Non-Christian documents about the existence of Jesus Christ

[Robittybob1]

What makes them make up their mind? Was it written in the incorrect language? Where did you see " that the ossuary still is not accepted by the majority of historians"?

 

See what Wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary

Spent a day looking into the James ossuary. I would say it is certain it belonged to James the brother of Jesus, the famous Jesus mentioned in the gospels. Those that deny that have other devious agendas.

You can't get much more direct evidence for prior existence for both of them. OK there are those people in that era that ended up as emperors and such like, with so much evidence that no one disputes their historicity, but for an itinerant charismatic preacher Jesus has done a remarkable job in leaving a legacy.

[John Cuthber]

I would say it is certain it belonged to James the brother of Jesus, the famous Jesus mentioned in the gospels.

Would you say that because you want to believe, or because you think there is valid evidence?

In particular, why do you think it is the Jesus, Joseph and James rather than just some other Jesus, Joseph and James?

None of those names was rare at the time.

[Robittybob1]

Would you say that because you want to believe, or because you think there is valid evidence?

In particular, why do you think it is the Jesus, Joseph and James rather than just some other Jesus, Joseph and James?

None of those names was rare at the time.

That was the point of wasting the day, to assess all the evidence presented. It was rare to have an ossuary with the extra phrase and "the brother of....". There had only been one other ossuary found with that phrase and it too was for someone's famous brother.

My belief in Jesus was not dependent on the factualness of this ossuary. The names are not rare but to get that combination and order (person, father, famous brother) was calculated to be just 1 individual living at that time.

[Eise]

Robittybob1 is right (except this 'chance 1' thing). The usual phrase would have been 'James, son of Joseph'. The addition of 'brother of Jesus' is unusual, and therefore significant.

However: it is, to say the least, very suspect that the ossuary was presented by a known forger of antiquities. Under scholars the standpoints are diverging. See here.

[Robittybob1]

Robittybob1 is right (except this 'chance 1' thing). The usual phrase would have been 'James, son of Joseph'. The addition of 'brother of Jesus' is unusual, and therefore significant.

 

However: it is, to say the least, very suspect that the ossuary was presented by a known forger of antiquities. Under scholars the standpoints are diverging. See here.

 

And if wasn't Golan it could be one of the hundreds of generations before him, but because if it has been forged it must have been done by a genius for the the lettering is so perfect for that period in time, written in a forgotten language. Ok those tool he had (so it is claimed) could have been for minor repairs but there was no evidence of him forging any other artifacts. There is a difference in cleaning up an artifact and forgery. The case against Golan was thrown out according to Wikipedia yet the article says it is "still pending", so it isn't up to date.

Ancient Objects, Dubious Claims http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122446027022248721 Edited November 20, 2014 by Robittybob1

[John Cuthber]

if it has been forged it must have been done by a genius for the the lettering is so perfect for that period in time, written in a forgotten language.

Come off it.

We have already agreed that the names were not rare at the time.

So, all he needed to do was copy the script for "Jesus" James", "Son of Joseph", and either copy (or make up) "Brother of".

Since there are few examples of "brother of" there's no way to say whether or not it looks like the "correct" script for that phrase at that time.

You don't need to be a genius to copy text- five year olds regularly manage it.

 

If you spent a day thinking about it, and yet you didn't realise that , you truly wasted that day.

Edited November 20, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Robittybob1]

Come off it.

We have already agreed that the names were not rare at the time.

So, all he needed to do was copy the script for "Jesus" James", "Son of Joseph", and either copy (or make up) "Brother of".

Since there are few examples of "brother of" there's no way to say whether or not it looks like the "correct" script for that phrase at that time.

You don't need to be a genius to copy text- five year olds regularly manage it.

 

If you spent a day thinking about it, and yet you didn't realise that , you truly wasted that day.

What language was it written in? What was the style and the spelling of those words in 61 AD? They are questions only experts in calligraphy (there is another word for a person who studies this? paleography) will know. Did this Golan guy know enough about that to forge that?

http://www.ancientscripts.com/aramaic.html

Each region would have had its own styles too. It had to be done by a very knowledgable person or else errors would have shown up.

http://jamesossuarytrial.blogspot.co.nz/

I like the pun at the end!

