Possible Earliest Artifact Identifying Jesus?

[PotatoStew]

A couple of warning lights flashed on when I read the original article. One was the wording of the inscription. In the dim reaches of my memory I seem to recall that he would not have been called "Jesus" in Aramaic. That is the Latinization of the Greek (or something like that) for Yeshua (Joshua=deliverer) and the inscription would be something like "Yeshua bar Yosep" and whatever the Aramaic for "James" is. Maybe there will be more details later.

From one of the links I gave on page 2 ( http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/4340094.htm ):

The box is an ossuary, used by Jews at the time of Jesus to hold bones of the deceased. The ossuary has almost no ornamentation except for a simple Aramaic inscription: Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui diYeshua (James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus).

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

For those who missed the PBS interview last night, see LINK TO JESUS?.

 

[headscratcher4]

It seems to me, in thinking more about all of this since yesterday, that there are a couple of observations that I would be interested to hear comments on.

IF authentic (and that means the "James" and his brother "Jesus" of the gospels), the box is only important if: a, you believe that Jesus didn't exist and that there is no individual at the core of what must then be the gospel myth; or, you are laboring under a doctrinal postion that claims (as noted above) that not only was Mary a virgin (Joseph too), but all family mentioned in the gospels are therefore "cousins".

First, if authentic, the box merely proves/suggests a "historical" Jesus at the core of the Christian myth. IT says nothing about the hitorical accuracy of the gospels, nor who Jesus was or what he did. Rather, at best, it merely suggests that in the circle around this "James" Jesus was important enough to be included as a name on the box. He doesn't have to be important in a very wide circle to be important to family and immediate followers. For example, someone killed at Waco with David Koresh could be burried under a tombstone saying "Believer in and Died with David Koresh at Waco." That inscription while demonstrating the importance of Koresh to that follower, might give little indication in two thousand years of the importance of Koresh outside of a very small community. Anyway, my point is that (since I have thought that Jesus may have been a historical personage) that this really changes little, save to move the discusion on to who was Jesus and what, if anything, he did, etc. -- where, for me at least the more interesting discussion has always been.

Second, a historical Jesus ties the person of Jesus to a chain of human connections -- brothers, sisters, cousins, parents, friends, etc. It makes claims for "virginhood" of either parent a little more difficult to hold. I think this has profound implications for the Catholic church, especially in this era when the Pope seeks to provide Mary with an almost co-equal status to Jesus. This is a theological debate, but given that so much of the story of Jesus is colored by the Catholic Church (as it was created during a period of Roman dominance prior to the reformation), it seems to me that it opens up a potential big problem for Rome. Do they admit the historical object as a proof of Jesus' existence, but not deal with the issue of how James was his "brother". Anyway, as pointed out, this may be a problem in the thological and academic battles within the church, but I think it is a problem nonetheless. In short, if the church can be wrong about Mary -- now increasingly prominent in its theology -- what else might it be wrong about?

Finally, as observed above, even if the box is pushing 2000 years old, it doesn't make it authentic. "Relics" were starting to be manufactured around the Jesus myth within three hundred years of his alleged existence. Lest we forget, Helen, the mother of Constantine journed to Jerusalem sometime in the early 4th century and found the "true cross" intact and waiting to be parcelled out to churches across the empire for the edification of the masses. In short, by the early 300s (maybe 270 years after Jesus' death), they were finding relics everywhere. Now, would someone who knows a little about archeology tell me if you can test for a difference between a stone inscription carved 1700 years ago versus one carved 1900? What is the level of accuracy of the testing available?

An additional thought, the box is allegedly inscribed indicating that James was the brother of Jesus. The argument, I am sure, will be made that this proves that Jesus was an important man. Indeed, to James, but to anyone else at the time? Remember, at the time of James' death, Xians were a small sect, secretive and isolated. Indeed, their founder, Jesus, had been executed (according to the gospels) not only through the power of the occupying Romans, but also at the behest of the religious and civil authorities in the city and country. It seems to me that if burials and funerals were public in ancient Jeruselam, the inscription might argue against its authenticity. Jame's box, placed in a catacomb or public ousiary (sp?) indicating that he is the borther of a criminal might be pushing it...also, wasn't James himself a martyr? Would "criminals" executed by the state have been given the right to burry the body?

In the end, with the possible exception of problems for Catholic doctrine (and even then, I suspect it will be ignored), the finding of this box really changes little. It doesn't prove anything about Jesus one way or the other. We have Paul to thank for Jesus Christ -- and that remains, it seems to me, the most influential (if not accurate) of sources. Funeral boxes for family members says little about the Sermon on the Mount, the raising of Lazerus, or what happened after a crucifiction.

