Dr. Eisenman states:
> This inscription seems pointed not at an ancient
> audience, who would have
> known who James (or Jacob, his Hebrew/Aramaic name)
> was, but at a modern
> one. If this box had simply said "Jacob the son of
> Joseph," it might pass
> muster. But ancient sources are not clear on who
> this Jacob's father really
> was. If the inscription had said "James the son of
> Cleophas," "Clopas or
> even "Alphaeus" (all three probably being
> interchangeable), I would have
> jumped for joy. But Joseph? This is what a modern
> audience, schooled in the
> Gospels, would expect, not an ancient one.
It seems to me that anyone writing after the very
populat Protoevangelium of James knew who James'
father was, and
Irenaeus and Tatian were certainly intimate with the
contents of the gospels. I don't think we need poswit
a "modern" audience. It would also seem to me that
the popular Protoevangelium is reporting an even
earlier tradition about James' parentage that would
take us back into the first century. We haven't even
considered the popularity of Matthew and Luke in
naming Joseph, and the natural assumption that
"brother" means of the same parentage-usually father.
So I don't think that we eed to think of a "modern"
audience as the target, or even necessarily a post
first century one on these grounds.