While this is a fascinating find, I'm not quite sure what significance it carries. The discovery fits nicely with what I already believe, but I'm not sure that it would make much of a difference to skeptics. Perhaps Protestants will like it more than Roman Catholics since it adds support to the view that Jesus had siblings.

The reason that it is significant is that it is concrete proof of Jesus' existence and importance. Naming a "brother" on an ossuary was unusual - unless he was very well known and important.

Being a Roman Catholic I feel compelled to point out that Jesus having siblings does not negate the perpetual virginity of Mary. The siblings could easily be 1/2 sibs.(Joseph's children from a previous union)

Be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.
James I.19

Greetings,
Historical importance yes, as it is another bit of evidence toward proving the historical Jesus.

But in terms of religious implications ... it's doesn't really affect anything...

If anything, this seem to further support early Church writings of James being the half brother of Jesus...and reinforces Eastern tradition, which has always said Joseph was an older widower, with children i.e. James.

That was also the belief in the western church until around 400 ad (time of Jerome?) when it was suggested that given the aramic language didnt have the word cousin, and instead used brother, these people could have been cousins.

and as far as protestants, it wouldn't have any effect

Cheers

Scripture tells us that Jesus had brothers and sisters. There is no clear indication whether these are the children of Joseph from a previous relationship because the Bible makes no note of his previous marital status (which is actually a little unusual, but beside the point).

The concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary dates back only 150 years or so to Pope Leo X and the first Vatican Council. Leo is also the first Pope to declare himself infallible and the establishment of Mary's status as a perpetual virgin was the first--and so far the only--infallible act of any Pope. (Some psycho-historians have speculated that Leo had what might be called “mother issues”.)

For me the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity is secondary to the idea that God chose to come into the world and live as a mortal. From what we know Jesus loved his mortal life. He ate and drank and seems to have taken great joy in it. His enemies even accused him of gluttony (which makes me wonder about all those frail, emaciated images we have of Jesus). He was clearly what we would call today a "people person" and though we have many examples of him taking the time to commune solely with his Father, he spent the majority of his mission in the company of people at some of the most significant moments of their lives.

Two examples of this are the stories of the miracles that frame his living mission--the wedding feast at Cana when he couldn't stand to see the celebration ruined by lack of wine and the resurrection of Lazarus when the mourning of his friend's sisters became to great for him to bear.

Did he, as Kazantzakis speculated, dream of an ordinary life. Did he secretly long for a wife and children, eking out a living as a carpenter like his earthly father Joseph? Was this what he prayed for at Gethsemane before submitting himself to the will of God?

Is it wrong to imagine Jesus wouldn't wish the same for his mother? She had to be an extra ordinary young woman--a teenager probably--to do what she did. But does being extraordinary preclude the ordinary? Was her life one long devotion to her only child just to see him tortured and crucified?

The original use of the term "ivory tower" was used to describe The Virgin Mary. It suggests someone untouchable, cold, distant, perhaps even unlovable. But could such a person raise a son to be the pillar of human warmth that was Jesus? Unlikely. God manifested Himself in Mary in a way none of us can ever hope to understand. To me the whole point of God's taking on human form was an act of Divine love for the human experience and a demonstration of how we are all blessed by that love. As we know, love has many forms. Granted our flawed human imagination too often drifts toward selfish and romanticized ideals, but was it a part of God's plan to deny Mary the joy to be found in the human act of love after she became the vessel for the incarnation of the Divine? We will never know.

What we do know from Scripture and now may have some archeological evidence (whether we need it or not) there were people close enough to Jesus to be called his earthly brothers and sisters. Whomever they were they shared a special relationship with him that all of us can only envy. Maybe we can use that as an example to extend to those who share our flawed, frail imperfect existence the status of family.

Paul
Greetings
Just a couple of clarifications...

1) The Perpetual Virginity of Mary was nothing new, it wasn't something invented by the "Pope."

2) Another argument for Mary and Joseph remaining chaste could be Talmudic law, not to mention other examples of Judaic prophets who also took the vote of celibacy, or various sects, such as the Essenes.

3) Early church fathers believed in the Perpetual Virginity (Origen and St. Basil 300s AD), not to mention statements from the Fifth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 553 AD, the Latern Council of 649 AD, as well as Martin Luther, Wesley and Calvin. All believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - a "tradition" from the earliest times.

4) Early writings, such as the Protoevangelium of St. James (150 AD), while non-canonical, further show that at a very early time in the life of the church there was a tradition that talked of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and said Joseph was an older widower with other children. This has always been the view of the Eastern church. I've already mentioned how the Western church (Roman Catholic) under St. Jerome around 400 A.D. added another "perspective."

5) Pope Leo X (born 1475, died 1521) wasn't the correct Pope, although he was a good one to pick :) Pope Leo was the Pope during the time of Luther and which even the Roman Catholic Church is critical: http://newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm -- "In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over their misfortunes". Von Reumont says pertinently–"Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church."

6) The First Vatican council wasn't until a few hundred years later, being summoned in 1868 by Pope Piux IX, with the first session being held in 1869

7) No Pope has declared himself "infallible," they are human...I won't go into it too much other than to say, this too was not an invention of Vatican I, but was part of the previous 1,500 years plus of tradition. In a nutshell, the Pope is only infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra"

Anyway, hope that clears those few points up...and I too have always marvelled at the first miracle being at a wedding and wine! Shows, if nothing else, Jesus wasn't a killjoy.

Cheers

I am increasingly of the view that America's evangelicals--those radical Protestant sects who take the Bible as their sole source of information on their faith--have gone down the wrong road. There are 1,500 years of Chuch history, thought, and guidance, and information (not to mention miracles and whatnot witnessed by members of the faith) that they seem to know very little about.

Scripturally there seems little basis for this view--or indeed even for the view that the Bible itself is the only authority on any issue of faith. The Bible makes no such claim for itself. Some American Evangelicals are fond of pointing to certain passages which attest to the infallibility of "scripture" but not a one ever mentions the word "Bible" or claims that the Bible is the sole source of Scripture. Which only makes perfect sense, since there was no such thing as the Bible at the time that any of its books were compiled.

I don't attack anyone for their faith, but I do think at times that some of America's Christians have thrown away far too much in their quest for a "pure" faith, and as a result have created an entirely new form of Christianity that never existed before.

I guess I could just dig up an old book and claim that it was the word of God....c'mon people, let's reason ourselves out of this metaphysical deception that is organized religion. Remember, organized religion is responsible (directly or indirectly) for the slaughter of countless human beings....gotta go with Bill Hicks on this...our belief system is no longer relevent or pragmatic.
Mary and Joseph had sex...lots of hot desert sex....sweaty camel sex.....rugged burlap underwear sex...sorry....I wonder if they called it the missionary position before there were missionaries?