Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Plebe · 10-22-2002, 12:20 AM

�The Associated Press is reporting that Lemaire -- writing in Biblical Archeology Review -- has discoverd a first century inscription referring to the most important of New Testament figures: Jesus, James, and their father Joseph.
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20021021_898.html" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20021021_898.html</a>
The inscription is in the Aramaic language and appears on an empty ossuary--a limestone burial box for bones. The writing states: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." It is dated by Andre to 63 A.D., the year after James -- according to Josephus -- was killed by the High Priest. Other evidence shows it most likely was from the first century.�
TOTO--�I think it's irrational to draw any conclusions with our current state of information. Shanks is obviously hyping it beyond its signficance even if it does date from 63 CE, but that's the only definite thing I can see.�

�I agree TOTO and wonder exactly-just where are the bones of this ossuary? An ossuary after all is supposed to be a box that holds the bones of the dead, isn�t it?

I think what Professor Eisenman said in a 1998 interview here says much about James that is currently being omitted and would lead to more accuracy in scholarship about the earliest Jerusalem Church with or without another 'holy relic'":
<a href="http://www.csulb.edu/%7Ereisenma/interview.html" target="_blank">http://www.csulb.edu/%7Ereisenma/interview.html</a>
Excerpt from an interview in 1998:
""The James book is the key. In the James book we did cut 500 pages
relating to the Scrolls out. But we still have that as a second volume
waiting if we can get the publishers, depending on how the first volume
goes. We cut a lot out because it is too controversial. The public have
been totally confused by all the varying interpretations of the Scrolls and
they don�t know who to turn to and they don't know who to rely on.
What that does is undermine their confidence in the significance of any
of them, because they don't dare depend on someone who is labeled a
maverick or speculative or something along those lines. And so we put
all that aside so that we wouldn't have to base our theories on that.
In the James book, we did it only on the New Testament and early
Church documents backed up by Josephus. We used the Scrolls only
for external corroboration and control, not really making any points
relating to James and the Scrolls, but only James and the New
Testament and the early Church. There was enough we could say about
that, as you see, to fill up a thousand pages. In the history of Christianity
it is quite clear that James has been written out and that he is the key
figure in the history of the early Church. Yet no one has hardly ever
even spoken of him, aside from the spotlight and emphasis that I have
been putting on him. He has only come into his own because of that.
But aside from that, no one has even told the average Church goer
anything about him.
I spend the middle part of the chapters of my book giving you all the
sources about James from every direction and I quote them verbatim,
which is why the book is so big. I give you everything about James.
Now, if anyone can find something that I have missed or a source that I
haven�t quoted, I would like to hear it. If my interpretation of the
material is not accurate, if you think that I am full of bologna; so you do
a better job (laughing). I have already given you the material and I have
given you what I think any logical person would conclude from that. I
feel and I say this to all my audience that by the end of the book and
when you are all done, you will have very little choice but to agree with
me. Because the conclusions I arrived at will be the same process that
you will go through, because I had no knowledge of James before I
started out on this search. And I am only making conclusions that the
data leads me to, so what do we finally find out? We find out that
James is an extreme Nazirite; that he was holy from his mother�s womb;
that he was a daily bather; that he only polled his hair; that he only wore
linen clothes. And none of this comes in the Book of Acts, because the
Book of Acts is so Paulinized, it gives us a Roman view of Palestinian
history.
I think that this is very exciting for people looking for a new direction, a
new Jesus, someone who they can really relate to not some
cardboard Christmas carol person something that a thinking person in
the twentieth century; who is on the internet, who wants to be
intellectually challenged, wants to get into things, can really get his or her
teeth into, and you don�t have to be an expert or a supernatural scholar
to get your teeth into this. Very often the experts and these superduper
scholars would not assent to new evidence even if it were presented
right in front of their nose. My book is for the amateur as well as for the
specialist. I really am directing it to the amateur because I feel that the
amateur is more open to new ideas than the academic jury who I have
already described, as dominating these fields."
- Professor Robert Eisenman

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Plebe ]

Vorkosigan · 10-22-2002, 12:52 AM

Michael, there is no Latinism in the ossuary inscription, and it is was completely wild of Sauron to suggest there is. In Aramaic, a daleth at the beginning of a word can mean "who" or "of". In this case, dysw` = d'yeshua = "of Yeshua". (Aramaic daleth can also substitute for Hebrew zayin, but that is another story.)

