Posted on 10/21/2002 9:05:57 AM PDT by rface
WASHINGTON- An inscription on a burial artifact that was recently discovered in Israel appears to provide the oldest archaeological evidence of Jesus Christ, according to an expert who dates it to three decades after the crucifixion.
Writing in Biblical Archaeology Review, Andre Lemaire, a specialist in ancient inscriptions at France's Practical School of High Studies, says it is very probable the find is an authentic reference to Jesus of Nazareth.
The archaeology magazine planned to announce the discovery at a news conference Monday.
That Jesus existed is not doubted by scholars, but what the world knows about him comes almost entirely from the New Testament. No physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus has been discovered and verified. Lemaire believes that has changed, though questions remain, such as where the piece with the inscription has been for more than 19 centuries.
The inscription, in the Aramaic language, appears on an empty ossuary, or limestone burial box for bones. It reads: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Lemaire dates the object to 63 A.D.
Lemaire says the 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.
All three names were commonplace, but he 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," 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, Lemaire concludes.
It's impossible, however, to prove absolutely that the Jesus named on the box was Jesus of Nazareth.
The archaeology magazine says two scientists with the Israeli government's Geological Survey conducted a detailed microscopic examination of the surface patina and the inscription. They reported last month that there is "no evidence that might detract from the authenticity."
The ossuary's owner also is requiring Lemaire to shield his identity, so the box's current location was not revealed.
James is depicted as Jesus' brother in the Gospels and head of the Jerusalem church in the Book of Acts and Paul's epistles.
The 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 that would have occurred the following year, dating the inscription around A.D. 63.
The Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer, a Bible professor at Catholic University who studied photos of the box, agrees with Lemaire that the writing style "fits perfectly" with other first century examples and admits the joint appearance of these three famous names is "striking."
"But the big problem is, you have to show me the Jesus in this text is Jesus of Nazareth, and nobody can show that," Fitzmyer says.
The owner of the ossuary never realized its potential importance until Lemaire examined it last spring. Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, himself saw the box Sept. 25.
Lemaire told The Associated Press the owner wants anonymity to avoid time-consuming contacts with reporters and religious figures. The owner also wants to avoid the cost of insurance and guarding the artifact, and has no plans to display it publicly, he said.
---
On the Net:
Biblical Archaeology Review: http://www.bib-arch.org
The article itself says that there would have been no more than twenty men named James whose fathers would have been Josephs and who had brithers named Jesus. Right there, you have to wonder about the article. On what possible evidence could one conclude those numerical assertions without documentary evidence which would have been much more compelling than: We found an ossuary lid and it says.......
Next, note that the mystery person who claims to own this claimed artifact which has not been viewed in public just did not know its significance, is too modest and privacy loving to allow his identity to be public and does not plan to let us see the presumed artifact or whatever it is. It will be his or her little secret and we will just have to trust him or her. This is not a very reliable way to present evidence.
The rest of this post is based upon what is entirely possible to be the false assumption that the unseen artifact actually exists and is as described.
Next, note that the ossuary lid was found in Israel. St. James the Greater is buried at Santiago de Compostella in Spain. He was martyred not by stoning but by being put to the sword by Herod Agrippa I (Acts, xii, 2), in 44 AD and not in 63 AD as indicated for the fellow whose lid this may be. The martyrdom of St. James the Greater is the only martyrdom of one of the twelve apostles recorded in the New Testament.
St. James the Greater was the brother of St. John the Evangelist. See also Matthew x, 2, and Luke vi, 14, and Acts i, 13. Collectively, they were known as "Boanerges" or "the sons of thunder" and are sons of Zebedee not Joseph, not Mary (Mark iii, 17) and were, along with Peter and Andrew, the first four apostles called by Christ. The remains were brought to Spain and are no longer buried in Israel.
St. James the Lesser was a son of Alphaeus and another Mary who was at the tomb (Mark xv, 40, xvi, 1; and Matthew xxvii, 56). There is improbable legend that he was martyred at Persia or that he was "the brother of the Lord" when he was more likely a cousin whose parents were Alphaeus and that other Mary.
There was yet a third James who wrote the Epistle of James and died in 62 A.D., known as James "the Just" who was apparently a step-brother of Christ by a previous marriage of Joseph or was actually St. James the Less, son of Alpheus and a Mary not the mother of Christ but related to her, according to St. Jerome. There is apparently some dispute as to the manner of death, some arguing that he was stoned and some that he was thrown from an upper story of a building. While James "the Just" may possibly have been the person whose ossuary lid has been found, it simply begs the question as to the relationship to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. As to that question, this may be an interesting artifact to the "reformed" but it proves nothing but that a man whose father was Joseph and had a brother named Jesus is said to have been buried in the box.