 

[wert]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
wert:

I mentioned it in passing, as a joke, and you saw fit to try to turn it into something more than it was and call me a hypocrite over it. So what's your point?

Not matter how you spin it, call it a "joke" or whatever, it does demonstrate hypocrisy.

You kissed JP Holdings ass when he was here, giving support and credence to his views and tekton site, then you turn around here and use his credibility as a "joke".

Can you spell H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y boys and girls?

I'll take that to mean that you can't actually demonstrate why my statement should be taken as disparaging, as I expected.

Hm... we'll just leave it to our esteemed readers to decide for themselves eh?

LOL! That's funny...

And true!

I don't remember that, but I do seem to remember at least one long time (atheist) member calling you an "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊."

Also true!

Doubtless a very astute JREF'er!

 

[PotatoStew]

Hm... we'll just leave it to our esteemed readers to decide for themselves eh?

Yup. Decide for yourselves, esteemed readers. Was my original comment hypocritical, or is wert merely trying to slander me with unsubstantiated claims?

 

[PotatoStew]

For those who missed the PBS interview last night, see LINK TO JESUS?.

Nice link, RD. So it looks like *so far* it is thought to be authentic, and has been examined by at least a few different experts.

(edited to add):

By the way, the second "it" in my second sentence above refers to the ossuary, not to your link, which I'm sure is authentic (although it probably hasn't been examined by any experts). Sorry for any confusion.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Can you spell H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y boys and girls?

Yes. I can also spell p-u-e-r-i-l-e and i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t, which pretty much exhausts everything that can be said about your contributions to this thread.

Personally, I think you need a Time-Out - at least until you have something useful to say.

 

[Mike B.]

Interesting points, Headscratcher,

An authentic box would be important in confirming the history of the early church, and that Paul was correct in labelling James, the brother of the Lord.

But beyond that it doesn't tell us anything we do not already know.

Just a very interesting find...

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Nice link, RD. So it looks like *so far* it is thought to be authentic, and has been examined by at least a few different experts.

The folks involved are highly respected scholars with appropriate expertise. I think they are due a cautious presumption of authenticity deserving of continued peer review.

Authenticity, of course, makes the evidence no less circumstantial. At the same time, at some point the accumulation of circumstantial evidence becomes such that the mythicist argument shares the same fate as supernaturalism, i.e., "death by a thousand cuts". I'm not yet willing to admit that we've reached such a point, but I am glad that I have a subscription to BAR.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

"Relics" were starting to be manufactured around the Jesus myth within three hundred years of his alleged existence. Lest we forget, Helen, the mother of Constantine journed to Jerusalem sometime in the early 4th century and found the "true cross" intact and waiting to be parcelled out to churches across the empire for the edification of the masses. In short, by the early 300s (maybe 270 years after Jesus' death), they were finding relics everywhere.

This is really bad.

• First of all, there is a difference between Helena finding the "true cross" and the manufacture of relics.
• There is also a difference between Helena finding the "true cross" and insisting the "they were finding relics everywhere".
• Finally, Helena finding the "true cross" is legend, not fact.

See, for example:

Her greatest fame Helena acquired by an act for which she was probably not responsible, i.e. the finding of the True Cross. Her presence in Jerusalem and the description Eusebius presented of her stay in the Holy Land led ultimately to connecting Helena with the discovery of the Cross. Remains of the Cross were already venerated in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem at the end of the 340s as is clear from sermons of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (Cat. 4.10, 10.19, 13.4 PG 33, 467ff, 685-687, 777). After 7 May 351, Cyril wrote the Emperor Constantius II that the Cross was discovered during the reign of Constantine I; the bishop gives no indication who discovered the rel ic (Ep. ad Const., 3 PG 33, 1168B). The Emperor Julian believed in the discovery of the relic; he rebukes Christians for worshipping the object (Contra Gal. 194C).

The legend of Helena's discovery of the Cross originated in Jerusalem in the second half of the fourth century and rapidly spread over the whole empire. Three versions of the legend came into existence in Late Antiquity: the Helena legend, the Protonike legend and the Judas Kyriakos legend.

[see Helena Augusta (248/249-328/329 A.D.); emphasis added - RD

Do you have any proof that "Relics" were starting to be manufactured around the Jesus myth within three hundred years of his alleged existence.", or did you simply presume this to be the case?

 

[wert]

Personally, I think you need a Time-Out - at least until you have something useful to say.

Yes, father. Perhaps next time I should ask your kindly permission to make a simple aside?

I merely made one small statement which PS then proceeded to make into a federal case. Slander eh? Hmph. Methinks some take their personal feelings of self importance to new heights.

