General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAncient burial box claimed to have earliest reference to Jesus
For 2,000 years, pilgrims and archaeologists have hunted for physical evidence of Jesus and his family, without success.
But now an ancient burial box claiming to contain the earliest reference to the Christian saviour is about to go on public display in Israel after its owner was cleared of forgery. It has not been seen in public since a single, brief exhibition in Toronto in 2002.
The modest limestone burial box, known as an ossuary, is typical of first-century Jerusalem, and is owned by Oded Golan, an Israeli antiquities collector. Chiselled on the side are the words "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
James the Just was the first leader of the Christians in Jerusalem after the Crucifixion. He was executed for apostasy by the local rabbinical court.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/25/burial-box-earliest-reference-jesus
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 26, 2013, 08:08 AM - Edit history (1)
But as the judge confirmed that did not mean he did not forge it only that it had not been possible to prove. Golan was still guilty of trading illegally in antiquities. When arrested it was found he had a workshop with tools and half finished antiquities but no evidence he passed off what was made as original.
The inscription is in 2 parts, the first is the unexceptional "Ya'akov bar-Yosef" (James son of Joseph) and has a certain depth of cut the second (and controversial) "akhui diYeshua" (brother of Jesus) has another. Israeli antiquities experts believed that there was also a difference in patination between the two parts of the engraving although defenders of the authenticity claim that this analysis is inaccurate as that part of the inscription might have been cleaned and conserved.
Next comes context. Ossuaries like this were used in the 1st century CE but it was most unusual (indeed unknown) for a brother's name to be inscribed. In this inscription the whole is placed asymmetrically with the "akhui diYeshua" making it seem so misplaced; if only the "Ya'akov bar-Yosef" is considered the symmetry is much better. The argument of the believers is that the second element of the inscription was added only after it became apparent how important Jesus was - except that, biblically, Jim died a lot later than Jesus and any contemporary fame Jesus had was already established and if added, say, 10 years on would have meant disturbing the dead after final interment a seriously big no-no in 1st Century Judea.
Lastly there is the problem of the names, those 3 used were 3 of the commonest names is 1st century Judea; it would be like having a grave inscribed "Jim son of Joe brother of John," only far more likely as there was a much smaller range of names available to Judeans.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)James was the name reduced to the familiar "Jim" because the ossuary is supposedly the ossuary of James the Elder, in legend the brother of Jesus.
The parallel I made was between John and "Jesus" (Yeshua).
Try telling the Southern Baptists that Jesus was not "The Lord's" name and that St James was Ya'akov, that will be fun.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Jimmy was gonna be bad enough. Someone tries Ya'akov, and I can already visualize them getting out the white sheets and oiling up the torches...long before they even figure out who the target is gonna be.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Response to jtuck004 (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)was his full name. Big balls to fake his resurrection.
dawg
(10,624 posts)Yeshua ben Yosef; Joshua, son of Joseph.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Dozens of people will turn and think you're calling out to them!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)MineralMan
(146,324 posts)I choose #2.