'Jesus box' exposed as fake JERUSALEM -- A stone box touted as the oldest archaeological evidence of Jesus is, in fact, a well-crafted fake, Israeli archaeological experts say. The box, an object known as an ossuary, was said to have contained the bones of Jesus' brother James. Carved on one side is an inscription in the ancient language of Aramaic bearing the legend: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Officials with Israel's Antiques Authority announced Wednesday that while the box may date from the correct era, the inscription is a forgery added at a much later date. "The inscription appears new, written in modernity by someone attempting to reproduce ancient written characters," the officials said in the statement. They said that a panel of archeological experts had agreed unanimously with the findings. The box first came to public attention in October last year when French archaeologist Andre Lemaire identified and translated the inscription. Writing in the Biblical Archaeology Review last year Lemaire, an expert in ancient scripts, said it was "very probable" that the box belonged to Jesus' brother James. (Evidence of Jesus?) The inscription has caused great excitement among biblical scholars. However, after months of detailed examination of the box and the inscription the team of Israeli experts concluded that the finding was incorrect. "The ossuary is real. But the inscription is fake," the director of Israel's Antiquities Authority, Shuka Dorfman, told Reuters. "What this means is that somebody took a real box and forged the writing on it, probably to give it a religious significance," Dorfman added. The committee said another indication that the box was not all it was claimed to be was that the stone from which it was hewn was more likely to have originated in Cyprus or northern Syria than ancient Israel. However, Oded Golan, the Israeli owner of the "James ossuary," dismissed the findings. "I am certain the ossuary is real, I am certain that the committee is wrong regarding its conclusions," he said. Golan had earlier said he had problems with the committee and its methods of investigation saying they had "preconceived notions." He said he had bought the ossuary in the mid-1970s from a dealer in the Old City of Jerusalem for about $200, but he was unable to remember the dealer's name. Ossuaries were commonly used by Jewish families between 20 B.C. and A.D. 70 to store the bones of their loved ones. While most scholars agree that Jesus existed, no physical evidence from the first century has ever been conclusively tied with his life. link It's too bad it was fake, but if you needed this to confirm your faith, you were on shaky ground anyway.
I don't know if it's fake or not...but my understanding from a recent article is that there are archaeologists on both sides of the fence on this one. Some say it appears to be genuine...others claim it's not. That's the case with a LOT of relics as I understand it. How can we ever be completely sure one way or another? No surprise that Israel's Antiquity Authority might cast doubt on such a find.
Why? Cause they're a bunch of hardline jews who are trying to disprove the existence of the Messiah? I think most jews gave that cause up about 2000 years ago.
There are very sound ways to compare/contrast stone date and inscription date, as well as more general things such as writing samples/styles, etc.. Additionally, stone origin is fairly easy to determine, so that comment was not at all out of line. I know nothing about this "debate" so I cannot comment on the validity of one side over the other (although if it is biblical archaeologists vs archaeologists, I will easily side with the latter)...I just wanted to point out that there are ways of determination that are pretty solid. Perhaps another group (of well established names) can come in and evaluate it.
i think there have been a few groups who have looked at it. apparently the difference is in the script...some say it's reliable...others say it appears to be added on later. i'm no expert...so it remains a mystery to me.
So is there actually proof of Jesus? And if there is, is there proof of his status as 'Son of God'. (i.e. His ressurection)
We had that discussion awhile back. If f*cking search work, I would supply the link to that thread, which got to be quite lengthy.
Perhaps we can get some dna from god and some bones from the kid to do a relatedness test. aDNA is a big field now, and DNA lasts quite a long time. Unfortunately I don't think the y chromosome lasts too terribly long... but if God is a girl, then we can do a mtDNA test.
That's fine, Achebe, but don't you damned scientists start telling me that people inherit any sort of personality traits. Nose shape and miracle-spawning extrahuman powers are one thing, but if Jesus was righteous and loving, that's all about good parenting from Mary, not some chronozone from God.
'chronozone' ROTFLMAO. I forgot how funny you are bbob don't worry, I value the environment quite a bit... but I seem to take a lot of classes from determinists, that's for sure.
Rocketman Tex -- actually, i think it was the pez at the bottom that should have really tipped them off! But the box itself isn't in question...they claim it dates back to the time period it purports to be from...it's the writing on the box that's being questioned.
Well, the box is kind of in question anyways. While it dates back to the correct time period, it seems to be from the wrong part of the world. Allthough it could have been transported to Israel while it was new, but I don't know how those kind of things tended to move around 2000 years ago. BTW: How about buying a box like that for $200. Whether its Jesus's brother's or not, its got to be worth a lot more than that!
Fairly limited movement. But, more importantly, this was funerary so would not have moved post-production at all. The only way would have been if the box was commissioned/imported by the person about to die (James) or by his immediate family. Such a venture would require a bit of money...something early Christians did not have. By the way, the first physical signs of Christian life in the archaelogical record do not come until Dura Europos, circa 250, and even that is a bit of a hybrid (it is technically a synagogue, but the house has been interpreted as being for the new Christian worship - all early, pre-constantine, Christian worship took place in houses and apartments).
1. they've found what they believe to be Peter's house...is that a physical sign? not being sarcastic...being serious. not sure if that counts or not... 2. actually some early Christians did have money...remember that the man who allowed Jesus' friends to use his tomb for burial was wealthy and influential enough to convince the authorities to turn over his body.
First, I meant physical signs of worship, practices, etc - things to make it "Christian." Second, notice I said "archaeological record" not "biblical archaeological record." Even that, from what little I have read, is weak (a 5th century church built over an earlier house). Was Jesus's family supposed to have much money?
Maybe you should read what I posted, instead of being a smartass b****. I actually asked about his status as a diety with respect to physical evidence or eyewitness reports about the resurrection. Not with respect to his DNA.
1. cool...i kinda thought the same thing...peter's house, even if it is his house, isn't a sign of Christian worship. 2. not that I know of...i don't know that it was said. i know his father was a carpenter...but that's about it. my understanding is that his background was humble...but i don't know how well-founded that understanding is. i don't think it's specifically addressed anywhere.
the eyewitness reports make up the first four books of the New Testament...Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. as for physical evidence...don't think there is any. maybe the shroud of turin, if it is what it purports to be. but i'm not sure we'll ever know that.
