I have to admit, that pisses me off if it's a fake............I really thought that maybe FINALLY there was some sort of archeological evidence about Jesus
I may be stating this slightly incorrectly. As I recall the box had the inscription akin to the following, James, the son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus. hmm. So this proves a specific jesus in a specific place in a specific time period?
James, Joseph, Jesus, were all three popular names of the area in question. Heck I have two of those names, Joseph James being my first and middle. There are historically documented cases of at least a couple of Jesus's being the sons of a couple of Joseph's. Whether they had brothers named James is a different story. To imagine however that if this inscription upon this box is not faked, that it could only represent one single and specific james a brother of a single and specific Jesus, aka the so called christ, is truly grasping. Assuming said Jesus did exist, and said James and Joseph also, then sure this, if the inscription is not fake, could perhaps be the box of that James. It could also be the box of another James. Thus, whatever the case, this in no way proves, or disproves that specific Jesus.
Now to the carving. I am stating simplistically, but there are a couple of arguements here. One is that the lettering is a wee bit to modern. Secondly that the decay, limestone or whatever is upon the surface of the box, should have also been covering those inscriptions (the brother of Jesus part) as well as the rest of the inscription. However, it is not. Thus it must give an expert (of which I am not) pause. These two issues are factual, or they are not. This matters little whether the examiner is a believer, jew, or atheist. The only thing required is to know whether the entire inscription, is one carved in the same manner and pattern, and two to know whether or not the coating is the same, or reasonably the same on the entire inscription. Science tells us it is not. This fact is not in dispute. Merely the conclusion of its meaning is.
Thus the conclusion that the box is a fake. And as I pointed out originally, even if it were not, it does not prove a specific Jesus. Since Jesus (aka Joshua aka Zeus aka Dyonisius aka numerous other names of the period that were, in the greek spelled similarly or identically to the way the name Jesus has been handed to us) was a common name of the period in question. As too were Joseph and James (Jacob).
So we can conclude it is likely that part of the inscription is a fraud. That the circumstances surrounding the find and its unveiling to the public are to be held in question, that even if it were not a fraud it would certainly not prove the existence of a Jesus who came to be called Christ, who turned the world on its ear, and was the founder of the Christian Religion (regardless of his miraculous claims...)
Why all the hubbub though? Has anyone considered?
Well this is it, the fact that for all the claims that this man, Jesus, called Christ, has had such an impact on our world, there is no evidence of him extant from the first century, or of his apostles. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of claims of Christians, mostly extant from the second, third and fourth centuries onward. But not a single document, not a single archealogical find, not a single coin, not anything, extant, from the first century.
We are offered only a few documents of support for Jesus, which I will note, none of which are extant from the first century, all being copies of copies of yet other copies. Their content is often highly argued, for and aft. With the accusation of interpolations to the text rife from scholars on all sides of the arguement. However, if we dismiss the claims of interpolations, and simply accept the body of copies at face value, what proofs are there in them of Jesus?
Tacitus, Seutonius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and a few others are all proffered as proofs that the world at large of the time believed in the historicity of Jesus called Christ. Tacitus writings of course do not exist extant before the eleventh century. Pliny mentions christians, true enough and the christ god. I have yet to read all of his writings, but I presuppose that if he or other writers write of Zorastrians and the Mithra god, that these will hold up as evidences to christians both of that gods life, death and ressurection. Seutonius is even less plausible having only made a couple of sentences of reference again to Chrestus and christians. Josephus, makes two contradictory statements. In one he calls jesus the so called christ. In another he says that Jesus was the messiah, was raised from the dead, performed miracles, etc. Hardly the statement of a non believer. His so stating in fact, is a confession of faith, and thus the reason so many believe his writings to have flagrant interpolations to the text. Again I will note that none of these documents are extant from the first century.
To which one will state what of Ceasar then, or other personages of Rome, and the ancient world. Well I could state that I simply do not accept their existence either. However, for the fact that, numerous writings from around the world of the time do verify the claim, by persons who do not have a vested interest in "proving" the existence of said persons, as do the christians in proving their Jesus. For wit, if Jesus did not exist, did not walk the ground, was not born, did not preach and prepare, was not killed and certainly then could not be ressurrect, for only the dead can so be raised, (as Christians would have us believe, setting asside Gnostic teachings which are far more believable in this entirely mess of beliefs...) then wherein is the christian faith as Paul (so called) is claimed to have written, if Christ did not die and was not raised, then your faith is in vain, for the dead are not raised! Perhaps thus it is why one of the church fathers so emphatically states, yet does not prove, VERILY Jesus Lived Verily he died Verily he was raised! Whereas if Ceasar did not exist, I shall still happily be along my merry way the same as if he had, for I need not be concerned that a blade in my belly should come from the hand of a Ceasarean. At least not now or since his death.
So these statements that I make are not that Jesus the claimed founder of christianity did not exist. Merely this, that the evidence of such a man itself does not exist. Thus I state neither that he existed nor that he did not exist, other than my opinion of an analysis of those facts at hand, to wit that my opinion is a personal disbelief in the man.
Of course not believing in the existence so not proved of Jesus, this frees me entirely to hold onto and only faith in Christos. Of which there have been many, from Horus, and Quetzacoatl to Dionysius and Mithra and Krishna and as I said earlier someplace else Bridhe and Cu Chulain and namely myself. All annointed of, by and for the divinity, being ourselves divine in life or death, yourself too if you are not so stubborn to see it in you. Because Jesus requires proof. Christos requires faith. Not faith in a man who did not exist, was in fact stolen from the Gnostic Mythos, and then historicized falsely so. But faith in the divine spark and essence which flows in us all, be it delusion or reality.