Thanks, Apikorus. I appreciate the heads up.

I tend to doubt this ossuary is a fraud. It is a remarkable find, but remarkable finds happen every now and then. The sad thing is that there are likely dozens of other significant artifacts lying in private collections which have not been properly investigated by scholars. It is a serious problem in archaeology, particularly in populated areas such as Israel, and one of which people unfamiliar with the field are generally unaware.

Well, being a collector of Chinese porcelain and someone interested in archaeology, I tend to see both sides.

To assume this ossuary is a fraud simply because Lemaire was lucky enough to discover the Solomonic pomegranate strikes me as completely irrational.

To read so much into a single comment strikes me as a bit overwrought. You might ponder <a href="http://www.ancienteastasia.org/special/japanarchscandal.htm" target="_blank">this article on a massive fraud in Japanese archaeology</a>. Success may be luck, skill, or fraud. Until he was videotaped salting the pits with fake artifacts, Fujimura was a respected and envied member of his profession.

But like Toto said, it is early to come to conclusions.

Vorkosigan

FunkyRes · 10-22-2002, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Perhaps "most likely" is hyperbole, but given the history of fakes and forgeries in the field of Jesus artifacts and in art and archeology in general, you always have to consider that as a possibility. And it does seem a little too pat. It's one thing for Josephus to identify James as the brother of Jesus, but then someone conveniently finds a reference to James, the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus, on a burial box that was looted from a grave and is in the hands of a private collector, and so cannot be authenticated.

I'm more interested in the statistical analysis that shows that linking 3 such common names can show anything.

Or it COULD possibly mean that near the time of his death, James was known as James the Brother of Jesus. As such Josephus calls him that and the inscription calls him that.

As far as a 63 dating-

We know this is pre 70 AD because in 70 AD Jerusalem was splattered and this technique of burrying first and collecting the bones ended.

Furthermore, the aramaic script suggests 60 AD to 70 AD (from the article I read)

I'm not familiar with why they precisely date it at 63 AD but when you look at the facts- statistically there would have been 20 trios of Jacob, Jesus, and Joseph that fit that description.

Of those 20 trios it is not likely that two different Jacobs (James) were distinguished by who their brother was.

This makes this very likely (assuming it is authentic which all the evidence suggests at this point) that this Jacob is the same one mentioned by Josephus, hence the 63 dating of the artifact.

If this is the reason for the dating- we just need to be very careful to remember that the 63 dating is BECAUSE the association between Josephus and the inscription was made, and is not considered support for the association (as considering it support would thus be circular).

FunkyRes · 10-22-2002, 01:34 AM

Quote:

I tend to doubt this ossuary is a fraud. It is a remarkable find, but remarkable finds happen every now and then. The sad thing is that there are likely dozens of other significant artifacts lying in private collections which have not been properly investigated by scholars.

Off topic-
My grandfather had an Egypt collection.
Mostly stuff like scratch stones and oil lamps and beetles.

But one of the artifacts in his collection (he's dead now so it is our collection) to my untrained eye looks suspiciously like a dredel (Jewish) with what looks to me like early hebrew letters on the sides.

At some point I will have a pro look at it- but if it is a dredel, it probably is not from Egypt- at least not originally.

Unfortunately, Grandma does not know which dealer of Egyptian Artifacts it came from or what time period it is suppose to be or anything on it.

I wonder how many potential artifacts this happens with.

Other than possibly by the letters, I wonder if this (possible) dredel even CAN be dated- its stone.

FunkyRes · 10-22-2002, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:


It is overblown. I would not place this ossuary on the same level as the Qumran scrolls, for example.

Note they said NEW testament.
There were no new testament scrolls found at Qumran.
Of course, that *might* have something to do with the fact that Qumran is Pre- Jesus

FunkyRes · 10-22-2002, 01:59 AM

Maybe the AD 63 date is because there was an inscription stating such, right under the "Hecho en Mexico" stamp

David Bowden · 10-22-2002, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
I tend to doubt this ossuary is a fraud.

