CNN: Archaeologists Report 1st Direct Evidence of Jesus

Oct. 21, 2002 | CNN

[MeekOneGOP]

Jesus' name is on ancient box

It could be the oldest archaeological link to Christ, scholar says

10/21/2002

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A burial box that was recently discovered in Israel and dates to the first century could be the oldest archaeological link to Jesus Christ, said a French scholar whose findings were published Monday.

An inscription in the Aramaic language - "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" - appears on an empty ossuary, a limestone burial box for bones.

Andre Lemaire said it's "very probable" that the writing refers to Jesus of Nazareth. He dates the ossuary to A.D. 63, three decades after the crucifixion.

A detailed view of an inscription in Aramaic reading, 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,' appears on an empty ossuary, or limestone burial box for bones, in this undated handout photo.
(AP)

Mr. Lemaire, a specialist in ancient inscriptions at France's Practical School of Higher Studies, published his findings in the November-December issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Style backs theory

The Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer, a Bible professor at the Catholic University of America who studied photos of the box, agrees with Mr. Lemaire that the writing style "fits perfectly" with other first-century examples. The joint appearance of these three famous names is "striking," Mr. Fitzmyer said.

"But the big problem is, you have to show me the Jesus in this text is Jesus of Nazareth, and nobody can show that," he said.

Mr. Lemaire writes that the distinct writing style, and the fact that Jews practiced ossuary burials only between 20 B.C. and A.D. 70, puts the inscription squarely in the time of Jesus and James, who led the early church in Jerusalem.

The names were common, but Mr. Lemaire estimates that only 20 Jameses in Jerusalem during that era would have had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus.

Moreover, naming the brother as well as the father on an ossuary was "very unusual," Mr. Lemaire wrote. There's only one other known example in Aramaic. Thus, this Jesus must have had some unusual role or fame - and Jesus of Nazareth certainly qualified, Mr. Lemaire said.

However, Kyle McCarter, a Johns Hopkins University archaeologist, said it's possible the brother was named because he conducted the burial or owned the tomb.

The archaeology magazine said two Israeli government scientists conducted a detailed microscopic examination of the surface and the inscription, reporting last month that nothing undercuts first-century authenticity.

Mr. Lemaire's assertion was attacked by Robert Eisenman of California State University, Long Beach, who, unlike most scholars, thinks that "Jesus' existence is a very shaky thing." Because Mr. Eisenman is highly skeptical about New Testament history, he considers the discovery "just too perfect."

Also Online

Biblical Archaeology Society (Official Web site)

Virtually all that is known about Jesus comes from the New Testament. No physical artifact from the first century related to him has been discovered and verified.

James is depicted as Jesus' brother in the Gospels and as head of the Jerusalem church in the Book of Acts and Paul's epistles.

First-century Jewish historian Josephus recorded that "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, James by name," was stoned to death as a Jewish heretic in A.D. 62. If his bones were placed in an ossuary the inscription would have occurred the next year, about A.D. 63.

Until now, the oldest surviving artifact that mentions Jesus is a fragment of Chapter 18 in John's Gospel from a manuscript dated about A.D. 125. It was discovered in Egypt in 1920.

There are numerous surviving manuscripts of New Testament portions from later in that century. Jesus was mentioned by three pagan authors in Rome in the early second century and by Josephus in the late first century.

Owner stays anonymous

The ossuary's owner required Mr. Lemaire to shield his identity, so the box's location was not revealed. Nor is anything known about its history over the last 19 centuries, one reason for Mr. McCarter's caution.

Biblical Archaeology Review editor Hershel Shanks said skepticism is to be expected. "Something so startling, so earth-shattering, raises questions about its authenticity," he said.

Mr. Shanks said the owner bought the box about 15 years ago from an Arab antiquities dealer in Jerusalem who said it was unearthed south of the Mount of Olives. The owner didn't realize its potential importance until Mr. Lemaire examined it last spring.

Mr. Lemaire, who was raised Roman Catholic, said his faith did not affect his judgment, because he studies inscriptions only "as a historian - that is, comparing them critically with other sources."