 

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.

At that time, Jews were not buried but laid in a cave. The bones were collected after a year and placed in an ossuary. Thousands have been discovered, some of them inscribed with names to identify whose bones they contain. One other ossuary mentions a brother.

"This is the oldest evidence that mentions the name of Jesus Christ," said Golan, who bought the box in the 1970s but did not realise its significance until Sorbonne Professor Andre Lemaire noticed it in Golan's collection.

Lemaire published his findings in 2002 and the ossuary was briefly displayed at a Toronto museum, causing a worldwide sensation.

But sceptics questioned its authenticity. In 2003, the Israel Antiquities Authority seized the ossuary and appointed an expert committee who dubbed it a fake. Golan was arrested and charged with forging the mention of Jesus.

After a 10-year investigation and criminal trial, Golan was found innocent of forgery in 2012. Despite the verdict, doubts remain.

"Because of the differences in the depth and the clarity and the kerning between the first half of the inscription that mentions James son of Joseph, and the second half, I'd be willing to wager that the second half was added in modern times," said Professor Christopher Rollston of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem.

But others disagree.

"The inscription is written in the Jewish script, it was done with a sharp instrument and I think it was done by the same hand. It is an authentic inscription," said Professor Gabriel Barkay of Bar-Ilan University.

Golan cites expert evidence from the trial showing the patina - a biological crust formed on ancient objects - inside the grooves of the inscription.

"There is no doubt that it's ancient, and the probability is that it belonged to the brother of Jesus Christ," said Golan.

Although Golan's trial ended last year, the ossuary was returned only a few weeks ago by the Israel authorities. Golan plans to put it on public display, together with the expert opinions from the trial, so that scholars and the public can decide for themselves whether this box did truly contain the bones of the brother of Christ – a unique piece of concrete evidence of the family of Jesus.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Robittybob1

[John Cuthber]

What language was it written in? What was the style and the spelling of those words in 61 AD?

 

I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't matter.

All I have to so is look at other inscriptions on graves and ossuaries of the time and place and work out which ones mean Joseph etc.

That's not a great challenge for a collector of antiquities.

Then I copy them.

I don't need to know the language any more than a photocopier does.

[Robittybob1]

I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't matter.

All I have to so is look at other inscriptions on graves and ossuaries of the time and place and work out which ones mean Joseph etc.

That's not a great challenge for a collector of antiquities.

Then I copy them.

I don't need to know the language any more than a photocopier does.

Have you ever forged a document? Say a document at work? Forged an account or a cheque? If you have I'll agree it can be done, but till you have had experience, I just about guarantee you'll make an obvious visible mistake.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Robittybob1

[John Cuthber]

Whether I have forged a document or not isn't the point.

Someone who had access to the tools of that trade could do so.

While Oded Golan was acquitted of forging there was still the fact that he had the tools needed.

For legal reasons I will assume that Oded bought the article in good faith from a forger.

That just requires that there's a forger out there somewhere.

Well, there are lots.

[Robittybob1]

Whether I have forged a document or not isn't the point.

Someone who had access to the tools of that trade could do so.

While Oded Golan was acquitted of forging there was still the fact that he had the tools needed.

For legal reasons I will assume that Oded bought the article in good faith from a forger.

That just requires that there's a forger out there somewhere.

Well, there are lots.

Well I have already agreed it could be forged, but only with the help of an expert in paleography. Until that is proven it stands as genuine.

You were trying to make it sound easy but I would hazard a guess you have never actually tried it yourself.

So you think it would be easy till the scientific community started pulling it apart and threatening you with 20 years imprisonment for being a fraud.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Robittybob1

[MigL]

I think John is so opposed to the idea of a Christ, because he's afraid it may be true, and he has lived a sinful, evil life,

 

Just kidding John.

Thank God I'm an atheist !

[Robittybob1]

I think John is so opposed to the idea of a Christ, because he's afraid it may be true, and he has lived a sinful, evil life,

 

Just kidding John.

Thank God I'm an atheist !

And I'll pray to God that you remain one.

The whole James Jesus issue is very confusing really.

