l-bow

If they wanted to make sure that James was James the Righteous, why didn't they use "James brother of Jesus, who is the messiah" Or even "James, brother of our Lord Jesus Christ"? Instead we just have a plain "James, brother of Jesus". Remember James was the head of the Jerusalem church, so why would the writing on the box indicate christian belief?


Unless, you accept that Jesus was an ordinary human.

For the record, I think Jesus and James were historical persons, although not as the NT portrays them.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]</p>

leonarde

Hmmm, based on past record if the inscription did read: 'brother of Jesus, the Messiah'
certain persons here would take that inscription
as a later interpolation by Christians.

Cheers!

l-bow

Are you talking about Josephus? He was a Jew, so it would be odd of him to say such a thing. On the other hand, James was a believer, whether he was a Nazorean/Ebionite or a Paulinian.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]</p>

Layman

Christians often refer to Jesus simply as "Jesus" even when they have a high Christology. Even if this is the actual James of the NT's ossuary, just using the name "Jesus" does not really tell us much about the Christology of the Jerusalem Church.

For example, the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses some of the highest Christology in the New Testament (his divinity and preexistence and role in creation). However, despite the high christology, "[t]he author has a predilection for the simple name Jesus, corresponding to his interest in the humanity of the Messiah (2:9; 3:1; 4:14; 6:20; 7:22; 10:19; 12:24; 13:12, 20)...." Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, at 425.

CX

ridiculous. A stone ossuary by its very nature is not amenable to "interpolation" since you are dealing with the autograph so to speak and it would be readily apparent if any part of the inscription was added later.

Layman

Actually, at least one person is making such a claim: that the "Jesus" part was added later. However, he has not seen the ossuary himself and other commentators have raised some important issues calling his assumptions and conclusions into question.

Should be interesting to see it play out.

Kosh

Is that someone other an Altman? (who is a female that is calling it a forgery)

Layman

Yeah.

I first thought she was a "she" but then saw some other posts referring to her as a "he."