Possible Earliest Artifact Identifying Jesus?

Again, pont well taken. I say "notably" because with the hindsight of 2000 years, it merely seemed to me that if your brother was important because he was believed to be the "messiah" (as opposed to a really good carpenter), that would have been a pretty important thing...but, as you note, it may not have been the practice, and I shouldn't impose my current sensibilties on their sensibilities/customs, etc.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Again, pont well taken. I say "notably" because with the hindsight of 2000 years, it merely seemed to me that if your brother was important because he was believed to be the "messiah" (as opposed to a really good carpenter), that would have been a pretty important thing...but, as you note, it may not have been the practice, and I shouldn't impose my current sensibilties on their sensibilities/customs, etc.

It would have made things much easier if the inscription said "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus who rose from the dead and by the way all that stuff about the miracles was true." :)
 
PotatoStew said:


It would have made things much easier if the inscription said "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus who rose from the dead and by the way all that stuff about the miracles was true." :)

Indeed, but I bet there would still be many battles over what is intended by even so blunt a message... All hail the Judean Peoples Liberation Front!:)
 
PotatoStew said:


It would have made things much easier if the inscription said "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus who rose from the dead and by the way all that stuff about the miracles was true." :)

"James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus who rose from the dead and by the way all that stuff about the miracles was true allbeit still within The Laws of Physics just not accessible or knowable by humans at this time."

:p

Sou
 
Soubrette said:


"James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus who rose from the dead and by the way all that stuff about the miracles was true allbeit still within The Laws of Physics just not accessible or knowable by humans at this time."

:p

Sou

:p :D
 
headscratcher4 said:
...it seems to me that it is as likely to be real (as I think Jesus and James were historical persons) as not. However, as indicated above in another posting, I am not sure that it in anyway necessitates a change in my skepticism over who Jesus is alleged to have been, what he did, etc.
Certainly nothing about the current development touches on much beyond the question of historicity.
 
Potato,

Just a little detail on the 'Gospel relevence' of the box - isn't this an example of pattern fitting? A bit like getting 9-1-1 in the New York lottery? Even if the box is completely authentic, there seem at least 3 viable explanations :

1. It is a box that was created for *the* James, brother of *the* Jesus*, son of *the* Joseph.
2. It is a box that was created for another James, brother of another Jesus, son of another Joseph. Purely random conincidence that the names match - a coincidence we are lead to believe is quite possible (although I wonder how the odds have been calculated - seems a little like "roll your own" to me!)
3. It is a box that was created for another James, brother of another Jesus, son of another Joseph. The father Joseph was an early christian, and named his sons according to what he believed.

Surely, even precisely dating the box to 100 CE would leave all three of these alternatives as viable? The "pressure" to select option 1 over the other two comes purely from a human/christian need to 'find validation'? What possible evidence or process is there to determine which of these 3 options is "the truth"?
 
Loki said:
Just a little detail on the 'Gospel relevence' of the box - isn't this an example of pattern fitting?
I read an article from Radio Free Europe that addresses the problem of "pattern fitting" by Biblical Archealogists:
It is common among many Christian believers to hold that the Bible is sufficient authority for all that it contains. Even so, the faithful ardently welcome extra-Biblical evidence of Biblical truths. "BAR" Managing Editor Feldman: "Well, there are people for whom the Bible is sufficient. But I think that even for many devout Christians and Jews or what have you, that whenever you come across an object or a site that is associated with a Biblical event or a Biblical person, there's an immediacy that is just very powerful. And even if it's no more than just a confirmation of one's beliefs, it is still very powerful confirmation."

This eagerness to find historic evidence, writer Lazare says, contributes to a problem. In his "Harper's" article, Lazare says that many Biblical archaeologists make the nonscientific error of beginning from a set of beliefs and then fitting the evidence they discover into those beliefs: "[This view] tends to assume that whatever archaeologists find will somehow buttress Christian or Jewish faith, and tends to look at it from that perspective."

Lazare continues: "Well, the 'Biblical Archeology Review' is a very interesting publication. It's kind of imbued with that kind of mentality. It's a magazine that's written for and read by believers."

Not so, says "BAR's" Feldman: "Well, we try to be impartial. We've been accused of having a point of view, but we've been accused of having contrary.... You know, some people think we're too liberal and some people think we're too conservative. So, I like to think that we're just right -- somewhere in the middle."
A CS Monitor article quotes an expert who believes the "fit" is too good:
Experts already disagree about the authenticity. Crossan figures it's most likely credible. But Robert Eisenman, author of "James the Brother of Jesus" worries the inscription is too good to be true. "It's too pat," he says. "Why add 'Jesus' to the inscription? It's like someone wanted us to be sure."
 
