that Joseph had a wife before Mary, and that he married Mary after wife #1 died.
As Diceman says (and I think it’s in Cecil’s column linked above), most Christians outside the RC church believe that Jesus had (half) brothers and sisters, the younger children of Mary and Joseph.
By tradition, James, the brother of Jesus was the head of the church in Jerusalem in the years after the resurrection. He has martyred in about 64 BCE, IIRC. EIEIO.
There are a couple bummer aspects to this. The guy who has it got it illegally, and apparently doesn’t know or care where it came from. Particularly since the find only mentions first names, that means it could have come from anywhere, and be about anyone.
The other problem, as one of those interviewed pointed out, if the find were to be really about Biblical people, it would be worth a fortune. That is, more than enough for an expert forger to make worthwhile.
Forgery is rampant in antiquities. And other art. It’s estimated that something like 1/3 of Impressionist paintings sold are fake.
From what I gather the black market in the Middle East is awash in such items, which is a shame since many of their handlers don’t know how to properly care for the artifacts. It’s also too bad that James’s bones are no longer in it. Would have been interesting to see what DNA testing would have revealed.
Am I the only one to think that this falls in the category of “too good to be true”? Call me cynical, but when things that too closely match what we would love to have fall into our laps (especially things with no provenance – "bought from a dealer twenty years ago, indeed!), I get suspicious. I was taken in by the Hoffman Documents Scandal in Salt Lake City almost twenty years ago, and that succeeded because he produced things people thought ought to exist.
Apparently, Isreali scientists have studied it and didn’t find any evidence of forgery. It’s a shame that the bones are missing. It’s sad to think that the remains of Jesus’ half-brother were tossed into a ditch by some grave robber
IIRC, the date on the ossuary corresponds to 67 AD.
What would constitute evidence of forgery? It’s a carved ossuary. The inscription could have been carved at any time in the past 2000 years on an existing ossuary. How would they be able to tell it wasn’t original?
Whether Jesus existed or not, it’s too pat for me, too. The fact that the inscription is in Aramaic points either to the inscription being real, or to its being the work of a knowledgeable and skilled forger. The same was true of Hoffman’s forgeries – they were thought to be real, too, because they contained so many details that were consistent and required specialized knowledge to pick out. Unfortunately, in that case the forger had such knowledge. Could be the same here.
According to this New Scientist article, Joseph, James and Jesus were sufficiently common for there to be about 20 “James, son of Joseph, broter of Jesus” around at the time. So it’s only about a 5% chance that it is the James. Also, note that the exact dating uses a circular argument - because James was martyred in 62 AD, that’s the date assigned to the ossuary.
Go Alien made a reference to it but I feel this needs to be pointed out. This would be like finding a tombstone in a heap of rubble near a small town that said “Tom, son of Dick, brother of Harry.”
Big deal.
That doesn’t make clear which Tom exactly it refers to. It doesn’t make it clear when this thing was created. And it certainly doesn’t prove that the legendary “Harry the Hermit” exists because legend has it that he had a brother named Tom and a Father named Dick.
Degrance, you’re spot on. Not that it will stop people claiming the ossuary as “proof” of the Jesus’s existence. It only proves the existence of a Jesus.
I think you’re missing a point made in both the NY Times and CNN articles: it is extremely rare for these ossuaries to name a brother at all. Out of the hundreds they have from that era, only two (this, and one other) mentions a brother. The thinking is therefore that this brother ‘Jesus’ is someone important. (How often are brothers listed on modern tombstones, for that matter?)
That doesn’t prove that the inscription is legitimate, but it makes it much more unlikely that it just happens to be another James, son of another Joseph, who happens to have another famous brother named Jesus.
We are left with the reasonable suspicion that it is a forgery. But if so, the creator apparently didn’t profit much from it. The guy who had it didn’t know what he had, and didn’t even realize Jesus had a brother.
Again, I’m not saying we have any proof it’s real, but I think it’s not so easily dismissed either.
To my mind the presence of the statement about a brother makes it more likely that it’s a forgery – what are the odds, after all, of our finding such an ossuary, were it the Real Thing? Doesn’t this sound exactly like the sort of thing that a forger would do to “gild the lily” and make the item irresistable?
As for the previous owner not knowing what it is, this in no way invalidates the possibility of its being a forgery. Watch Antiques Roadshow sometime. Plenty of forgeries there (and real items, too, for that matter) owned by people who have no idea what they’ve got. After all, it needn’t be a recent forgery.
Cal, I’m not saying that the mention of a brother makes it less likely to be a forgery, only that it makes it less likely to be a coincidence – some other James, Joseph, and Jesus.
I agree that if someone were going to make a forgery, it is what you would expect them to make. The more I think about it, the more I come around to thinking its authenticity is unlikely, but I think its origin is probably unknowable.