Yes - Until a specialist exposes it as a fraud, I think it's only fair to concentrate on dealing with the ossuary with the inscription as an authentic first-century artifact.

Whether the (genuine-for-the-sake-of-argument) artifact refers to the James, Joseph and Jesus of Christian literature is another question...

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
...there are likely dozens of other significant artifacts lying in private collections which have not been properly investigated by scholars. It is a serious problem in archaeology...

A few (mainly rhetorical) questions:

If another ossuary were to be found, identifying itself as carrying the bones of another James, brother of another Jesus, son of another Joseph, what would that imply about the significance of this find? Would the probability that either of them referred to the New Testament characters go up or down based on such a find?

Also:

If another ossuary were found, with the inscription, "Jesus brother of James son of Joseph" would it be hailed as evidence that the Jesus, James and Joseph of Christianity existed?

And would Christians on this board then use language such as "probably a fraud" and/or remind us all about the extreme commonness of these names and the likelihood that such a combination refers to anonymous (to us) first-century persons, and not the Biblical characters?

Would Christians be right to make such points? Are nonbelievers right to make such points now?

BTW, Peter Kirby, thanks for posting that 1996 article; it helps to keep things in perspective.

-David

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: David Bowden ]

MortalWombat · 10-22-2002, 06:13 AM

Judging by the AP story that Peter Kirby posted earlier it seems that every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the first century was named Jesus, Mary, or Joseph.

Jayhawker Soule · 10-22-2002, 06:54 AM

Perhaps it's just me, but I get the sense from some of a near palpable anxiety in response to any development not easily and immediately dismissed as fraud. I'm looking forward to the magazine.

Sheep in the big city · 10-22-2002, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FunkyRes:

Of those 20 trios it is not likely that two different Jacobs (James) were distinguished by who their brother was.

This makes this very likely (assuming it is authentic which all the evidence suggests at this point) that this Jacob is the same one mentioned by Josephus, hence the 63 dating of the artifact.

Why do you say it's not likely "that TWO different Jacobs (James) were distinguished by who their brother was."
If Jesus Christ did not exist (the assessment the box is supposed to disprove) then the only relevant likelihood is that of ONE James who was distinguished by who their brother was.

And once we are talking about likelihoods - what is more likely that said brother was the son of (a by definition and according to the bible self-contradicting)God who performed never seen again impossible deeds and was resurrected after death or that there was some Jesus in the first century who was celebrated for winning the local goat toss 3 years in a row?

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sheep in the big city ]

