Vorkosigan

<yawn> Haven't seen any of that around here. I get the sense some people are reading their own prejudices into other's comments.

Bede

Agreed. I find it ironic that this box, even if real, tells us little unless we are Jesus mythers in which case it could be a disaster (Vork's tone was positively shrill). Even for mainstream Christian apologetics it isn't much help as all it can do is help verify basic historical facts that are not controversial anyway (except perhaps the reference to Joseph who is less well attested than James in the sources).

Well, at least Earl didn't give up the day job.

And yes, a similar box with Jesus son of Joseph brother of James would be very disturbing to Christians. Luckily, no one has found one .

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

FunkyRes

no- I'm not referring to the biblical fact of James.

I'm referring to the Josephus account of a James who was the brother of Jesus and this bone box James who was the brother of Jesus.

For the 63 dating of this artifact to be wrong, the James in Josephus would have to be a different James than the one the bone box belongs to.

That's where I get the two from.

Not the bible James and the bone box.

But you'd be pretty hard pressed to say that the Bible James was a different dude or none existant, as Josephus specifies his James as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.

Vorkosigan

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?

The solution is obvious: partial authenticity.

MortalWombat

Close. Two have been found with the name "Jesus son of Jospeph."

Kosh

Interesting side bar WRT the commonality of those names in the 1st century.

Just to throw more fuel on the mythical vs. historical debate, if I were going to create a character out of whole cloth and wanted later people to find it believable, I would not choose to name him something like "Englebert Humperdink". I would choose something more like "John Smith", a name so common as to make it difficult to research...

Vorkosigan

Agreed. I find it ironic that this box, even if real, tells us little unless we are Jesus mythers in which case it could be a disaster (Vork's tone was positively shrill).

You're the expert....

Even for mainstream Christian apologetics it isn't much help as all it can do is help verify basic historical facts that are not controversial anyway (except perhaps the reference to Joseph who is less well attested than James in the sources).

Well, if it can be linked to the Jesus of legend -- and I don't see how at this point -- it would be the first historical vector on those legends. So it is of crucial importance, for it gets around the problem of the lack of reliable historical methodology in NT studies, other than claiming "everybody thinks" which isn't really very demonstrative of anything, although it does play a psychological role similar to thumbsucking for some.

If a real link can be established, I would have to go back to my old position, and rethink all this again. &lt;sigh&gt; Very annoying.

Although, it was good that they did so much testing beforehand, and didn't go off half-cocked like they do so often in situations of this nature.

Vorkosigan

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

Duvenoy

Thanks MortalWombat (great handle, by the way)!

Where might I find some documentation on these two finds? One of my sons-in-law is a Christian of sorts, and is estatic over this latest one, although, genuine or fraud, it proves nothing as to the existance of any sort of a God.

I myself am witholding opinion until more study is done.

doov

David Bowden

Interesting. Now, why do some associate the new James ossuary with the NT James and not associate either of these Jesus ossuaries with the NT Jesus? Any specific reasons for not putting the NT Jesus in one of these ossuaries that aren't also valid for not putting the NT James in the new one?

I'm just interested in learning more about the process of association involved, so as to decide for myself whether it's reasonable to claim that it's "very probable" that we're looking at a NT character's ossuary as opposed to an anonymous person's, as Lamaire does:

"...Lemaire, who teaches at the Sorbonne in Paris, called it "very probable" that the box belonged to Jesus' brother James, who by Christian tradition was the leader of the early church in Jerusalem."
(<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html" target="_blank">CNN article</a>)

-David

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

David Bowden

Also, why couldn't the newly controversial ossuary's inscription

"James son of Joseph brother of Jesus"

be interpreted as "James, who was the son of Joseph who was the brother of Jesus" - this Joseph and Jesus being siblings, and this James being the son of Joseph but the nephew of Jesus? What prevents this from being a valid interpretation of the inscription?

Just trying to articulate and weigh the various possibilities...

-David

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