 

For the story goes that James was older than Jesus, so I have accepted he was Joseph's son from a previous marriage, making James and Jesus have the same father, Joseph, but different mothers.

 

Ok but Joseph is this carpenter, so how does James, his son, become the head of this Jewish sect, such that he isn't a follower of Jesus, but is still called the Righteous One? (He was known as "James the Just")

 

So if they were brothers we could imagine Jesus having contact with his elder brother and becomes interested in issues of state and religion through James. If Jesus for some reason was the heir to the throne of King David through his father, it would seem James would be more so, being older. (Maybe it didn't work like that in their culture, not like the British royal family today.)

 

Prof. Robert Eisenman seems to emphasise the importance of "discovering James to find Jesus", but when I listen to him he is totally confused by the whole story. "The James Ossuary - Prof. Robert Eisenman`s original interview with Simcha Jacobivici"

- You just have to listen to that interview to know he is totally confused.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

And I'll pray to God that you remain one.

 

The whole James Jesus issue is very confusing really.

 

For the story goes that James was older than Jesus, so I have accepted he was Joseph's son from a previous marriage, making James and Jesus have the same father, Joseph, but different mothers.

What story? If you refer to the Gospel of James, are we to understand that you consider it non-Christian?

[Robittybob1]

 

What story? If you refer to the Gospel of James, are we to understand that you consider it non-Christian?

It is hardly non-Christian. Why would you ask a question like that? What I was trying to do was to show the old history behind the story of James, son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus. The very person who seems to say the ossuary is a forgery is totally confused as to who James was. So I have my doubts about his ability to critically analyse whether the ossuary is a fake or not.

 

I might have forgotten which text it was but there is one old Christian writing where the sons of Joseph go with Mary and Joseph for the taxation census.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/psudomat.htm The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew definitely say Joseph has children prior to marrying Mary.

 

 

And the priests having said to him, Take her, because of all the tribe of Judah thou alone hast been chosen by God; Joseph began bashfully to address them, saying: I am an old man, and have children; why do you hand over to me this infant, who is younger than my grandsons?

But that still isn't the text I wanted to quote. (Memory of things I read 23 years ago ?? Sorry.)

 

There seems this other apocryphal text that shows the general picture:

http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-joseph-the-carpenter/ the history of joseph the carpenter

 

 

Righteous Joseph therefore received my mother, and led her away to his own house. And Mary found James the Less in his father’s house, broken-hearted and sad on account of the loss of his mother, and she brought him up.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Robittybob1]

I did find the bit I was trying to read about Joseph's sons being present at Bethlehem at the birth of Jesus.

The Protoevangelium of James

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

 

 

18. And he found a cave there, and led her into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a midwife in the district of Bethlehem.

So supposedly he had 4 sons and 2 daughters by his first wife. Had the younger ones been left behind? Who knows but it wasn't a problem in the very earliest stages of Christianity to think of Joseph having sons and daughters prior to them having Jesus.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

 

What story? If you refer to the Gospel of James, are we to understand that you consider it non-Christian?

It is hardly non-Christian. Why would you ask a question like that? ...

 

Two reasons; it is not in [most] Bibles and this thread is supposed to be about non-Christian sources.

 

As I may have said elsewhere I think Jesus was likely a real person who was a child prodigy and steeped in the magic & history of the temple set himself up as a fulfillment of prophesies in order to fleece the flocks. His miracles were no more or less than stage magic as we see today with Davids Blaine or Copperfield. Saw a lady in half, nail a guy to a cross. People are gullible.

[Eise]

It is hardly non-Christian. Why would you ask a question like that? What I was trying to do was to show the old history behind the story of James, son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus. The very person who seems to say the ossuary is a forgery is totally confused as to who James was. So I have my doubts about his ability to critically analyse whether the ossuary is a fake or not.

 

I might have forgotten which text it was but there is one old Christian writing where the sons of Joseph go with Mary and Joseph for the taxation census.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/psudomat.htm The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew definitely say Joseph has children prior to marrying Mary.

But that still isn't the text I wanted to quote. (Memory of things I read 23 years ago ?? Sorry.)