How many Jameses were there in Jerusalem at the time? If Jesus Christ's inner circle is any representative sample, the place must have been crawling with them.
Finally, as I understand it from the discovery a few years ago of the ossuary of Caiaphas (one of the chief villains of the Passion) it was the custom not just to bury the deceased in such a box but his entire family. Each corpse was first laid out to rot the flesh from the bones, on a shelf, and then the bones were added to the box. If James "the Just" had no wife and no children, they would not have been buried with him since they did not exist. On the other hand, why were not the bones of the purported or putative parents of this important man (if they were Joseph and Mary as suggested) buried in that ossuary as well? He was, after all, said to have assumed leadership of the Church at Jerusalem after St. James the Greater was martyred and Peter had left Jerusalem.
I am afraid that the term "brother" in this context is more akin to the black saying: "Keep the faith, brother." or "Brothers and sisters, we are gathered here today...." than to RFK was JFK's brother.
Some kind of fantasy though.
The article itself says that there would have been no more than twenty men named James whose fathers would have been Josephs and who had brithers named Jesus. Right there, you have to wonder about the article. On what possible evidence could one conclude those numerical assertions without documentary evidence which would have been much more compelling than: We found an ossuary lid and it says.......
Next, note that the mystery person who claims to own this claimed artifact which has not been viewed in public just did not know its significance, is too modest and privacy loving to allow his identity to be public and does not plan to let us see the presumed artifact or whatever it is. It will be his or her little secret and we will just have to trust him or her. This is not a very reliable way to present evidence.
The rest of this post is based upon what is entirely possible to be the false assumption that the unseen artifact actually exists and is as described.
Next, note that the ossuary lid was found in Israel. St. James the Greater is buried at Santiago de Compostella in Spain. He was martyred not by stoning but by being put to the sword by Herod Agrippa I (Acts, xii, 2), in 44 AD and not in 63 AD as indicated for the fellow whose lid this may be. The martyrdom of St. James the Greater is the only martyrdom of one of the twelve apostles recorded in the New Testament.
St. James the Greater was the brother of St. John the Evangelist. See also Matthew x, 2, and Luke vi, 14, and Acts i, 13. Collectively, they were known as "Boanerges" or "the sons of thunder" and are sons of Zebedee not Joseph, not Mary (Mark iii, 17) and were, along with Peter and Andrew, the first four apostles called by Christ. The remains were brought to Spain and are no longer buried in Israel.
St. James the Lesser was a son of Alphaeus and another Mary who was at the tomb (Mark xv, 40, xvi, 1; and Matthew xxvii, 56). There is improbable legend that he was martyred at Persia or that he was "the brother of the Lord" when he was more likely a cousin whose parents were Alphaeus and that other Mary.
There was yet a third James who wrote the Epistle of James and died in 62 A.D., known as James "the Just" who was apparently a step-brother of Christ by a previous marriage of Joseph or was actually St. James the Less, son of Alpheus and a Mary not the mother of Christ but related to her, according to St. Jerome. There is apparently some dispute as to the manner of death, some arguing that he was stoned and some that he was thrown from an upper story of a building. While James "the Just" may possibly have been the person whose ossuary lid has been found, it simply begs the question as to the relationship to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. As to that question, this may be an interesting artifact to the "reformed" but it proves nothing but that a man whose father was Joseph and had a brother named Jesus is said to have been buried in the box.
How many Jameses were there in Jerusalem at the time? If Jesus Christ's inner circle is any representative sample, the place must have been crawling with them.
Finally, as I understand it from the discovery a few years ago of the ossuary of Caiaphas (one of the chief villains of the Passion) it was the custom not just to bury the deceased in such a box but his entire family. Each corpse was first laid out to rot the flesh from the bones, on a shelf, and then the bones were added to the box. If James "the Just" had no wife and no children, they would not have been buried with him since they did not exist. On the other hand, why were not the bones of the purported or putative parents of this important man (if they were Joseph and Mary as suggested) buried in that ossuary as well? He was, after all, said to have assumed leadership of the Church at Jerusalem after St. James the Greater was martyred and Peter had left Jerusalem.
