A Discovery That's Just Too Perfect [James brother of Jesus Ossuary is a hoax-my title]

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.

Then there is "the brother of Jesus" -- almost no ancient source calls James this. This is what we moderns call him. Even Paul, our primary New Testament witness, calls him "James the brother of the Lord." If the ossuary said something like "James the Zaddik" or "Just One," which is how many referred to him, including Hegesippus from the 2nd century and Eusebius from the 4th, then I would have more willingly credited it. But to call him not only by his paternal but also his fraternal name, this I am unfamiliar with on any ossuary, and again it seems directly pointed at us.

This is what I mean by the formulation being too perfect. It just doesn't ring true. To the modern ear, particularly the believer, perhaps. But to the ancient? Perhaps a later pilgrim from the 4th or 5th century might have described James in this way, but this is not what our paleographers are saying.

Finally, the numerous contemporary sources I have already referred to know the location of James' burial site.

Hegesippus, a Palestinian native who lived perhaps 50 years after the events in question, tells us that James was buried where he was stoned beneath the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem. Eusebius in the 4th century and Jerome in the 5th say the burial site with its marker was still there in their times.

No source, however, mentions an ossuary. Our creative artificers presumably never read any of these sources (nor beyond the first few chapters of my book) or they would have known better.

Too bad, it all seemed to fit your notions. Ready to admit defeat?

Notice the folks that used this hoax here to further their sectarian agendas did not post the refutation of it?

pinging...

I heard that they also found some Roman coins dated XXII BC.

A Massive Hoax?

CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter

October 31, 2002

Dear Friend,

Well, I'm back from the cruise, refreshed and relaxed from my week at sea. We all had a great time, and my thanks go out to everyone who sailed with us and helped make the trip possible. Hopefully we'll see even more of you out there next year.

Before I get into my letter, I want to pass along to you an interesting news release that I came across yesterday. The article from United Press International is titled "Ark of Covenant reported to be in Ethiopia." It goes on to say that some scholars and researchers now think that the Ark may actually be in a tiny town in Ethiopia called Axum, guarded by a small group of priests.

This certainly would be exciting news -- that is, if we hadn't already reported it.

As you may know, CRISIS ran an expanded cover story on this very topic way back in July. Our writer followed the path of the Ark from Israel down to the Ethiopian Orthodox church where the relic is reputedly stored. Not only that, but he interviewed the monk who guards the Ark -- the only man allowed to approach it.

If you want to get a copy of that issue -- along with the photos -- call 1-800-852-9962, and ask for the July/August 2002 issue.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist dropping a little plug in there.

The main reason I wanted to write you has to do with a different article I came across a couple days ago. In my letter from last week, I told you I was interested in seeing what new developments would arise concerning the ossuary that was recently discovered bearing the inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

It turns out I didn't have to wait long -- the report I read claims that part of the ossuary is an obvious fake. While many scholars who have studied the box are convinced of its authenticity, there are a growing number who are skeptical.

Robert Eisenman is one. He recently wrote a piece for the L.A. Times where he says that the discovery of the ossuary is just "too perfect" to convince him that it's real. For one thing, its sudden, mysterious appearance and lack of any record of its whereabouts for the past 2000 years makes him suspicious of its origins.

Another problem he has is with the nature of the inscription itself. Eisenman states that ancient sources never called James "the brother of Jesus" -- this is strictly a Biblical reference. Instead, he would have been referred to as "James the Zaddik" or "Just One," titles given him by other early Christians. He also says that ancient sources are unclear as to James's father, and probably would have called him "son of Cleophas" or "son of Alphaeus" (these names were often interchanged, according to Eisenman), but not "son of Joseph," something a more modern reader would expect.

In the end, Eisenman thinks that the ossuary is a little too perfect to be convincing. It seems to please a modern audience, one that bases its knowledge of St. James on the Gospels, not at an ancient audience who would have known first-hand who James was.

Dr. Rochelle Altman is another critic of the recent findings. An historian of writing systems and an expert on scripts, Altman writes that while the ossuary itself is genuine, the second half of the inscription -- "brother of Jesus" -- is a poor imitation of the first half of the inscription, one that must have been added later. Her reasons sound pretty convincing (though I claim no expertise in that area).

According to Altman, inscriptions on ossuaries were covenants made by the dead person's family members, pledging that they would continue to revere their deceased loved one. As was the case with all such solemn vows, the covenant had to be written in the hand of the person making it. Thus, while professional masons might have "touched up" the inscription later, the original inscription had to be made by the family member.

Obviously, not all family members were literate, so their inscriptions might have been a little shaky. Either way, it would have all been done in the same hand. However, Altman argues that the inscription on this particular ossuary was written by two different people.

How does she know? Well, the first group of words -- "Jacob son of Joseph" -- was written by someone who was fully literate (she could tell by the consistency of the lettering and the formal script).

After the author carved the initial lettering, a professional excised the text (meaning that the stone around it was carved out to make the letters raised) and enclosed the words in a kind of frame -- a common practice when excising an inscription.

All of this appears legitimate to Altman. But, she says, that's not true of the second half of the inscription -- "brother of Jesus." Apparently, there are a few strange misspellings in this second part, as if the person writing it had little grasp of either Hebrew or Aramaic, and was trying to copy a script and language unfamiliar to him. Altman also points out that the script is informal, as compared with the formal lettering of the first section.

But that's not all. She additionally notes that there's no excised frame around the words. Since it was a normal practice to excise both the words and a frame, she concluded that the second writer removed the original frame so he could add his own words.

Her final verdict? The box is real; the inscription is not. "If the entire inscription on the ossuary is genuine," she says, "then somebody has to explain why there are two hands of clearly different levels of literacy and two different scripts. They also have to explain why the second hand did not know how to write 'brother of' in Aramaic or even spell 'Joshua' [the Hebrew form of Jesus]. Further, they had better explain where the frame has gone."