 

[wert]

Yup. Decide for yourselves, esteemed readers. Was my original comment hypocritical, or is wert merely trying to slander me with unsubstantiated claims?

^ Loves to beat that dead horse.

What's next? A new thread? A poll to vindicate you against my pernicious "slander"?

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Perhaps next time I should ask your kindly permission to make a simple aside.

Having made your "simple aside", do you have anything to add to the topic at hand?

 

[headscratcher4]

RD:

Touche. Thank you for the citation.

As I have noted, I am not a scholar on this particular topic, just a diletante and speculator. I appreciate the information.

I have read much Byzantine history, and clearly Byzantine culture accepted the myth/legend that Helen found the true cross during her pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the early 4th Century (for this, I can only cite that I have read John Jules Norwich's excellent history of the Byzantine Empire, as well as Stephen Runciman's excellent histories of the Crusades and Byzantine History).

I assumed (making an ass of me? ) that any cross or pieces of a cross discovered in the 4th century is/was a manufactured relic -- the history of manufactured relics (at least in midevil Europe) is pretty well established (as an aside, I note that in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, along with the Mohamed's tooth, they have the fore-arm -- I think -- of John the Baptist, which I believe was recovered from the Byzantines when the Turks sacked the city in 1453). You are right in noting that I have nothing but subsequent mythology to rely on in any assertion that Helen, the mother of Constantine, found such a relic.

I do note, however, that histories of the crusades are filled with Knights returning home with "relics" acquired while in the Middle East...for example, I believe that the spear that pierced the side of St. Andrew, was convienently located by one of the monks accompanying the crusaders just before a critical battle. As to when relics were being found and/or manufactured, I'll grant you I have no specific knowledge.

I guess my quesiton to you is: do you think that pieces of the "true cross" that were being venerated in the 340s were really parts of the "true cross?"....I have no reason to think they are...legend isn't sufficient proof for me. Thus, till shown otherwise, I have to conclude that such a relic (whether found by Helen or not) was "manufactured" to serve a religious purpose rather than actually being the cross on which Jesus' was crucified.

Anyway, I am not sure what point I am trying to make save that I believe that many relics that were proffered by the midevil church as objects of veneration are/were forgeries (this may be ignorant predjudice...and, as always, I will bow to better, more well informed information). How early such relics began to appear I do not know...and am interested to learn more. However, it seems to me that if pieces of the true cross were appearing in 340, than they were being manufactured not too long before that (again assuming -- with all the problems that entails-- that the true cross didn't survive the period of Jesus's immediate life) -- putting it, by my calculation -- only about 300 years after Jesus' death (not too many years latter, in the big scheme of time, than the 270 years I posited in my above post).

 

[wert]

Having made your "simple aside", do you have anything to add to the topic at hand?

Nope. Not really. Was quite content to make a small factual aside and leave this thread alone.

But.....

....PS insisted upon taking offense at a simple opinion of mine and wouldn't let it rest.

I made a small statement of fact.

"PS praises tekton in one breath and treats them as a joke in another".

PS disputed this. and I stated (and it was an opinion girls and boys) that I felt it was a bit hypocritical for him to do so.

If he wants to think that's "slander" and get nasty about it, then I suggest he try some of the decaffeinated brands.



Oh well, why the hell not? Something on topic.

The provenance of the find may lend credence to a historical Jesus. But so what? The find doesn't support the divine Jesus we find in the bible in any way.

It's an interesting find that people are reading too much into...

 

[PotatoStew]

headscratcher:

IT says nothing about the hitorical accuracy of the gospels

I think "nothing" is a bit extreme... surely it says at least a little bit. The gospels say Jesus was a real person, and that Joseph was his father (at least in a practical sense, if not biological), and that James was his brother. If the box is authentic, then it shows at least those points are accurate, which is something. Not a lot, I admit, but not "nothing" either.

You bring up a good point about the implications for the catholic church though. As the PBS interview points out, the box clearly says Joseph is James' father, so at the very least that would seem to rule out any idea of James and Jesus being cousins.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

I guess my quesiton to you is: do you think that pieces of the "true cross" that were being venerated in the 340s were really parts of the "true cross?"

I think it absurdly unlikely.

Thus, till shown otherwise, I have to conclude that such a relic (whether found by Helen or not) was "manufactured" to serve a religious purpose rather than actually being the cross on which Jesus' was crucified.

Perhaps it was an early example of "pious fraud". On the other hand, and in my opinion more likely, perhaps some 1st century Christian found a cross or some similar remnant in the area and superstitiously presumed to be the "true cross". If Josephus is to be believed, finding a crucifix would not constitute a supernatural event.