 

There seems this other apocryphal text that shows the general picture:

http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-joseph-the-carpenter/ the history of joseph the carpenter

 

These stories do not pass the historical test of dissimilarity, point 3 in my criteria here. They fit too well in an agenda in which Mary must be a virgin, and at the same time explained that Jesus would have had brothers and sisters.

 

On the other side, if we have independent sources that mention that Jesus had brothers and/or sisters, then this fact might very well be true, exactly because it does not fit in a Christian agenda: it is a difficult fact to explain, when Jesus' mother was a virgin. We have several independent sources: Paul, one of the gospels in the NT (forgot which one) and Josephus. Thereby is Paul a very early source, and above he mentions that he met James. So it is probably a true fact that Jesus had a brother, James. If it somehow would turn out that the ossuary is authentic, it would be another proof.

[Robittybob1]

Two reasons; it is not in [most] Bibles and this thread is supposed to be about non-Christian sources.

 

 

If it isn't in the Christian Bible does that make it non-Christian? Christians might think so. How did you define non-Christian?

I am arguing the James Ossuary as a non-Christian document. (document written on stone!). Defining James' "brother" relationship to Jesus.

[John Cuthber]

Well I have already agreed it could be forged, but only with the help of an expert in paleography. Until that is proven it stands as genuine.

You were trying to make it sound easy but I would hazard a guess you have never actually tried it yourself.

So you think it would be easy till the scientific community started pulling it apart and threatening you with 20 years imprisonment for being a fraud.

Well, a few minutes of googling got me "Joseph" and "son of"

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Levantine_-_Jewish_Ossuary_-_Walters_23240_-_Detail_A.jpg

[Robittybob1]

 

These stories do not pass the historical test of dissimilarity, point 3 in my criteria here. They fit too well in an agenda in which Mary must be a virgin, and at the same time explained that Jesus would have had brothers and sisters.

 

On the other side, if we have independent sources that mention that Jesus had brothers and/or sisters, then this fact might very well be true, exactly because it does not fit in a Christian agenda: it is a difficult fact to explain, when Jesus' mother was a virgin. We have several independent sources: Paul, one of the gospels in the NT (forgot which one) and Josephus. Thereby is Paul a very early source, and above he mentions that he met James. So it is probably a true fact that Jesus had a brother, James. If it somehow would turn out that the ossuary is authentic, it would be another proof.

As you finally conclude:

 

 

Again, not much is left of the wonder stories in the bible. But what is left is that Jesus existed, that he was baptised by John the Baptist, that he was an apocalyptic preacher, and that he was crucified by Pilate around 30 CE.

Add to that "Again, not much is left of the wonder stories in the bible. But what is left is that Jesus existed, that he was baptised by John the Baptist, that he was an apocalyptic preacher, and that he was crucified by Pilate around 30 CE.

He had at least one brother, James the Just, same father but by a different mother."

 

Was Joseph that old he never got to consummate the marriage? That is one way she could remain "virginal"

 

The ossuary is authentic till proven otherwise.

Well, a few minutes of googling got me "Joseph" and "son of"

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Levantine_-_Jewish_Ossuary_-_Walters_23240_-_Detail_A.jpg

Now honestly can you tell what symbols actually spell out those words? " "Yehosef bar Aglon"

You need "son of Joseph" but you don't need "Joseph son of" so were you able to split up the letters in the right places? Have fun! One mistake and the ossuary is ruined and so is your reputation!

One clue is that they spell and read from the right to the left and they didn't use vowels. So there are 9 or 12 non vowels in the English translations how many symbols in the Aramaic? Do you include the small symbols at the start and finish?

If "bar" is equivalent to "the son of" only 2 symbols might spell out those words.

My analysis so far:

The words Joseph seem to be spelt differently in the two versions , they use 2 symbols for "the son of".

Edited November 21, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

...Now consider the hypothesis that it was all made up: where is the proof? Any proof? Found writings show how scribes intentionally invented Jesus? Any evidence that in those days Jews in Palestine already had resurrecting gods or humans? Any proof that Jesus did not fit in the context of Palestine Jews in those days? No, there isn't. There are just parallels, insinuations, and wild hypotheses from the side of mythisists.

