CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › Fascinating Archeological Find
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fascinating Archeological Find

post #1 of 65
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60769-2002Oct21.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>
Quote:
Scholar Touts Oldest Link to Jesus
By Richard N. Ostling
AP Religion Writer
Monday, October 21, 2002; 5:42 PM

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, according to 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" the writing refers to Jesus of Nazareth. He dates the ossuary to A.D. 63, just three decades after the crucifixion.

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.

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. The joint appearance of these three famous names is "striking," he 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," Fitzmyer said.

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.

All three names were commonplace, but Lemaire estimates 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 wrote. 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 concluded.

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.

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

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 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 the inscription would have occurred the following year, around 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 around 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.

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

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 never realized its potential importance until Lemaire examined it last spring.

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

The archaeology 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.
post #2 of 65
Sure, it's interesting, but Jesus is one of the more well-documented peasants from that time; I don't hear too awful much doubt about his existence.

I'd call it more "neat" than "fascinating", but that's just me.
post #3 of 65
I think it's interesting that this proves that Jesus may have had siblings, thus causing a controversy of Dogmatic proportions.
post #4 of 65
Rath proves once again that apparently they don't actually read the Bible in Catholic School.

Chavy,
There are many "supposed" Biblical scholars who think Jesus never existed because they don't believe a word of the New Testament, either in history or opinion. Obviously, the NT was a grand conspiracy perpetrated by a number of insane Jews who were looking to leave their comfortable lives and get killed.

At the very least, it seems obvious that there was a man named Jesus (Joshua) who said a number of interesting and unusual things, and inspired many different opinions from the populace about the "truth" of his words.

This is a very unlikely finding, sort of like the Shroud of Turin. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a fake..
post #5 of 65
I was always under the impression that Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus was born - they would be his half-siblings according to the dogma, but siblings nonetheless.

Look through the article - James is depicted as his brother in THE GOSPELS for cryin' out loud.
post #6 of 65
I was always under the impression that Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus was born - they would be his half-siblings according to the dogma, but siblings nonetheless.

Look through the article - James is depicted as his brother in THE GOSPELS for cryin' out loud.
post #7 of 65
The double posts above are in response to Rath;

Quote:
Burke

At the very least, it seems obvious that there was a man named Jesus (Joshua) who said a number of interesting and unusual things, and inspired many different opinions from the populace about the "truth" of his words.
Yeah, I understand that there's always cause for dispute on people who existed hundreds and thousands of years ago (ESPECIALLY commoners), but I would think that the fact Jesus existed - not making any statements about his genealogy or such - seems pretty evident.
post #8 of 65
Well, it WASN'T evident, until now, if this turns out to be real. I think he existed, because I just think that'd be a whole lot of hubbub to just INVENT, but you never know.

&lt;rambling comparison&gt; Can't you imagine some crazy loon walking around today talking about a mystical figure, Jeebus (if you will), who, in 1950, uttered the most fantastic philosophical theses anyone had ever heard, and was promptly crucified, and this crazy loon gained a following, but they all dedicated it to Jeebus and not the loon? And Jeebus never really existed? Yeah, I can see that. &lt;/ramble&gt;
post #9 of 65
Quote:
Burke:
Rath proves once again that apparently they don't actually read the Bible in Catholic School.
Damn straight. I got more out of Christopher Moore's Lamb: The Gospel According To Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal than I did out of four years of Catholic school.
post #10 of 65
Quote:
Burke:
Rath proves once again that apparently they don't actually read the Bible in Catholic School.

Chavy,
There are many "supposed" Biblical scholars who think Jesus never existed because they don't believe a word of the New Testament, either in history or opinion. Obviously, the NT was a grand conspiracy perpetrated by a number of insane Jews who were looking to leave their comfortable lives and get killed.

At the very least, it seems obvious that there was a man named Jesus (Joshua) who said a number of interesting and unusual things, and inspired many different opinions from the populace about the "truth" of his words.

This is a very unlikely finding, sort of like the Shroud of Turin. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a fake..
bwahahahahahh!!!

BTW, isn't it "Jeshua?"

Some scholars believe that Joseph was way older than Mary thus her outliving him. And some think that Joseph was either a widow or had a bad marriage before. Hence, having children before Jesus was born.
post #11 of 65
Catholic dogma (as I understand it) is that James and his siblings were Jesus's cousins as the Aramaic word refering to them in the NT is rather vague. And they believe that Mary remained a virgin her whole life.
post #12 of 65
Quote:
Nelson and a Gotterdammerung:
BTW, isn't it "Jeshua?"
Yeshua I believe is the most accurate spelling.
post #13 of 65
The most accurate transliteration is "Y'shua" or "Yeshua." The English version is Joshua, the Greek Jesus.
post #14 of 65
Quote:
Burke:
The most accurate transliteration is "Y'shua" or "Yeshua." The English version is Joshua, the Greek Jesus.
"The Greek Jesus" is a good band name. Or maybe a good nickname for a boxer or something.
post #15 of 65
Quote:
Devin Updating:
Anti-Catholic bigotry is funny.
??????
post #16 of 65
I presume you are talking about Burke's statement?
post #17 of 65
Quote:
Devin Updating:
Anti-Catholic bigotry is funny.
hmmmmm?? what are you talking about?
post #18 of 65
Quote:
Nelson and a Gotterdammerung:
Quote:
Devin Updating:
Anti-Catholic bigotry is funny.
hmmmmm?? what are you talking about?
I'm guessing this:

Quote:
Rath proves once again that apparently they don't actually read the Bible in Catholic School.
by Burke.
post #19 of 65
and that's bigotry?
post #20 of 65
Quote:
Nelson and a Gotterdammerung:
and that's bigotry?
In Dev's world I guess so.
post #21 of 65
Truthfully I could see that as being offensive to Catholics but since the majority of the ones I know think that Church Tradition is more/as important than scripture and they study the Catechism more/as much as scripture I doubt it. Most Catholics and for that matter most Protestants don't know the Bible anywhere near as much as they should.
post #22 of 65
Maybe he thinks I shouldn't have teased Rath, as we all know that Rathbandu is one of his favorite Chewers!
post #23 of 65
Quote:
capteucalyptus (Scott Roche)
they believe that Mary remained a virgin her whole life.
In that case, Joseph was a FAR better man than I...if my wife wasn't givin' it up, she'd be out the door faster than you can say Jack Robinson! wink
post #24 of 65
I go to an Episcopal school, in case I haven't mentioned it before. In chapel the other day, Father Marlin (who also happens to be insane...he eats chalk! but moving on...) was giving his talk about the discovered box. He said that it actually says "brother of Jesus, son of Joseph." Well, in that case, he's not Jesus' brother, or even half-brother, at all, is he? If Mary was really a virgin, and Jesus was born immaculately, you know, being the son of God and all, then Joseph was pretty much out of the equation, and this James guy is just some guy.
post #25 of 65
The statement Burke made about Catholic school was not bigoted, as it was accurate. The statement made by Scott was also accurate as that is what Catholics believe, and thus, formed the basis for my statment about this news throwing a kink into hundreds of years of Catholic dogma.
post #26 of 65
Where are you all getting that Mary remained a virgin? She was a virgin until after Christ was born. I've read the New Testament many times and don't remember it ever saying that she remained a virgin.
post #27 of 65
Quote:
BillJohnson:
Where are you all getting that Mary remained a virgin? She was a virgin until after Christ was born. I've read the New Testament many times and don't remember it ever saying that she remained a virgin.
According to Catholic Dogma Tradition is equal in authority to Scripture. Tradition says it is so even if the Bible doesn't adn that's OK by them.
post #28 of 65
Scott, you didn't go to Catholic School, didja? Cause you know your shit better than I do...
post #29 of 65
A while back there was this little thing called The Reformation...

Fun stuff...
post #30 of 65
Quote:
RathBandu: Gone Rogue:
Scott, you didn't go to Catholic School, didja? Cause you know your shit better than I do...
Nope. But I'm a student of religion in my spare time. I'm mainstream protestant for the most part. Go to a Presbyterian Church (Recommended by 4 out of 5 Calvinists wink ). My wife went to one as it was the only private school in her town and still wakes u[p screaming something about giant penguins with razor-sharp rulers.
post #31 of 65
Most people, even those born before 1950, do and have known the difference between a dead body and a live one. wink
post #32 of 65
Well, I don't think Jesus was an allegory. I think he was a guy who actually lived, and had some interesting philosophies. But all the stuff about walking on water, being born immaculately, and various other works of magic, that's all invented, obviously.

My previous post was saying, from their perspective, Jesus was the son of God, not Joseph, and therefore the find is irrelevant.
post #33 of 65
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi Me If You Can:
<strong>Well, I don't think Jesus was an allegory. I think he was a guy who actually lived, and had some interesting philosophies. But all the stuff about walking on water, being born immaculately, and various other works of magic, that's all invented, obviously.</strong>

Not so obviously.

<strong>My previous post was saying, from their perspective, Jesus was the son of God, not Joseph, and therefore the find is irrelevant.</strong>

From whose perspective?
post #34 of 65
Christians.
post #35 of 65
Quote:
Koyaanisqatsi Me If You Can:
Christians.
But the people that inscribed the ossuary (provided it's legit) probably weren't believers.
post #36 of 65
There was nothing about Jesus turning water into wine on that box, was there?

I don't doubt that he existed, I just doubt that he really did everything you guys say he did.
post #37 of 65
History, as a science, is not "intellectual laziness."
post #38 of 65
How exactly do you determine the difference between mythology and history, if both are presented as history?

Evidence.
post #39 of 65
Kronos, they stated in today's paper that the burial box is heading to North America through a granted 4 month export license. It is expected to be exhibited in Toronto this fall.

If it indeed refers to Jesus of Nazareth, it would be one of the greatest archeological discoveries of our time.

