Layman

Microscopic inspection reveals that the "soot" layer is the exact same in the inscriptions as on the rest of the Ossuary.

Keep grasping guys. The desparation is somewhat amusing. You'd come across better if you just said you were going to wait and see how this pans out as more and more scholars review the arguments. That's the most reasonable position.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

godfry n. glad

I think there is a rush to judgment by a lot of folks on this....

Everyone here seems to be focused on this ossuary being either evidence for the existence of the founder of Christianity or a complete fraud. A couple of items noted by posters leads me to think that there are other options.

First, it seems fairly clear to me from the commentaries of Josephus that the names Jesus, Joseph and Jacob (James) were all very common names in first century Judea. It's my understanding that Josephus mentions some 17 to 20 separate Jesuses in his works, and they are only those that are notable for some reason.

I'm not quite sure how anyone would arrive at a figure of 20 possible combinations of Joseph/Jacob/Jesus. This seems forced to me, but I'm willing to listen to the explanation of the methodology on this and change my opinion.

Then, the commentary in the AP article that, strikes me as having as much credibility as the claim that Jesus' name was included because of his notority in 1st century Judea. If that is the case, it would go well with the information included in the 1996 news release posted by Peter Kirby, which stated,

It seems to me that what we may have is the ossuary of a Judean James, son of Joseph, that was paid for by his brother, Jesus, son of Joseph, who survived him. This Jesus, in turn, had his engraved ossuary, placed in the tomb at a later date. If that is the case, it hardly fits the details of any of the gospel narratives.

All the speculation about the ossuary being that of James, a brother of the founding figure of Christianity, as well as the speculation that it could be a fraud, are premature.

I do note, however, that there was no rush to claim that Jesus, the founding figure of Christianity, was, upon the evidence of limestone box, catalogue No. 80.503, a real person of 1st century Judea. Now, why was that?

godfry n. glad

Radorth

Ah, so there was no "first century relic production phase."

I never said it wasn't a forgery. I don't know and it's not like I need to develop hasty theories about it to keep MY world-view intact. I was commenting on Vork's latest conspiracy theory which, it now appears, is completely unsupported.

Thanks for the help.

Rad

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

MortalWombat

One other thing to keep in mind:

Let's suppose that it is a 1st century ossuary of an important person named James who also had an important brother named Jesus. Apparently they weren't important enough to include the titles "the Just" and "the Messiah" on the ossuary. Just the names and relationships.

butswana

"It's most likely a fraud dating from the relic-production phase of Christianity in the first millenium."
Where are you getting century from this?
"Ah, so there was no "first century relic production phase."" Sould read "Ah, so there was no "first MILLENIUM relic production phase.""
Review your history. Relic production was a cottage industry.

Apikorus

I'd have to agree with Layman here that any rush to label the ossuary a forgery is misguided and suggestive of a particular agenda. There's simply nothing about it, thus far, which is particularly troubling, aside from the fact that it was not discovered in situ, which is hardly uncommon when it comes to artifacts from ancient Israel and Palestine.

The position of the scholars interviewed seems to be abundantly sensible: epigraphy dates the ossuary to the mid-first century CE, and while the names Yaakov, Yosef, and Yeshua are common for that era, mention of the brother (Yeshua) is rare and hence noteworthy. This Yeshua must have been distinguished in some way, though he might simply have been the owner of the tomb. The item could be a forgery, but thus far there's nothing to suggest as much, and indeed preliminary surface analysis seems to confirm the first century date. The artifact will very likely always be shrouded in mystery and uncertainty, given the fact that the circumstances of its discovery are apparently unknown. And even if it is eventually deemed authentic, there is no way to uniquely connect it with the James, Joseph, and Jesus of the New Testament.

I suppose there are two groups of people for whom this discovery is potentially problematic. The first is the community of skeptics who say that Jesus never existed. The second is the community of believers in the perpetual virginity of Mary. There's enough uncertainty to the find that it seems unlikely that either group will be brought to the point of despair, but I imagine it isn't particularly welcome news to them either.

Corwin

Funny how you read desperation into our responses. Apparently any response other than 'WHOA THIS IS THE BOX THAT JESUS' BROTHER'S BONES WERE IN' is being desperately overly skeptical.... I'm convinced. Really. Honestly!!!

Yes I typed that with a straight face.

This find, and whether it's legitimate or not, is important in several ways. If it's legitimate, it knocks the legs out from under the Jesus Myth idea. (Mostly anyway.) Note that this doesn't prove anything at all right about any divinity on the part of this person, simply historical existance. The 'perpetual virginity' dogma is worth mentioning I suppose... but honestly, even among catholics who believes this in the 21st century?

The third way, and one that hasn't been mentioned... is how christianity is impacted if this is a fraud. What it does is underscore exactly how desperate the christian community is getting for any sort of proof that this Jesus of theirs ever existed... (since any previous historical references have been pretty thoroughly debunked as forgeries... like Josephus.)

If it's legit, then fine. If it's a fraud... why? Assuming christian history regarding the first century is valid... if your point is honest and true, why fake it? (And this question has been raised several times in the past, but has mostly been shouted down.)

Layman

How could you type this with a straight face? I have only been critical of two positions:

1. Volk's conclusion that this was most likely a fake; and,

2. It is "too pat" to be real.

I have said several times that this looks interesting and could be valid, but that it is reasonable to wait to see how the arguments play out in the scholarly community.

In other words, you have constructed a very obvious strawman.

So if it is a fraud then the entire Christian community is implicated? That's ridiculous. Did the entire "evolutionary community" come down when various fossils (Piltdown man?) were revealed as hoaxes? Of course not.

Layman

Just to add to that,

I have responded to several odd "it's a fraud" subarguments seeking to back up Volks's ignorant proclamation. Such as your argument that there was no plant stuff on it.

David Bowden

This ossuary discovery can be "legitimate" (i.e., a genuine 1st-century artifact and inscription) without having anything to do with the James/Jesus/Joseph of NT fame. In other words, even if no expert posits that it's a fraud, the assumption that the ossuary has anything to do with Biblical characters is a separate matter.

If anyone proposes that there is a link between this ossuary and the James of the book of Acts, their reasoning is open to critique. Exactly how a Christian apologist might establish an association between the ossuary and the NT James interests me greatly.

I'm happy to give provisional assent to the artifact/inscription being entirely "legitimate," while remaining a Historical Jesus agnostic/skeptic. I see no contradiction here, since the authenticity of this bone box, and the association of it with the NT James, are two separate issues.

-David