You took the words right out of my little fingers.
I have a certain amount of healthy skepticism about the find, but the fact that the inscription fits what the Bible says -- that James was the earthly half-brother of Jesus -- is not one of the strikes against it. The LA Times article is not particularly well thought out.
That's EXACTLY it. It fits in ways we would expect it to fit after 2000 years have past, but not in ways understandable at the time.
It's just like another post above: a hypothetical Roman coin stamped XXXVI B.C. and bearing the profile of the man who was leader at that time. Yes, it fits, but not in a way they could have understood at the time.
It also reminds me of Monty Python: "It says the Grail can be found at the Castle Aaaargh...." Perhaps he was dictating.
Thank you. THANK you. That says what I wanted to say, but better and briefer.
I'll add this too: I've seldom seen so transparent an example of bias controlling the handling of evidence. But as scholars like F. F. Bruce have remarked, only the Bible brings out this sort of approach.
Dan
Not at all. The evidence does not show that this Ossuary is the genuine article.
This inscription seems pointed not at an ancient audience, who would have known who James (or Jacob, his Hebrew/Aramaic name) was, but at a modern one. If this box had simply said "Jacob the son of Joseph," it might pass muster. But ancient sources are not clear on who this Jacob's father really was. If the inscription had said "James the son of Cleophas," "Clopas or even "Alphaeus" (all three probably being interchangeable), I would have jumped for joy. But Joseph? This is what a modern audience, schooled in the Gospels, would expect, not an ancient one.
Also mentioned is the problem with continuety. Artifacts like this do not appear out of nowhere. Yet there is no record of it prior to its recent discovery.
I hesitate to embrace this as the real article, when the Shroud of Turin is still undergoing tests to determine whether or not the fabic alone was produced during the time of Christ. The Image on the Shroud has been scrutinized by every known method, yet researchers still cannot agree that the Image dates from the same time as the fabric, if the fabric is, indeed, from the time of Christ.
We have a long written record of the Shroud, as with all other religious artifacts deemed genuine. Even though we may not be able to place the items at the time of Christ, we do know where these items have been for the last thousand years.
I have a hard time believing this just "popped up." If we can find some documentation tracing it back even 500 years, I'd be inclined to be less sceptical.