Scholar Claims Oldest Jesus of Nazareth Evidence

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.

You've discovered a very important point. This is the primary reason that I rarely engage in scriptural debates here any more. You can post a thousand prooftexts, as well as the 2000 year history of Christianity's interpretations of the texts, and even the interpretations of the very earliest Christians themselves, who were even taught by the apostles themselves, and it still won't make any difference to them.

As someone else pointed out - the Catholic church's idea of history is rather narrow in that it excludes anything it disagrees with. What you refer to by way of early interpretations is so jerry-mandered and lacking of authority that to bring it up to any educated person on the topic seems rather an insult. One can't discuss the truth of history with Catholics without being robustly accused of every foul thing in the book and every attempt under the sun to discredit and muddy the evidence - and I say that with particular deferrance to the Roman rite. I would actually associate my thoughts with the words of a scholar from the modern movie "the Mummy". Compared to the treatment I've been exposed to in debating certain catholics on facts, the plagues would have been a joy.

Some key facts that catholics regularly lie about is the notion that a disputed work presuming to be from ignatius actually doesn't use the word "Catholic" (note the large c) but rather small c as in the adjective from the Latin language from whence the term comes. I see this passage so widely mistated and knowingly so on a regular basis that one wonders if lying isn't a topic covered by the ten commandments. Reminding them the work is disputed by all (but them) is not generally recommended if the subject hasn't already been broached (yes it is). But even worse is dumping the fact on an open crowd that there are three differrent works containing different language that are diverse enough in content that one must admit that there are three rather unique candidates to be known as the work whether it is to be officially recognized as legitamate to begin with. Now add to that the fact that of the school of the most readily known works contending to be called works of ignatius - over half of the fifteen (by name - remember still multiple versions of many of these) have been proven Spurious - which is a kind way of saying FRAUDULENT. Putting Catholic and Fraudulent in the same statement are generally considered non-pc and bigoted by certain catholics who 'love' the 'truth' so long as the 'truth' is not the facts.

Another truism to be considered is there is no catholic claim of which I'm aware that is not considered factual by catholics even when the claim can be shown to have no foundation other than the claim itself. IE the famous claim that the Roman church was not responsible for the deaths of those put to death in abundance throughout the inquisitions. One can read said claim right from CE - then turn around and prove it false on it's face with their own decrees, bulls and the recorded laws of the time. The late Lateran councils document the Roman church pushing the issue of putting to death those the church deams heretical. And once it was wrung out of the civil authorities and the Constitution of Lombardy came about, history shows that the Popes of Rome twisted the arms of the other civil entities of the empire till they adopted the same. The authority on which the whole notion rested comes from the Decretals of Isidore (fraudulent writings) and there were 8 laws according to history that bore on that. This is all information that is readily viewable on the internet. It can be proven and has been within the Christian Chronicles. But it's truth. And the Lord help you if you bring it up.

They don't care about the Truth, only that which supports their anti-Catholic prejudices and bigotry.

A little prejudicial, no? LOL. Alright, let's test your love of truth. Answer the following simply with a yes or a no. Did the Roman Catholic church take control of the failing Roman empire by fraud? Yes or no.

For those of you who are not aware of such things, the answer in fact is Yes. Their reign was fraudulent. Think about the rammifications of that. If treason doth prosper, no one dares call it treason. And when it was exposed, though known true, the man who exposed it almost went before an inquisitional tribunal. That's a fact. The truth of the matter vindicated him and ultimately saved him and spelled the beginning of the end for Roman credibility and rule. Fact may be more strange than fiction; but, the fact is less harmful. Truth is always the best medicine. One need only look at the American economy and political system to see that.