Loki said:
Surely, even precisely dating the box to 100 CE would leave all three of these alternatives as viable?
Yes, though not all logical possibilities are co-equally viable. Your option #3 seems like a stretch.
Loki said:
The "pressure" to select option 1 over the other two comes purely from a human/christian need to 'find validation'?
Much as the "pressure" to select alternative explanations might well be driven by a need to validate a mythicist position.
Loki said:
What possible evidence or process is there to determine which of these 3 options is "the truth"?
None - a frustrating fact that no one disputes.
 
pattern matching

I haven't read anything from anyone who is declaring that this was "the" jesus. Have I missed those articles or are people drawing their skeptic guns out of their holders a bit too fast?

Now, people are talking about the _possibility_ of this box being a link to an actual Jesus and the _implications_ of it. Face it, a concrete link to the historical Jesus is big news. I haven't read of anyone jumping the gun yet and setting up a shrine to relic and claiming that touching cures warts yet, but feel free to post links to articles that do so we can make fun of them.
 
Re: pattern matching

corplinx said:
I haven't read anything from anyone who is declaring that this was "the" jesus. Have I missed those articles or are people drawing their skeptic guns out of their holders a bit too fast?

Now, people are talking about the _possibility_ of this box being a link to an actual Jesus and the _implications_ of it. Face it, a concrete link to the historical Jesus is big news. I haven't read of anyone jumping the gun yet and setting up a shrine to relic and claiming that touching cures warts yet, but feel free to post links to articles that do so we can make fun of them.
Well, I think the original report from Biblical Archaeology Review says unequivocally that this is the ossuary of the James, brother of the Jesus:
Evidence Of Jesus Written In Stone
Ossuary Of Jesus’ Brother Backs Up Biblical Accounts


After nearly 2,000 years, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus has come to light literally written in stone. An inscription has been found on an ancient bone box, called an ossuary, that reads “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” This container provides the only New Testament-era mention of the central figure of Christianity and is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus.
 
Loki:

Just a little detail on the 'Gospel relevence' of the box - isn't this an example of pattern fitting? A bit like getting 9-1-1 in the New York lottery? Even if the box is completely authentic, there seem at least 3 viable explanations :

1. It is a box that was created for *the* James, brother of *the* Jesus*, son of *the* Joseph.
2. It is a box that was created for another James, brother of another Jesus, son of another Joseph. Purely random conincidence that the names match - a coincidence we are lead to believe is quite possible (although I wonder how the odds have been calculated - seems a little like "roll your own" to me!)
3. It is a box that was created for another James, brother of another Jesus, son of another Joseph. The father Joseph was an early christian, and named his sons according to what he believed.

Surely, even precisely dating the box to 100 CE would leave all three of these alternatives as viable? The "pressure" to select option 1 over the other two comes purely from a human/christian need to 'find validation'? What possible evidence or process is there to determine which of these 3 options is "the truth"?

I think RD had a good response to this. I would only add that I think number 3 is very unlikely, since ossuaries weren't done much after 70ad (according to the various links) that would only leave about 40 years for this hypothetical Joseph to convert to Christianity, have two sons, name them James and Jesus, and have James die and Jesus become important enough to be included in the engraving. Possible I suppose, but seemingly far-fetched, IMO.

As far as the other two, sure, either is possible. How the probabilities are assigned, I don't know. From some of the interviews, the scholars examining the matter seemed to think it was unlikely that that particular name combination would exist in a second instance (not impossible, just unlikely, and certainly it couldn't hurt to look at the assumptions or data that led to tha conclusion), so considering that the combination appears in another source in exactly that manner (the NT) it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to think that the two instances may be related.

That being said, I don't think there is any way to figure out which option is "the truth". Most of the experts interviewed in the other links seemed to say as much, and no one here on the board has claimed otherwise (I'm not sure why BAR sound so much more certain of the conclusion).

Zakur:

But Robert Eisenman, author of "James the Brother of Jesus" worries the inscription is too good to be true. "It's too pat," he says. "Why add 'Jesus' to the inscription? It's like someone wanted us to be sure."

That seems sort of unreasonable to me... if it doesn't say Jesus, it's not evidence. If it does say Jesus, it's too perfect, so it's not evidence. It's a "no win" situation. Besides, some of the interviews explained why Jesus' name would be on there... he was an important figure. If there were no examples of this on other ossuaries, it might be suspicious, but since it's a known practice, I don't see why it should be considered a problem.
 