The magazine is negotiating to display the box in Toronto during a major convention of religion scholars in late November, and possibly in the United States.

---

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/102202dnnatjesus.dea50535.html

[MadIvan]

Well...You do realize that if you take the jewels, regal bearing, and intelligence away... You, in effect, posted a picture of a modern St. Louis girl. Admit it! Doesn't she just look like she is eyeing plate of "bicuits & gravy."

Yes, she was on the telegraph constantly to her relatives in Germany asking for their biscuits and gravy recipes. And after Prince Albert died, she would tell all future suitors, "ALBERT, he done her WRONG" by dying and when poor Mr. Brown taught her Highland dancing she would tell him constantly, "ALBERT used to go dancing with me!"

Perhaps ALBERT was merely German for "Brad"? ;)

Regards, Ivan

[Cap'n Crunch]

As soon as I heard this story on the radio I was wondering how long it would be before the FR thread started.

I notice the find didn't say: "Son of Joseph & Mary," just son of Joseph.

Not to mention all the writings of the early fathers on the matter. Everything old is new again.

[ThomasMore]

Bookmark BUMP!

[Cap'n Crunch]

The only thing I've learned is that alot of people outside the Church seem to have alot against the Church.

Oh well.

[L.N. Smithee]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is our only source of God's Truth? Answer: nowhere

Sounds like a New Jersey Supreme Court approach to the Bible.

[L.N. Smithee]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is our only source of God's Truth? Answer: nowhere

Another thing...if you are going to take that approach, in order to blunt the Biblical references I provided regarding Jesus' siblings, you would need another source -- Biblical or not -- that lends credence to the "forever virgin" dogma.

Whaddaya got?

[wastoute]

check this out

http://christiannewstoday.com/papyrus_reveals_gospelFS.html

[LostTribe]

>Abraham found favor with God. Do you pray to him?

Now there's a great new idea! {ggg}. In California that would be sufficient to begin a whole new religious enterprise. A competitor down the street would pray to Moses, and a third group would pray to Jacob.

After all, they are known to have had a FIRST HAND relationship with God. They didn't have to phone long-distance, or go through an operator.

[A. Pole]

>Abraham found favor with God. Do you pray to him?

Now there's a great new idea! {ggg}. In California that would be sufficient to begin a whole new religious enterprise. A competitor down the street would pray to Moses, and a third group would pray to Jacob.

After all, they are known to have had a FIRST HAND relationship with God. They didn't have to phone long-distance, or go through an operator.

Of course you can pray/ask for intercession from Old Testament saints. God Himself tells friends of Job to ask Job for prayers as He would not listen to Job's friends. Sometimes it is more prudent to ask someone more worthy than us for for the mediation.

And another Biblical evidence that Old Testament saints are alive is when Moses and Elias talked with Christ in the presence of Apostles (Luke 9, 31-33)

[aristeides]

I know. I've read Thiede's book, and I'm impressed by his arguments. I think his views have been rejected by the academic community because they depart too far from conventional opinion.

[A. Pole]

You are absolutely correct and kudos for being the first to mention it here. It's obvious from the scriptures that James headed the early church (he spoke last -- i.e., the concluding remarks -- at the first council and sent Peter on an errand). The early church and early secular historians considered James the leader of the early church. The bit about Peter being the head didn't come about until more than a century later.

Either way it is not likely that the relics of a leading bishop like Saint James would be just abandoned in some obscure box. Much more likely they would be acknowledged more solemnly and venerated or distributed in the following generations. This ossuary containes bones of some other James.

[DallasMike]

Either way it is not likely that the relics of a leading bishop like Saint James would be just abandoned in some obscure box. Much more likely they would be acknowledged more solemnly and venerated or distributed in the following generations. This ossuary containes bones of some other James.

Actually I consider the empty box a sign that it once did carry the bones of James, the half-brother of Jesus. The veneration of relics is a heresy that didn't pop up until later. It's definitely an anti-Scriptural practice. Once the heresy of veneration started, people started emptying the ossuaries of dead apostles and prominent early church members to add to their collections. I would imagine that the ossuary contained bones until around the mid-2nd century.