Accepting that Moses was raised in Egypt and instructed by the high priests, then there is evidence of a tradition/teaching/influence of resurrecting gods and per se people in Judaism.* Again, the nature of the magical power of these priestly folk was stage magic and kept every bit as exclusive and secret to the few as stage magicians do today. The accounts we have of Jesus put him in close association with this 'mysticism' from an early age and one does not have to doubt Jesus' existence to accept that he handily turned this mysticism and parlor magic to his own means in the same way Moses did in Egypt, i.e. duping the rubes. Jesus one-upped the established Jewish insiders which ticked them off and they, being unable to admit their own trickery, went to the Romans to get rid of the upstart. As Jesus had plentiful resources from his sideshow, there no problem accepting that he struck a deal with the Romans to stage his own execution and quietly leave the scene. Given this context my interpretation is as likely as not and no more subject to disproof than the claimed divinity so many embrace to this day. No really! David Blaine levitated and I saw it. Gullible, gullible, gullible.

 

*Egyptian Magic

Edited November 21, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

Accepting that Moses was raised in Egypt and instructed by the high priests, then there is evidence of a tradition/teaching/influence of resurrecting gods and per se people in Judaism.* Again, the nature of the magical power of these priestly folk was stage magic and kept every bit as exclusive and secret to the few as stage magicians do today. The accounts we have of Jesus put him in close association with this 'mysticism' from an early age and one does not have to doubt Jesus' existence to accept that he handily turned this mysticism and parlor magic to his own means in the same way Moses did in Egypt, i.e. duping the rubes. Jesus one-upped the established Jewish insiders which ticked them off and they, being unable to admit their own trickery, went to the Romans to get rid of the upstart. As Jesus had plentiful resources from his sideshow, there no problem accepting that he struck a deal with the Romans to stage his own execution and quietly leave the scene. Given this context my interpretation is as likely as not and no more subject to disproof than the claimed divinity so many embrace to this day. No really! David Blaine levitated and I saw it. Gullible, gullible, gullible.

 

*Egyptian Magic

You need non-Christian documentation to propose an hypothesis like that.

[John Cuthber]

As you finally conclude:

Add to that "Again, not much is left of the wonder stories in the bible. But what is left is that Jesus existed, that he was baptised by John the Baptist, that he was an apocalyptic preacher, and that he was crucified by Pilate around 30 CE.

He had at least one brother, James the Just, same father but by a different mother."

 

Was Joseph that old he never got to consummate the marriage? That is one way she could remain "virginal"

 

The ossuary is authentic till proven otherwise.

Now honestly can you tell what symbols actually spell out those words? " "Yehosef bar Aglon"

You need "son of Joseph" but you don't need "Joseph son of" so were you able to split up the letters in the right places? Have fun! One mistake and the ossuary is ruined and so is your reputation!

One clue is that they spell and read from the right to the left and they didn't use vowels. So there are 9 or 12 non vowels in the English translations how many symbols in the Aramaic? Do you include the small symbols at the start and finish?

If "bar" is equivalent to "the son of" only 2 symbols might spell out those words.

My analysis so far:

The words Joseph seem to be spelt differently in the two versions , they use 2 symbols for "the son of".

OK, so it's authentic. There were three dead blokes in one family with those names.

So what?

 

Did you consider that, perhaps ten minutes, rather than 3, with Google might address the issues you raised?

 

OK, so the guy's work pre-dates Google, but it's not a lot of effort for an experienced forger hoping to make something like 100,000 or a million pounds.

 

EDIT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_alphabet

Edited November 21, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Acme]

You need non-Christian documentation to propose an hypothesis like that.

Spoken like a true believer. The whole premise of the thread is flawed inasmuch as any mention of Jesus whether ancient or contemporary is of necessity Christian* in nature. Since I prefaced my hypothesis on a quote by Eise, the door was opened and the grounds laid for me to stick my foot in. Gullible, gullible, gullible.

 

Edit:*Christain

adj. ...

2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.

...

4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

...

adj. ...

2. of, pertaining to, or adhering to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ

...

Edited November 22, 2014 by Acme