Brewmaster

First, I realize that there is no way that one can prove without a shadow of a doubt that the casket belonged to James the brother of Jesus. However, assuming the strong possibility, does this in anyway alter your understanding of who Jesus was, or claimed to be?

simian

No, I can't say it would. I would not be surprised if the Christian mythology is based off a person's life or a collection of peoples' lives.

Of course, I would say this about any number of mythologies. For example, finding the tomb of Odyseus would not convince me that the Illiad and the Oddesy were historical fact either. It would still be mythology.

Simian

Flynn McKerrow

It doesn't mean a damn thing.

There are a few threads on this already in BC&A.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000755" target="_blank">Here</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000709" target="_blank">Here</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000703" target="_blank">and here</a>

Possibly more.

Debbie T

It's not a strong possibility at this point. Even if it was it wouldn't alter my understanding. Here's some recent developements in the article
<a href="http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&enDispWha t=object&enDispWho=Article%5El1599&enZone=Culture& enVersion=0&" target="_blank">Legal issues, cracks and scholars' reports damage </a>

Scholars insist: inscription is a fraud
Israel Insider posted exclusively on October 29 the report of an expert of ancient scripts and writing systems who claimed that while the burial box appeared to be genuine, as was the first part of the inscription, the second half of the inscription, "brother of Jesus," was a "poorly executed fake" and a later addition.

Rochelle I. Altman, co-coordinator of IOUDAIOS-L, a virtual community of scholars engaged in on-line discussion of Judaism in the Greco-Roman world, says that people are taking Sorbonne University paleographer Andre Lemaire's word too quickly when he stated "that the inscription is incised."

Both Altman and noted paleographer Ada Yardeni have concluded that the second part of the inscription was added later. "There are two hands; two different scripts; two different social strata, two different levels of execution, two different levels of literacy, and two different carvers," Altman says.

Altman believes that the second half was actually written in the 3rd or 4th century, while Paul Shafer at the University of Wyoming, an expert on Hebraicized Aramaic dialects, dates it anywhere between the 2nd and 7th centuries.

"The reason the police are onto Golan is that there are two such ossuaries, both already known and photographed in a book on the ossuaries in collections in Israel published in 1996. This one was not bought at an antique dealer in the 1960s, but at an auction, from a museum, in the 1980s," Altman says.

Brewmaster

Suppose it did turn out to be legitimate. Would this alter your thinking in anyway?

Goliath

Brewmaster,

No. The assertion of Jesus' existence is a supernatural claim. Thus evidence in this particular case is irrelevant.

No. It would still be evidence, and not a proof of Jesus' supposed existence.

Sincerely,

Goliath

simian

Three of us so far have clearly stated that even if it was the burial device of the james, it would not alter understanding.

I tried to put it in perspective. Let me state that clearly again:

If it is physical evidence of Jesus, that does nothing to make the mythology any more real. AS A COMPARISON: Finding Odysseus' tomb would not convince Greek mythology is true. It would merely show that there was a historical character the mythology was based on. Or would you expect me to become a devout Greek Pantheist if evidence that some of their heroes were historical figures? No? Then why should I make an exception for another mythology that may have had historical fugures and not be pure mythology?

Simian

Toto

Brewmaster - if it turned out to be a patent fraud, would it shake your faith in Christianity or in the Christian church?

I assume the answer would be no. Why would you even think that the name 'Jesus' on a piece of limestone from the first century would change any non-believer's opinion?

Echo

I don't think so. Surely I would find it intersting and might even like to see it, provided it makes the museum rounds one day; but I don't see how it would alter my thinking about Jesus, at least not at this point.

After all, it's not really telling us anything new, is it?

(By the way, we're neighbors I see)

Hobbs

No, it wouldn't do much to alter my understanding of who Jesus was. To the best I've been able to figure, I think the evidence seems to point to the conclusion that if there was a historical Jesus, he was likely something like an Essene who was a fairly orthodox Jew (or at least orthodox Essene) who, if he saw himself as a Messiah, did so in the Jewish sense of a human annointed by God to lead his people (just like David and Solomon and even the bad kings were messiahs). He was probably one of those "back to basics" type of religious reformers, probably at least as interested in political reform as religious reform and freeing Judea from Roman control. After his death, his followers believed that the spirit of his ideas and the movement he began lived on, or that he was spiritually resurrected, or some such, and his ideals were still worth striving to achieve. His followers could well have included his brother, who would be a reasonable candidate to be the new leader.

Then Paul, either a hellenized Jew or a Judaised Greek (he claimed to be a Jew, but he also said that he was willing to be a Jew for Jews, a Greek for Greeks, whatever it took to spread the gospel as he understood it), who didn't personally know Jesus or his followers, misunderstood or reinterpreted the movement to put his theological stamp on it with a very Greek-sounding "Christ" in place of a Jewish Messiah. He seems to have grafted a version of an already developing Greek quasi-"Christ" myth (mystery religions and all that) onto a Jewish Messiah movement. He seemed obsessed with a way to follow the good parts of Judaism without having to go along with all the ritual stuff such as circumcision and the long list of specific laws. This was a common attitude among Judaised non-Jews of the time: many people admired them and thought they were worth emulating, but didn't want to have to do all it took (such as cutting off the ends of their dicks) to join them. There is evidence in the Bible of strong disagreements between Paul and the Jerusalem "Christians" (Peter, James, etc); this would make sense of those differences.

Then the Jerusalem church was destroyed along with the rest of Jerusalem in the war with Rome. Paul had spread his interpretation around beyond Jerusalem (to Hellenized Jews and Judaised Greeks) enough to where it won out over the original Jesus Messiah movement now that any hopes for the originals' movement was shattered. His interpretation also had to battle the Gnostics and other varieties of "Christianity"-like beliefs. Gospel "biographies" were written, decades after the alleged events, by followers of one or another versions of a Greek-Christ Jesus to support their particular versions. Eventually, Paul's verion "won" (i.e. gained enough adherents to suppress opposition and enforce their orthodoxy, primarily by getting Emperor Constantine on their side) and decided which of the gospels, letters, etc, were canonical (i.e. which supported their theology).

So, no, even if this is definitely the casket of James the brother of Jesus, that would fit fine with this understanding of Jesus (which is far from unique to me; I didn't just make this up).