[DallasMike]

To say Jesus had actual brothers and sisters would destroy the eternal virgin stuff, and discredit the teachings of his church.

No, just some of the teachings of some of His church.

[DallasMike]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is our only source of God's Truth?

You are correct that it is not the only source of God's Truth. However, other sources must be measured against the standard of Scripture. The early Church knew this, which is why the Scriptures are called Canon, which means "measuring rod." Take away the measuring rod, and you have any standard you want, or no standard at all.

It would be an interesting study to see how often Jesus appealed to Scripture as the "court of last appeal," and how often He appealed to traditions which had been built up since the time of Moses. The early church knew exactly what they were doing by calling Scripture the "measuring rod."

[LostTribe]

>. Sometimes it is more prudent to ask someone more worthy than us for for the mediation.

Wow, in California you could start a whole new cult with an idea like that. As long as there are people who believe you cannot approach your creator directly, anything will sell. They might even withhold communion from some THEY don't feel are worthy.

A few centuries of that sort of tyrrany and some reformer from inside the cult would have to come along and point out that God says no such thing. Those rules are man-made. (Follow the power, and follow the money.)

[DallasMike]

He refused to recognise that the books of the Bible was compiled, selected and validated by the Church.

Saying that the early Church chose the books that constituted the Bible is like telling the Native Americans that Columbus discovered America. God set the canon, the Church received them.

Luther was in agreement with many of the early Church fathers, including Jerome, who compiled what was to become the official Bible for almost 1,000 years.

Jerome included the "deuterocanonical" books in a separate section of the Latin Vulgate because he and the other best minds of the day considered them worthy of study, but not to be considered Scripture because of the significant errors in them of time, geography, and theology. In fact, the "deuterocanonical" books were not officially designated canon until Trent -- mostly in response to Luther's rejection of them.

One might properly say that Luther didn't take away the "deuterocanonical" books from the Protestants, but rather gave them to the Catholics!

[snowstorm12]

Moreover, naming the brother as well as the father on an ossuary was ``very unusual,'' Lemaire says. There's only one other known example in Aramaic. Thus, this particular Jesus must have had some unusual role or fame - and Jesus of Nazareth certainly qualified

ROFL!!!! They call an inscription with the name Jesus on it direct evidence? What a joke! Looks like folks are grasping for straws to keep the myth alive before it goes the way of the dinosaur as people slowly become educated with facts.

The Jesus myth has been debunked many times over due the enormous lack of evidence that SHOULD be there and SHOULD be easy to find if it were true. That is more than enough proof to know that it isn't true. Tiny scraps of evidence point more to fraud or coincidence than anything else. I'm sure many man by the name of Jesus existed during these times, but the Jesus of Nazareth no way. You have to ask yourself why anyone had to resort to fraud if he were really true?

[LostTribe]

>The Jesus myth has been debunked many times over due the enormous lack of evidence that SHOULD be there and SHOULD be easy to find if it were true. That is more than enough proof to know that it isn't true.

What is fascinating about your position is the number of people who have taken it upon themselves to prove that Jesus did not exist. This includes some very keen and trained minds. After serious and dedicated work in that direction they have concluded they were very wrong.

I suggest you not just talk about it but make it your lifes work to prove that Jesus did not exist. Be sure and let us know how it all comes out. {ggg}.

[A. Pole]

Actually I consider the empty box a sign that it once did carry the bones of James, the half-brother of Jesus. The veneration of relics is a heresy that didn't pop up until later. It's definitely an anti-Scriptural practice.

Veneration of relics is not a heresy. And it is not anti-Scriptural. BTW, the veneration of relics is recorded in the earliest Christian texts (earlier than the Church established canon of New Testament) like for example martyrdom of Saint Policarp - from 86 AD.

You want Scriptural evidence of miracle-working holy relics of a saint? Here you are:

And Elisha died, and they buried him. And the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year.
And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.

Why the relics of saints are holy and miraculous? Becasue they are belong to bodies of living holy men who are standing before the throne of Creator.

You are confusing the post-scholastic bookish speculations of Luther and Calvin with the actual early Church.