I am afraid that the term "brother" in this context is more akin to the black saying: "Keep the faith, brother." or "Brothers and sisters, we are gathered here today...." than to RFK was JFK's brother.
Some kind of fantasy though.
The 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 that would have occurred the following year, dating the inscription around A.D. 63.
Actually, I don't find it preposterous in the least.
We have a large amount of evidence that a new religion was founded in Palestine by a Jew named Jesus around 30 AD, and that that religion very quickly came to assume such importance that our very calendar derives its system of numbering years from the date of the birth of its founder.
There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of important potential artifacts from this early period of the history of this religion that could, and by all reasonableness, should have been preserved in some way.
Possessions of Peter and Paul, and the various other apostles, and undoubtedly bones, burial sites, ossuaries and many other things relating to the early church and its leaders would have been preserved. Some would eventually have gotten destroyed, others forgotten.
Many such artifacts would have been carefully put away in secure (and in a great many cases) secret places. It is neither strange that they should have been hidden away, nor that, in many cases, what the artifact actually was should be forgotten over the centuries. A single family or group of people will have been the caretaker of a particular artifact. At various points, it will have been deemed wise to limit the knowledge of such an artifact to a few, or even to only one, person. Or perhaps an elder caretaker simply didn't get around to passing on the knowledge before meeting with an unexpected death. Over the couse of 2000 years, the chain of knowledge was broken.
We have manuscripts of New Testament writing -- far more fragile than stone -- that were penned very early on, including the essentially complete Codexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is not at all strange that a stone artifact should survive.
Nor is it strange that we should find it now, at a point in history when there are people poking their noses into just about every nook and cranny on earth, when knowledge and communication are widely available, and when intensive research is doubling the knowledge of mankind every few years.
One small moment of clarity.
It is 900 A.D. Your father tells you that this stone box contains the bones of James, and that you are to take care of it. Obviously it's very old, but you're not an archaeological expert, and you don't actually read Aramaic. You're smart enough to know that not everything you're told is true, and that the only evidence your father had was that his father told him the box was the ossuary of James.
Years later, you tell your son that the box "is supposed to have contained the bones of James, but I'm not really sure about that."
Your son will tell his son that "there's a legend that this box contained James' bones."
Your grandson will tell his great-grandson "this is supposedly a real important box. Legend has it that this box once contained the bones of some big church leader. I think it was James or John or, well, somebody like that."
Your great grandson tells his kids: "Look at this cool ancient bone box. It's supposed to be real important."
Statistically it seems far more likely than not, if the facts as reported are correct:
1) That there would only have been around 20 Jameses dating from this time period with both father named Joseph and brother named Jesus, and:
2) That mentioning a brother's name on the ossuary is so rare (requiring a prominent brother) that only one other example of a mentioned brother has so far been found.
By many estimates, the permanent population of Jerusalem at that time was only around 50,000 -- quite a small place by today's standards.
The Roman Catholic Church possesses the Shroud of Turin. As a Catholic, I fully accept that the Shroud of Turin MAY not be authentic as the shroud of Jesus Christ although the evidence seems to suggest that it is. It may also be the lost Shroud of Odessa as well as the Shroud of Jesus Christ as the residents of Odessa believed. It may be a clever forgery as many critics seem to believe in which case it is one of the most remarkable forgeries in the history of humanity. Nevertheless, my faith does not and ought not to rest on the Shroud one way or the other nor yours on the unknown and unseen ossuary lid.
May it be noted, however, that the Romnan Catholic Church not only displays the Shroud to the public with some regularity with due regard for its preservation but also allows for scientists critical of Christianity and Catholicism and outright hostile atheist scientists access for scientific testing to take their best shot. Whoever possesses this ossuary lid ought to do likewise if he or she expects to be taken seriously or he or she ought to at least allow viewing by neutral scientific observers of all persuasions. We have a world out there which we are commanded to teach and to baptize. Those in need of teaching and baptizing are not going to take the word of anonymous for it.
BTW, that calendar is the Gregorian calendar, known for Pope St. Gregory the Great who introduced it. As the late Bishop Fulton Sheen once wrote, Christ's birth was so important that it split all history in two.
The RCC also has fragments of parts of the Mass that are clearly that which date to the early 2nd Century (ca. 120 A.D.)
In any event, I suspect I may disagree with your theology but I must say that I respect your thoroughly reasonable approach to archaeology and its significance and your evident integrity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.