Talulah

I am just wondering why they didn't write "James, the brother of Christ" or the Messiah or some such. That seems more likely to me.

Talulah

diana

Agreed. But I haven't made my mind up about the "brother of Jesus" bit, since that was extremely rare. There isn't enough evidence to corroborate the idea that this means the "brother of" inscription was only because the brother was prominent. As rare as it was, I tend to think it could just as easily be an individual affectation--particularly if it was the choice of the family who recovered the bones and were to keep the ossuary in their homes (or wherever).

I'd think it more likely that such in inscription would be considered necessary by any given family if they happened to have two Jesuses (Jesii?) of their extended family die within a year of one another--or maybe more. Then it would be necessary to distinguish.

I'd like to hear more support for the "prominent brother" conclusion, myself.

Interesting point.

I thought the 1998 discovery of Jesus bones story (and Xns laughing at it) was also an interesting point.

d

Talulah

<a href="http://www.gracecentered.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=3db8a8d9695bffff;act=ST;f=13;t=316 " target="_blank">http://www.gracecentered.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=3db8a8d9695bffff;act=ST;f=13;t=316 </a>

Sauron

What if we have this all wrong?

Suppose that this was a reference to being a "brother of Jesus", in the spiritual sense? In other words, a Christian?

So then the text would be "James, son of Joseph, a brother of(or, in)Jesus"? This would be a reference that the person was an early christian.

If someone wanted the world to know that they were a christian when they died, would they put such a comment on the ossuary? If so, what would the Aramaic be for that? I don't think there was a word for 'christian' that early, was there?

Could we have been on the wrong track all along, by interpreting this as the literal brother?

Reminds me of a scene in Lord of the Rings:


"It's written in Elvish, in the tongue of Eregion. The inscription says, 'Speak, friend, and enter."
"What do you suppose that means?"

"The meaning ins plain enough. If you're a friend, speak the password and enter."
(tries and fails).

"It's a riddle. What's the elvish word for 'friend'?
"Mel-lon."

&lt;craaaaak&gt;

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

Talulah

I don't know. From reading the bible I would think that refering to oneself as the 'brother' of Christ would be unusual. He did refer to the disciples as his 'family' but is is also made clear that he is their 'head' and 'Lord.'

It just seems that one worshiping another as a God would want it known that he WORSHIPPED them, not assume close kinship.

Toto

Posted on another thread, an expert opinion from Dr. R.I.S. Altman, explaining why the words "brother of Jesus" were a later addition by someone other than the person who wrote "James son of Joseph".

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/11211" target="_blank">CrossTalk message 11211</a>

Apikorus

Altman's detailed analysis was quite thorough. Now, with perfect hindsight, I can see the different handwritings in the first and second half of the inscription. (There's also a noticeable space between the two halves.) But I'm uncertain why Altman insists on the reading )XWW(Y#W( (which she's understandibly unclear on how to vocalize) and )XWYDY#W( , which would be vocalized akhui d'yeshua. (I can do the Michigan-Claremont thang too, though it looks a little goofy.) In the "enhanced" images available over the web, it does look like there are two consecutive waw's after the het, but waw/yod confusion is common in written texts, and I thought that the unenhanced photograph showed better that the second of these characters was a bit shorter (hence more likely a yod). The provisional daleth is admittedly very sloppy, with something sticking out of its top, but how does Altman see it as an ayin?

I presume Altman is working from a nice big photograph so she has good reason to make the identifications she does. One should of course defer to her expertise, but I'd like to know why she reads it as she does (which makes the second author to be quasi-illiterate).

Vorkosigan

If she is right, we can kiss the inscription good-bye.

I'm wondering, did someone ask her about the word order?

"Jacob son of Joseph brother of Joshua."

Is "brother or Joshua" ambiguous here as it is in English? Does it definitely refer to Jacob or Joseph? Can that be made out?

Vorkosigan

Sauron

So who wants to speculate on what happened here?

Is this an attempt to create a relic, after-the-fact?

Or is this just someone wanting to get a high quality ossuary for a dead relative, say in 150 CE? Perhaps by stealing an existing ossuary, dumping the bones, and editing the inscription to refer to their own deceased family member?

Jayhawker Soule

I do not know enough to reject the view of Andre Lemaire and Kyle McCarter in favor of Altman's analysis. In fact, I'm a little surprised that she would 'peer review' these experts on a Yahoo site.