The inscription would fit a New Testament account that Jesus had a brother, James, and the tradition that James was the son of Joseph, husband of Jesus' mother Mary. However, the names James, Joseph and Jesus were common in the first century, and it is possible the inscription refers to someone other than Jesus of Nazareth.

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

The box was currently in the hands of a private Israeli collector who bought the box about 15 years ago from a Jerusalem antiquities dealer. It had been unearthed south of the Mount of Olives.

I find it all quite fascinating!

(The above was taken from the Chicago Sun-Times)
post #40 of 65
Quote:
Devin Updating:
OK, I'll be waiting for the evidence of all that raising from the dead and water walking right here.
My point was that anything we know about history is filtered through accounts of the events, as well as any physical evidence that is still manifest.

The "miracles" of Jesus are not incompatible with the idea of a creator-God. If you're going to say prove such and such happened, I point you to some eyewitness accounts that you may have heard of. If you disbelieve those accounts, that's your choice. History is written by eyewitnesses and historians, some reputable, some not. Just because an account is fantastic does not necessarily mean it's false.

To determine historicity, you can look at the personages who are reporting the events as well as whether their descriptions are historically accurate or in line with other reportings (which also have to be examined for their accuracy). Dismissing something as false without having studied the evidence will not a scholar make.
post #41 of 65
[quote]Burke:
Quote:
Dismissing something as false without having studied the evidence will not a scholar make.
Sounds good, Yoda.
post #42 of 65
Heh.
post #43 of 65
Quote:
Devin Updating:
I can point to some pretty wacky eyewitness accounts. I suppose you believe every eyewitness account?

It's faith. See heinlein's quote above.
Of course there are. But think about how much of history is based on historians and eyewitnesses? Did you believe that the movie "Thirteen Days" was an accurate portrayal of events. Why did you believe that? Were you there? Events both fantastic and mundane are filtered through the lens of history. My above post details how you can verify and quantify those accounts.
post #44 of 65
Guess they should have sent it Federal Express...

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=524&u=/ap/20021102/ap_wo_en_po/canada_jesus_inscription_6&printer=1" target="_blank">From Yahoo News:</a>

Quote:
Ancient burial box that may be oldest link to Jesus seriously damaged on the way to Canada

TORONTO - A limestone burial box that may be the oldest archaeological link to Jesus was badly damaged in transit from Israel to Canada, Royal Ontario Museum officials said Friday.

<img src="http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20021101/amdf141281.jpg" alt="" /> Reuters Photo
Slideshow: Stone Artifact Linked to Jesus

Dan Rahimi, the museum's director of collections management, said in a telephone interview the box — called an ossuary — had wide cracks but remained whole.

"The box was badly damaged, but still intact. It has not broken," Rahimi said. "It's very serious damage, but not unusual for a limestone box of this age."

He said impact or vibration during the trip from Israel probably widened old cracks and caused new ones. Some of the cracks were a millimeter (0.039 inches) wide, enough to "slip a dime in," Rahimi said.

The limestone box, which is scheduled to go on display Nov. 16, is inscribed in Aramaic with the words "Ya'akov (James), son of Yosef (Joseph), brother of Yeshua (Jesus)."

If, as some scholars maintain, the box and the inscription are authentic, it would be the first physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus.

Israel granted a four-month export license for the ancient burial box, which belongs to a private Israeli collector.

Museum officials said the owner was responsible for the object's transportation to Canada and insurance. Rahimi said the company that handled the packing and shipping was reputable, adding that antiquities such as limestone boxes always presented a risk during transport.

The museum offered two proposals for treating the damage, and the owner had yet to respond, according to Rahimi.

"Both proposals involve injecting adhesive into the cracks with pigment that will fill in parts of the cracks and consolidate the piece," he said.
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Devin Updating:
It seems pretty induspitable that Yeshua ben David was a radical who was executed. The rest of the stuff is based on faith, which Heinlein defined as "intellectual laziness."
Seems like Heinlein should have bought a 3 dollar dictionary. Some actual definitions of faith.

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

He was a writer and a good one but his definition is lousy. Everyone has faith in something. And most theologians I know are anything but intellectually lazy. You, Devin, are lazy if you dismiss Christianity based on someone else's study of it.
post #46 of 65
Oh and you attributed the quote to Helinlein when more properly it should be attributed to his character in SiaSL. More intellectual laziness? I mena I know that's probably how he felt to but I have characters say stuff all of the time that does not accurately reflect my own beliefs.

Actual quote: Faith strikes me as intellectual laziness. [Jubal Hershaw, from Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert Heinlein]
post #47 of 65
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Burke:
<strong>Guess they should have sent it Federal Express... </strong>

Bite your tongue! wink

I hope nothing else happens to it.
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Koyaanisqatsi Me If You Can:
Christians.
You mean the subset of Catholics, right? Since it's Catholic dogma that states Mary remained a virgin all her life, and not the whole of the set of Christianity?
post #49 of 65
Thanks. I didn't know that.
post #50 of 65
I knew my anthro degree would come in handy some day wink
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religion A-Z
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › Fascinating Archeological Find