Why, other than bias, would you choose 'manufactured relic' as your default? Doesn't it make more sense to await the evidence and subsequent peer review?

 

[headscratcher4]

Stew:

Thank you, point well taken. As I indicated earlier, I accept the likelyhood that Jesus was a historical person, and even that the Gospels attempt (through a certain prism) to recount what the author believed to be the life and mission of Jesus. The point I inarticulately was trying to make is that the existence of the the box does just, and only, what you indicated: that at best, and if authentic, it merely confirms that there was a man named James who had a brother called Jesus and a father named Joseph. And, archeologically speaking, the fact that Jesus' name was on the box might indicate that someone, in some context (and this is very unclear to me, as noted above) may have considered Jesus an important enough figure to recognize him on the box as James' brother.

It, however, seems to me that this says nothing about why "Jesus" was important -- for miracles? For standing up to Rome? For being a preacher? For being the Messiah? For being the founder of the family business that James ran (i.e. the church at Jerusalem)?

At the same time, it isn't any alternative confirmation of the working of miracles, raising from the dead, etc. It doesn't confirm crucifixtion or resurection (indeed, notably silent...why not James, son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus who arose from the dead...." that, at least would put why Jesus was "important" in context). It doesn't confirm mission, or occupation (maybe, Jesus was recognized as a really important carpenter...I know, that is facitious, but it does underscore that we know little/nothing about the circumstances of the creation of this box, if authentic). All it confirms is that there was a man named James with a brother named Jesus. It doesn't tell us, for example, that in the niche next to this box, was another empty box, with the words Jesus, son of Joseph and brother of James (again, facitious, but also pointing out how, where, etc. of the finding of the box are not inconsequential to determining authenticity).

Finally, as there really is not theological truth about Jesus that can be gleaned from this find, I do note, like some others have, that the box indicates that James was the brother of Jesus, it in no way indicates that Jesus was considered the messiah by his brother or James' contemporaries (i.e. ...brother of Jessus, King of the Jews and Annoited of God" or whatever the appropriate phrase for the messiah would be...).

Anyway, it is a facinating archeological story, and one well worth watching.

Stew, what is your understanding, is it similar to mine and that James, too, was martyred? If he had a box, why wouldn't Jesus have had one also -- other than not enough time to prepare one, of course . Might there have been a box for Joseph too (I wonder if families were burried together?). The problem with archeology, of course, is that it only tells you/confirms what you find, it occasionally tells you something about what you don't find, but often as not, that is speculative.

 

[headscratcher4]

I think it absurdly unlikely.
Perhaps it was an early example of "pious fraud". On the other hand, and in my opinion more likely, perhaps some 1st century Christian found a cross or some similar remnant in the area and superstitiously presumed to be the "true cross". If Josephus is to be believed, finding a crucifix would not constitute a supernatural event.

Why, other than bias, would you choose 'manufactured relic' as your default? Doesn't it make more sense to await the evidence and subsequent peer review?

Well, perhaps I should have used the words "pious fraud" -- though, without intending to impune the belief of the creator of a "pious" fraud, it seems to me that at some point it is, essentially, "manufactured" -- somehow somebody, whether in the first, second or third century had to believe a piece of wood was the true cross and than convince others that is was so.

I admit to bias, because I don't believe pieces of the true cross were lying about. Your point has some plausibility, but like my speculation on the potential manufactured nature of the relic, your position is just as speculative that the "true cross" was found lying about sometime in the 1st century (agreed, a non supernatural event) and it just happened to be held and venerated for another 200 years but only mentioned (as your citation indicates) begining about 340.

Anyway, with respect to this particular item, I am sorry I indicated that my default position is that it is a fraud. I've no idea...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. In any event, I am perfectly willing to hear the peer reviewed conclusions on this particular object and to learn what others think, and to change my views (re-examine my bias) accordingly.

 

[PotatoStew]

Stew, what is your understanding, is it similar to mine and that James, too, was martyred? If he had a box, why wouldn't Jesus have had one also -- other than not enough time to prepare one, of course

My understanding is that James was martyred, but I know this only from the various links that have been posted in this thread. As for why Jesus wouldn't have a box... my personal opinion is that it's because there were no bones to put in it, because he was resurrected. However, if the skeptics are right, and this is not true, then he may well have a box -- somewhere.

It doesn't confirm crucifixtion or resurection (indeed, notably silent...why not James, son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus who arose from the dead...."

I don't think you can legitimately say "notably" silent unless it can be established that it was a common practice to put notable deeds along with the names on the ossuaries. If none (or very few) of the other 900(?) or so ossuaries that they have contain reference to anything other than names then that absence in this case isn't notable, it's probably expected.