PotatoStew said:

Zakur:

That seems sort of unreasonable to me... if it doesn't say Jesus, it's not evidence. If it does say Jesus, it's too perfect, so it's not evidence. It's a "no win" situation.


On the surface this (no win) seems like a reasonable lament. However, I would suggest the 'too perfect' verdict, carries more weight, in light of the fact, that after 2000 years, it "... is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus."

Besides, some of the interviews explained why Jesus' name would be on there... he was an important figure.

.. but there is the rub.. Important to whom? It is quite clear he wasn't very important, to very many people till many years after his supposed death.

His apparant lack of importance is exemplified in all of the 'missing archeological evidence', that would make this find less questionable.

If there were no examples of this on other ossuaries, it might be suspicious, but since it's a known practice, I don't see why it should be considered a problem.

.. again not quite true .. it is my understanding that the " son of - brother of " phraseology may not be very common at all. Rather, we would expect to see one or the other.
 
Bjorn said:
I am on thin ice here, but weren't these names quite common? :confused:
John, James, Joseph, Jesus and Judas were the most common names in Arimathea at the time. My own name, Anthony, is common today, and although my surname might not be quite so common, I put my full name into Google and searched just the United Kingdom, and still came up with an Anthony John Kehoe from Liverpool, and a doctor of the same name in Buckinghamshire.
Finding an ossuary engraved with these names is no great shakes. Besides, since it seems to have been robbed from a grave, it has no archaeological value, because it can't be dated in context now.
HTH.
 
RD,

I suspect that it is authentic, with a probative value somewhat equal to that of the Josephus reference to James.

I agree.

No, you haven't.

It's good to see your week away didn't soften your assholish disdain.

You mean 'the language attributed to Jesus'.

Yes that's what I meant.

So What? The language attributed to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz is reminiscent of that used in Kansas at the the time.

Sigh.

Flick
 
Diogenes:

in light of the fact, that after 2000 years, it "... is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus."

...

His apparant lack of importance is exemplified in all of the 'missing archeological evidence', that would make this find less questionable.

What archaeological evidence would you reasonably expect to find? Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, and didn't have its own architecture in the beginning, plus with the destruction of the temple and scattering of the Jews in 70ad as well as the early persecution of Christians, the odds are further decreased that we would have any significant archaeological evidence, even if Jesus was in fact an important person at the time.

Kimpatsu:

John, James, Joseph, Jesus and Judas were the most common names in Arimathea at the time. My own name, Anthony, is common today, and although my surname might not be quite so common, I put my full name into Google and searched just the United Kingdom, and still came up with an Anthony John Kehoe from Liverpool, and a doctor of the same name in Buckinghamshire.
Finding an ossuary engraved with these names is no great shakes.

Yes, but there are 58.8 million people in the UK, so it isn't all that surprising that your name would show up a few times. There were only about 40,000 people in Jerusalem at the time. If (just for the sake of argument) we say that the "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" combo is just as likely as the "Anthony John Kehoe" combo, then 3 out of 58.8 million translates to .002 out of 40,000 -- it doesn't even occur one time in 40,000. The "James, Joseph, Jesus" combo would need to be 500 times more likely than the "Anthony John Kehoe" combo to even find it once in ancient Jerusalem. So I'm not sure that you can really say finding those names are "No great shakes" just based on your google search.

Hopefully, as more info comes out about the ossuary, there will be better info as to the real odds of finding that name combo.
 
stamenflicker wrote:
  • I have seen more serious scholarship done on Jesus' missing years that involved submerging himself in the Essene culture and this seems more likely to me, both for Jesus and his cousin John. The language Jesus employs throughout the gospels is reminsent of some of the Dead Sea scroll stuff I've read.
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
  • No, you haven't.
stamenflicker wrote:
  • It's good to see your week away didn't soften your assholish disdain.
You can show no "serious scholarship done on Jesus' missing years that involved submerging himself in the Essene culture", only speculation. You insist on proving yourself worthy of disdain.
 
Diogenes said:
On the surface this (no win) seems like a reasonable lament. However, I would suggest the 'too perfect' verdict, carries more weight, ...
I would suggest that any verdict is premature.
Diogenes said:
... in light of the fact, that after 2000 years, it "... is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus."
This seems like a non sequitur. How is being "the first ever" evidence of being "too perfect"?
 
Kimpatsu said:
I put my full name into Google and searched just the United Kingdom ... Finding an ossuary engraved with these names is no great shakes.
Darn. If only these highly respected scholars had access to Google they might have realized how underwhelming this is. Thanks. :rolleyes:
 

Back
Top Bottom