People are free to believe what they want in terms of religion. God gave us that right. But to sit and call people who don't buy the story on it's face "bigoted" because they bother to research what's said and hold you to account for saying it is beneath contempt. The approach you employ is the same measure by which liberals judge free speach. It's free as long as they decide what gets said and who gets to say it. But it's racist, bigoted, narrow minded and evil if it opposes your opinion. And yes it is an opinion because the facts usually don't stand with you. I know some of you get picked on, I hear it all the time and I can't dismiss the notion that it happens. But it is not in the frequency you portray. The public with experience has tired of Jesse Jackson throwing the race card every time he doesn't get his way, is made to look bad or is discredited by the facts. I think it's safe to say that nobody buys the fact that every catholic in the world is a verbal martyr just because educated people not only won't agree with them; but, will actually have the audacity to greet false statements with real facts. Try a dose of your own medicine why don't you.

disclaimer: this is not a campaign add nor is it an advertisement for a particular church other than the Christian church. The views expressed herein are the views of the author. Whining will be met with silence. Intelligent adult conversation (which excludes epithets and slurs) always appreciated.

Funny thing is, it was the neighbors that made the remark about who were his brothers and sisters. And they weren't talking in spiritual terms. They were astonished that this boy that came from the same stock could be so superior to the others as to be noteworthy. That is the context of what was said. And that blows your story right down the pipes descending away from the sound of the chain pull rattling at it's release. You CANNOT acknowledge that nor will you because it blows such a massive hole in what you say.

Brother I'm so tired after talking to my Brother across town and sitting with my brothers in Brothers store across the streat from the bretheren church. Do you have a clue what I just said? No. And without viewing the context instead of trying to apply percentage chances and voting on best candidate based on how many times this usage appears verses that, you can't know. See, exigesis doesn't play probability games, it examines context. And exigesis is the rule you are supposed to employ and are infact warned to employ by your own church when reading, but that for certain arguments (most) is ignored in favor of word games.
Exigesis seeks context. Context tells us that the neighbors were astonished at the performance of a kid who's brothers and sisters from the same family didn't turn out the way he did (wonder why.. LOL). But by all means, ignore it. I invite you to it. Belief afterall is superior to truth, right?

Context tells us that the neighbors were astonished at the performance of a kid who's brothers and sisters from the same family didn't turn out the way he did (wonder why.. LOL).
You're right. There is a scriptural account of JESUS' neighbors referring to His mother, father, sisters and brothers.
But, you're wrong about what the context says.
JESUS' neighbors were put off by His daring to teach them.
Why, they said, Isn't this Jesus, the son of that carpenter Joseph ? Well, he grew up in my neighborhood. He played with my kids. I went to the market with his mother, Mary. Aren't James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon his brothers ? Aren't his sisters still here in town with us ? Well, just where does he get off thinking he's got something to teach us ?
All of the gospel accounts say that they (His townsfolk) were offended at Him. That's what the text says.
Perhaps you'd best take another look at it.
But, no matter. Either way, there is no denying that JESUS' neighbors were sure that JESUS had (4) brothers and sisters.
I'll be nice and not say what effect this has on your conclusions.

You have a real chance to escape from the darkness of the Whore and step into the light of Biblical Christianity.

Hate to dash your hopes on the rocks, Berned, but if you convince me that the RCC is in error, you convert into an atheist, not a fundamentalist or sola scriptura Christian.

If THE Church Christ established on the Rock of Peter fell into error, as you insist, then Christ was a liar and a fraud when He promised to 1)build a Church, HIS Church, 2) give it the keys of the Kingdom, and promise it that what it binds on earth is bound in Heaven, and what it looses on earth is loosed in Heaven, 3) promise it the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead it to ALL TRUTH, and 4) promise it the gates of hell would never prevail against it.

Careful of your efforts. As A Roman Catholic, I believe in and have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior.

If you "win" you convert me to an atheist, and an enemy of Christianity.

There is no other position available to any Christian with INTEGRITY, intellect, and knowledge of scripture and the history of Christianity.

You're over your head in this debate, Berned, and either unwilling to admit it or ignorant of the fact. You and your petty fundamentalistic rants will never convert me. But if you do, you make me an atheist, one damned by your fundamentalistic thought. Think carefully how you approach someone like me.

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.