Once again, there's really no way to know conclusively whether or not Altman is correct. Nevertheless, her points -- and Eisenman's points -- are significant and need to be addressed.

And, of course, I'll keep you updated as the investigation into the ossuary continues.

Talk to you soon,

Deal

Great article.

Of course, I have already had one FReeper tell me that the appearance of this ossuary was a clear sign that the end times are upon us - so get ready for some pretty bitter posts.

Ask Berned...he's a pro at explaning away these obvious inconsistencies when they clash with furthering his sectarian agenda ;-)

Interesting method of proof. The evidence fits too well therefore it can't be.

fyi

so get ready for some pretty bitter posts.

For some, reality is very difficult.

The pursuit of "The Historical Jesus" people can't have it both ways. Here is historical proof, just a bit more than they can handle! The miracles, signs and prophecies are another matter best seen with eyes of faith.

Interesting method of proof. The evidence fits too well therefore it can't be.

You took the words right out of my little fingers.

I have a certain amount of healthy skepticism about the find, but the fact that the inscription fits what the Bible says -- that James was the earthly half-brother of Jesus -- is not one of the strikes against it. The LA Times article is not particularly well thought out.

The miracles, signs and prophecies are another matter ~~best~~only seen with eyes of faith.

From everything my Nordic eyes have seen, Ragnarok is right around the corner.

This, of course, still proves nothing. Add this hoax to the Piltdown man, and the thousands of others.

The evidence fits too well therefore it can't be.

That's EXACTLY it. It fits in ways we would expect it to fit after 2000 years have past, but not in ways understandable at the time.

It's just like another post above: a hypothetical Roman coin stamped XXXVI B.C. and bearing the profile of the man who was leader at that time. Yes, it fits, but not in a way they could have understood at the time.

It also reminds me of Monty Python: "It says the Grail can be found at the Castle Aaaargh...." Perhaps he was dictating.

Let's see how it plays out. I believe the box is authentic. The rationale for disbelieving it in this article is lame. Jesus name was mentioned because HE WAS JESUS!!!

The Biblical Archaeology society mentions that they have another ossuary that also mentions a brother, and that brother too, was famous.

Check out this ludicrous statement from your left-wing LA times artical.

Then there is "the brother of Jesus" -- almost no ancient source calls James this

EXCEPT, of course, THE BIBLE!!

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Mar 6:4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

But now, polycarp. I posed a question for you, and instead of answering it, you ran away, like a frightened little girl.

I'll pose it again......

Do Catholics believe that Jesus' mother Mary loved her son Jesus enough to VISIT Him at His tomb after He died? Or didn't she care enough about Him to bother even going to His tomb?

If so, show the Bible passage which SPECIFICLY states that Jesus' mother, Mary bothered to visit His tomb as He lay dead.

Or didn't she care enough? Do not run away this time, Polycarp. Answer me.

These articles are contradictory--Eisenman says If this box had simply said "Jacob the son of Joseph," it might pass muster."

But expert #2 Altman says the box is inscribed "Well, the first group of words -- "Jacob son of Joseph"

So, which is it? She says it reads Jacob, and Eisenman says that makes it pass muster in his book! Get it right, guys!

Interesting article ... thanks for the post.

Who is Deal?

The more I'm reading this article, the more I am laughing. The "objections" to the ossuary are so lame. Why don't you guys post what you consider to be the strongest points from this "rebuttal" and we'll discuss them one at a time!

I am greatly looking forward to this discussion!

Interesting method of proof. The evidence fits too well therefore it can't be...

but the fact that the inscription fits what the Bible says --

From post #5:

Dr. Rochelle Altman is another critic of the recent findings. An historian of writing systems and an expert on scripts, Altman writes that while the ossuary itself is genuine, the second half of the inscription -- "brother of Jesus" -- is a poor imitation of the first half of the inscription, one that must have been added later. Her reasons sound pretty convincing (though I claim no expertise in that area).

According to Altman, inscriptions on ossuaries were covenants made by the dead person's family members, pledging that they would continue to revere their deceased loved one. As was the case with all such solemn vows, the covenant had to be written in the hand of the person making it. Thus, while professional masons might have "touched up" the inscription later, the original inscription had to be made by the family member.

Obviously, not all family members were literate, so their inscriptions might have been a little shaky. Either way, it would have all been done in the same hand. However, Altman argues that the inscription on this particular ossuary was written by two different people.

How does she know? Well, the first group of words -- "Jacob son of Joseph" -- was written by someone who was fully literate (she could tell by the consistency of the lettering and the formal script).

After the author carved the initial lettering, a professional excised the text (meaning that the stone around it was carved out to make the letters raised) and enclosed the words in a kind of frame -- a common practice when excising an inscription.

All of this appears legitimate to Altman. But, she says, that's not true of the second half of the inscription -- "brother of Jesus." Apparently, there are a few strange misspellings in this second part, as if the person writing it had little grasp of either Hebrew or Aramaic, and was trying to copy a script and language unfamiliar to him. Altman also points out that the script is informal, as compared with the formal lettering of the first section.

But that's not all. She additionally notes that there's no excised frame around the words. Since it was a normal practice to excise both the words and a frame, she concluded that the second writer removed the original frame so he could add his own words.

Her final verdict? The box is real; the inscription is not. "If the entire inscription on the ossuary is genuine," she says, "then somebody has to explain why there are two hands of clearly different levels of literacy and two different scripts. They also have to explain why the second hand did not know how to write 'brother of' in Aramaic or even spell 'Joshua' [the Hebrew form of Jesus]. Further, they had better explain where the frame has gone."