Writer@Large

Layman, thanks for compiling all of that. I'm eagerly reading information on this find.

--W@L

Apikorus

Papponymy was apparently a common naming scheme, as evidenced by (a) names of high priests (prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE) and (b) rabbinic lines as described in the Talmud. I don't know when the tradition of excluding names of living relatives - which is common among Ashkenazim, but not Sephardim - was started, but it probably has little bearing on the group in question.

Psycho Economist

I more meant to imply that it was locked in a monestary sponsored by the Italian Duke of Savoie(sp?) for most of its existence before this century (away from skeptic and believer alike, I'll grant). I'm personally greatful that after it was released, it was open to study by all manner of scholars... I'd just not like for this to be in a Jerusalem reliquary for four-hundred years before we get to ask more questions.

Radorth

More likely, the question is how one might best help future generations distinguish this James from many other named James, on an ossuary meant to last forever. Saying he was the brother of a famous Jesus would leave no doubt of course, at least in their minds.

Rad

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Mageth

Then we would have known if James was beheaded as in Acts...

Minor point, but wasnt' that James, the brother of John, one of the 12?

MortalWombat

But it doesn't say anything about a "famous Jesus," it just says "brother of Jesus." If it were put on there to distinguish that James as the Famous James who was the brother of the Famous Jesus, one would think they would put on there more than just "James (a common name) brother of Jesus (another common name)."

Layman

Unless I am remembering incorrectly, Murphy-O'Connor is a Catholic Priest, so I expect he means it should be obtained by the Catholic Church. But perhaps he simply means that it should be obtained and maintained by a coalition of Christian denominations.

diana

What a fascinating discussion. This hubbub was mentioned to me by a friend yesterday. The first question I asked, as it turns out, is "Who found it and under what conditions?" He said the details were fuzzy on that....

Mm-hm. It already sounds like another cooked up Xn artifact. (Cross splinters, anyone?)

Originally posted by Radorth:
If there was a need to differentiate "for future generations," why didn't everybody do this? I mean, the pool of available names wasn't very big. There was a chronic repetition problem, no matter who you were. Why would it matter to future generations which "James" this was, while they obviously didn't really care which "Joseph" that is in the corner, and which "John" that is by the fireplace?

And if "James" is such an uncommon name, then why would it be necessary to differentiate at all?

d

P.S. I'm following this discussion with interest, but personally hoping all this flap will bring Koy out of retirement. I'm a woman of simple needs.

Geoff Hudson

The Reference in Ant. 20.9.1 to James currently reads: and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. As someone in this thread has pointed out, the lesser known brother is introduced by the better known.

Jesus never existed. So the above reference should read: and brought before them the the brother of James who was called Just, whose name was John. Again the lesser known John the son of Zebedee is introduced by his better known brother James, the leader of the Jerusalem assembly.

The reference in Acts to James being beheaded is inserted by an editor in the incorrect position simply to confuse. IMO James was probably beheaded in Rome.

The trial of Paul in Acts was the trial of James.
James was sent to Rome after his appeal to Caesar.
John the son of Zebedee was stoned to death by Ananus after James was beheaded in Rome.

The box did not hold the remains of James the Just.

Geoff

Vorkosigan

Mm-hm. It already sounds like another cooked up Xn artifact. (Cross splinters, anyone?)

That was my conclusion at first, when I heard that it had been connected to Jesus, which would indicate that it was most likely a fake. But the ossuary is definitely old and the inscription is first-century. And there is no connection to the Jesus legends. To the extent that it's an old artifact with a genuine inscription, it is authentic.

More interesting is the vast headlines and hubbub in the Christian publications and on the newsgroups and email lists -- indicative of what everyone knows but nobody talks about, that without the outside historical vectors, there is simply no reliable evidence for the Jesus stories.