10-22-2002, 12:20 AM	#71
Plebe Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Contra Costa County Posts: 168	�The Associated Press is reporting that Lemaire -- writing in Biblical Archeology Review -- has discoverd a first century inscription referring to the most important of New Testament figures: Jesus, James, and their father Joseph. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20021021_898.html" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20021021_898.html</a> The inscription is in the Aramaic language and appears on an empty ossuary--a limestone burial box for bones. The writing states: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." It is dated by Andre to 63 A.D., the year after James -- according to Josephus -- was killed by the High Priest. Other evidence shows it most likely was from the first century.� TOTO--�I think it's irrational to draw any conclusions with our current state of information. Shanks is obviously hyping it beyond its signficance even if it does date from 63 CE, but that's the only definite thing I can see.� �I agree TOTO and wonder exactly-just where are the bones of this ossuary? An ossuary after all is supposed to be a box that holds the bones of the dead, isn�t it? I think what Professor Eisenman said in a 1998 interview here says much about James that is currently being omitted and would lead to more accuracy in scholarship about the earliest Jerusalem Church with or without another 'holy relic'": <a href="http://www.csulb.edu/%7Ereisenma/interview.html" target="_blank">http://www.csulb.edu/%7Ereisenma/interview.html</a> Excerpt from an interview in 1998: ""The James book is the key. In the James book we did cut 500 pages relating to the Scrolls out. But we still have that as a second volume waiting if we can get the publishers, depending on how the first volume goes. We cut a lot out because it is too controversial. The public have been totally confused by all the varying interpretations of the Scrolls and they don�t know who to turn to and they don't know who to rely on. What that does is undermine their confidence in the significance of any of them, because they don't dare depend on someone who is labeled a maverick or speculative or something along those lines. And so we put all that aside so that we wouldn't have to base our theories on that. In the James book, we did it only on the New Testament and early Church documents backed up by Josephus. We used the Scrolls only for external corroboration and control, not really making any points relating to James and the Scrolls, but only James and the New Testament and the early Church. There was enough we could say about that, as you see, to fill up a thousand pages. In the history of Christianity it is quite clear that James has been written out and that he is the key figure in the history of the early Church. Yet no one has hardly ever even spoken of him, aside from the spotlight and emphasis that I have been putting on him. He has only come into his own because of that. But aside from that, no one has even told the average Church goer anything about him. I spend the middle part of the chapters of my book giving you all the sources about James from every direction and I quote them verbatim, which is why the book is so big. I give you everything about James. Now, if anyone can find something that I have missed or a source that I haven�t quoted, I would like to hear it. If my interpretation of the material is not accurate, if you think that I am full of bologna; so you do a better job (laughing). I have already given you the material and I have given you what I think any logical person would conclude from that. I feel and I say this to all my audience that by the end of the book and when you are all done, you will have very little choice but to agree with me. Because the conclusions I arrived at will be the same process that you will go through, because I had no knowledge of James before I started out on this search. And I am only making conclusions that the data leads me to, so what do we finally find out? We find out that James is an extreme Nazirite; that he was holy from his mother�s womb; that he was a daily bather; that he only polled his hair; that he only wore linen clothes. And none of this comes in the Book of Acts, because the Book of Acts is so Paulinized, it gives us a Roman view of Palestinian history. I think that this is very exciting for people looking for a new direction, a new Jesus, someone who they can really relate to not some cardboard Christmas carol person something that a thinking person in the twentieth century; who is on the internet, who wants to be intellectually challenged, wants to get into things, can really get his or her teeth into, and you don�t have to be an expert or a supernatural scholar to get your teeth into this. Very often the experts and these superduper scholars would not assent to new evidence even if it were presented right in front of their nose. My book is for the amateur as well as for the specialist. I really am directing it to the amateur because I feel that the amateur is more open to new ideas than the academic jury who I have already described, as dominating these fields." - Professor Robert Eisenman [ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Plebe ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-22-2002, 12:52 AM	#72
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Michael, there is no Latinism in the ossuary inscription, and it is was completely wild of Sauron to suggest there is. In Aramaic, a daleth at the beginning of a word can mean "who" or "of". In this case, dysw` = d'yeshua = "of Yeshua". (Aramaic daleth can also substitute for Hebrew zayin, but that is another story.) Thanks, Apikorus. I appreciate the heads up. I tend to doubt this ossuary is a fraud. It is a remarkable find, but remarkable finds happen every now and then. The sad thing is that there are likely dozens of other significant artifacts lying in private collections which have not been properly investigated by scholars. It is a serious problem in archaeology, particularly in populated areas such as Israel, and one of which people unfamiliar with the field are generally unaware. Well, being a collector of Chinese porcelain and someone interested in archaeology, I tend to see both sides. To assume this ossuary is a fraud simply because Lemaire was lucky enough to discover the Solomonic pomegranate strikes me as completely irrational. To read so much into a single comment strikes me as a bit overwrought. You might ponder <a href="http://www.ancienteastasia.org/special/japanarchscandal.htm" target="_blank">this article on a massive fraud in Japanese archaeology</a>. Success may be luck, skill, or fraud. Until he was videotaped salting the pits with fake artifacts, Fujimura was a respected and envied member of his profession. But like Toto said, it is early to come to conclusions. Vorkosigan

10-22-2002, 01:59 AM	#76
FunkyRes Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Antioch, CA Posts: 173	Maybe the AD 63 date is because there was an inscription stating such, right under the "Hecho en Mexico" stamp

10-22-2002, 06:13 AM	#78
MortalWombat Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: St Louis area Posts: 3,458	Judging by the AP story that Peter Kirby posted earlier it seems that every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the first century was named Jesus, Mary, or Joseph.

10-22-2002, 06:54 AM	#79
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Perhaps it's just me, but I get the sense from some of a near palpable anxiety in response to any development not easily and immediately dismissed as fraud. I'm looking forward to the magazine.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.