James ossuary determined to have been "fake"

Israel Insider ^ | 06-18-03 | Ellis Shuman

[el_chupacabra]

At a press conference held this morning in Jerusalem, officials from the Israeli Antiquities Authority announced that an ancient stone box with the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," was a fake. The authority also determined that the "Joash inscription," a stone tablet with fifteen lines of ancient Hebrew detailing improvements at the Temple, was a forgery. Israel Insider reported details proving the ossuary a fake last November.

The inscriptions on both items were made "in the modern era," the Antiquities Authority announced.

The stone burial box, known as an ossuary, attracted international attention when the Biblical Archaeological Review announced its discovery and it was thought to be one of the oldest archaeological links to the biblical figures.

But doubts as to the ossuary's authenticity arose soon after the announcement. Excerpts like Rochelle I. Altman, writing for Israel Insider, determined that the inscription linking the ossuary to James was actually written by two different people, and the Jesus reference was apparently added later.

Israeli antiquities collector Oded Golan, who owned both the ossuary and the stone tablet, has been under investigation for attempting to sell antiquities that belong legally to the State of Israel. Golan had insisted that both items were genuine.

Golan had said he bought the ossuary in the mid-1970s from an antiquities dealer in the Old City of Jerusalem for about $200, but he said he could not remember the dealer's name.

Golan told the media that he considered the Antiquities Authority committee checking the ossuary "problematic," and that they had approached the task with "preconceived notions."

After its discovery, the ossuary was put on display for the first time at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. In transport, the box developed a series of cracks. Upon its return to Israel, it was given to the Antiquities Authority for the tests to determine its authenticity.

In her reports for Israel Insider, Altman, an expert on scripts and an historian of writing systems, wrote that the limestone burial box was "genuine," but the second half of the inscription, with its reference to Jesus, "bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition, probably around the 3rd or 4th centuries, and is questionable to say the least."

[stuartcr]

How is whether it is authentic or not, important?

[el_chupacabra]

Many have pointed to "The James Ossuary" as being definative proof that Jesus had a biological brother. That conclusion was said to be a catostrophic blow to the Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Of course, I doubt those same people will find much use for this article.

[stuartcr]

I don't how it could be validated, or the Catholic church even wanting it validated.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Many have pointed to "The James Ossuary" as being definative proof that Jesus had a biological brother. That conclusion was said to be a catostrophic blow to the Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Who needs the Ossuary to reach that conclusion? lol.

[Conservative til I die]

I thought this was debunked as a faith months ago.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Ignorant is appropriate.

[Blzbba]

"That conclusion was said to be a catostrophic blow to the Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. "


I was raised Catholic...went to Catholic schools, etc...and can not recall being taught that Mary was a "perpetual" virgin. Virgin conception..virgin birth (whatever that is)...but lifelong virgin? for God?!

God isn't the God of Volcanoes, demanding sacrificial virgins to appeal to His tastes. Then again, I also need some proof that this is an official position/belief of the RCC. God knows I've encountered enough ignorant, hypocritical Protestants to last a lifetime.

[el_chupacabra]

I was raised Catholic...went to Catholic schools, etc...and can not recall being taught that Mary was a "perpetual" virgin. Virgin conception..virgin birth (whatever that is)...but lifelong virgin? for God?!

Take a look at the Catechism, paragraph 499 --

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

[Blzbba]

"Take a look at the Catechism, paragraph 499 --"



wow. Thanks for the info.

[ChicagoGirl]

I grew up in Catholic schools too and I have to say that the Catholic education program was definitely lacking – but I did know about Mary’s perpetual virginity. From this post, I can tell that the Catholic education system needs SERIOUS help.

(Also, I think it’s odd that a doctrine that all Christians believed for more than 1500 years could now be rejected so vehemently.)

[Blzbba]

"Also, I think it’s odd that a doctrine that all Christians believed for more than 1500 years could now be rejected so vehemently."



Catholics during that time period had no choice but to believe it. To speak out against this or to profess a differing belief was heresy, punishable by burning at the stake.

[ChicagoGirl]

Well, 1500 years is a pretty long time to supress the "truth" if it was meant to come out. How many Christians were killed by the Romans? That didn't stop the message of Christianity from spreading.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Ignorant is appropriate.

Gee. I've never heard that one before.

[Blzbba]

"Well, 1500 years is a pretty long time to supress the "truth" if it was meant to come out. How many Christians were killed by the Romans? That didn't stop the message of Christianity from spreading. "


How many Catholics were burned at the stake for heresy? That didn't stop Martin Luther from creating the Protestant movement. Remember - the Church also preached a TerraCentric theory for 1500 years...that the Sun revolved around the Earth....but we now know how completely ignorant and wrong that was.

[Revelation 911]

two things

love your screen name - it makes me laughs everytime I see it

Why couldnt someone have written on it in the third of fourth century as a means of "tagging" it - much like we write on the backs of old photos.

Overall I guess it doesnt matter - We know Christ was real - we know the tomb is empty

[Blzbba]

"The Church was going along with the current science of its day. There is no valid comparison between the church endorsing, foolishly, a pet scientific theory due to respect for its author on one hand, and a central and widely practiced doctrine on the perpetual virginity of Mary on the other.

Admitting to being wrong outside the moral realm is not comparable to the church being wrong in the temporal realm."


Disagreed. Their punishment for not believing either was the same: Trial for heresy.

One of the "Beliefs" (Terracentrism) is provably wrong. Copernicus and Galileo still caught hell after proving them wrong, astronomically.

The other "Belief" (Perpetual Virginity) isn't provably right or wrong. Only God and Mary herself know the answer. It's truly a 'belief' and adherence to something that isn't inherently provable is OK, as long as you don't burn others who believe otherwise.

Just because something is "a central and widely practiced doctrine " DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUTH. Slavery was "a central and widely practiced doctrine " - was it not OK to protest this?