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

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-eisenman29oct29.story?null ^ | October 29, 2002 | Robert Eisenman

[Polycarp]

COMMENTARY

A Discovery That's Just Too Perfect

Claims that stone box held remains of Jesus' brother may be suspect.

By Robert Eisenman Robert Eisenman is the author of "James the Brother of Jesus" (Penguin, 1998) and a professor of Middle East religions and archeology at Cal State Long Beach.

October 29 2002

James, the brother of Jesus, was so well known and important as a Jerusalem religious leader, according to 1st century sources, that taking the brother relationship seriously was perhaps the best confirmation that there ever was a historical Jesus. Put another way, it was not whether Jesus had a brother, but rather whether the brother had a "Jesus."

Now we are suddenly presented with this very "proof": the discovery, allegedly near Jerusalem, of an ossuary inscribed in the Aramaic language used at that time, with "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." An ossuary is a stone box in which bones previously laid out in rock-cut tombs, such as those in the Gospels, were placed after they were retrieved by relatives or followers.

[hopespringseternal]

While I have my doubts concerning this artifact, they pale in comparison to my doubts concerning catholic apology surrounding it.

At present, I see no reason to believe or disbelieve its authenticity.

[Polycarp]

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!

See post # 20. Nothing to discuss as far as I'm concerned. Its a hoax. Period.

[berned]

Do not run away again Polycarp. Answer the question I posed to you in # 15.

[Polycarp]

Deal hudson, publisher of Crisis Magazine, member of GWB's Catholic advisory panel.

[berned]

Do not run away again Polycarp. Answer the question I posed to you in # 15.

[VRWC_minion]

Here is historical proof,

Maybe, maybe not. Its not conclusive.

just a bit more than they can handle!

Please explain ?

[BibChr]

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

Thank you. THANK you. That says what I wanted to say, but better and briefer.

I'll add this too: I've seldom seen so transparent an example of bias controlling the handling of evidence. But as scholars like F. F. Bruce have remarked, only the Bible brings out this sort of approach.

Dan

[CWRWinger]

...some Roman coins dated XXII BC.

I'd like to see those! LOL!!

[VRWC_minion]

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

Please explain what wouldn't fit 2000 years ago. I understood that their are similar inscriptions mentioning brothers in that time period. I agree that it is possible its a fraud and I agree its possible that this is a coincidence in names but I don't see how basing a logical proof on the concept that the evidence is "too good" works.

[Gophack]

Are you suggesting that Mary didn't love Jesus because the Bible doesn't describe a scene where she visited Him in His tomb?

If so, that is pathetic. I try really hard to be nice in these threads, but to accuse Mary of not loving Jesus is so awful, I don't know what else to say. There are many things not in the Bible that we assume are true. Often, there is no description of how Jesus and his disciples travelled, but we assume it was on foot. The Trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible, but we believe in the Holy Trinity being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We know that Mary said YES to God and bore His Son, Jesus. She loved God so much that she said YES to Him. She knew that she carried the Messiah, and she knew that the Messiah was God. And since she loved God, she obviously loved Jesus.

God bless. Time for my to go to Mass.

[Petronski]

Ah, but the burden of proof is yours, and thus far all we've seen is an argument about as strong as the anti-gun screed by Michael Bellesiles: insufficient and ultimately (to be) discredited.

[berned]

In time, the Bible Archaeology society will rebut these challenges, which were to be expected. Virtually ALL archaeological finds are "challenged" by somebody. That's part of the process.

The RCC has staked EVERYTHING on it's doctrine of "infallibility". They claim Mary never had any other children besides Jesus. Their house of cards rests on the veracity of that statement.

Now, Polycarp. Answer the question I posed to you in # 15. I will not be a gentleman and allow you to run away from it like I did last time.

[DallasMike]

Yes, those findings, if authentic, increase my doubt regarding the authenticity of the ossuary, but the LA Times story addressed none of these things. Hence my comment that the article wasn't very well thought out.

FWIW, any faith I might have once had in handwriting analysis was shattered by the "analyses" done of Vince Foster's alleged suicide note!

[Irisshlass]

For some, reality is very difficult.


Yes I've notice..they flee...

[VRWC_minion]

Assuming that the thing is an elaborate hoax, don't you think it would be wise to do a simple spell check ?

I recall an interview done by NPR with a language expert that didn't necessarily buy into the historical Jesus thing but did say it was his opinion that the writing was authentic and of that time period.

[DallasMike]

They claim Mary never had any other children besides Jesus.

That's true now, but the half-siblings of Jesus were recognized for the first several hundred years of church history.

[MEGoody]

It's real! No, it's not real! It's real! No, it's not real!

::::shrug::::

Whether this box really contains the bones of James, the brother of Jesus, or not is not going to impact my faith one way or the other. My faith is in Christ, not in James.

[berned]

Don't run away. Post the Bible verses that say Mary bothered to visit Jesus tomb as He lay dead.

The Bible goes out of it's way to say that Mary Magdalen went.

The Bible takes time to mention that Joanna went.

It specifically mentions that Salome went.

Where is the Mary that you Catholics believe in? Did she drop Jesus like a hot potato the minute she saw that He had died?

[ER_in_OC,CA]

I think a healthy skepticism about the discovery is reasonable.

The core thesis of Eisenman's article seems to be simply stated: "The discovery just seems funny." He adds some things that "seem fishy" about the burial and the inscription.

Unfortunately, all we get is Eiseman's doubts and nothing additional which could raise our suspicions about the people reporting this discovery.

For example, Eisenman doesn't suggest a motive for why any of the parties involved would perpetuate this hoax. Would it be for Hershel Shanks to sell more subscriptions to the respected (but not exactly popular) Biblical Archeology Review? I can't imagine that.

Additionally, if Eisenman were more fair, he might point out that Hershel Shanks isn't a nutjob, and I don't even think he's a Christian. (correct me if I'm wrong).

Furthermore, I would suspect that the owner of the ossuary and several of the researchers who reviewed it aren't Christian either. Worth noting while searching for motive.

Also, what about the owner of the "Ossuary?" So far, I haven't heard anything that would point a motive on him/her either. He/she wants to remain anonymous. He/she hasn't made an effort to sell this or make money. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Again, a critical review of the evidence is warranted. The points by Eisenman about the "wording" of the inscription are reasonable, and should be addressed.

Furthermore, conflicting testimony on the burial site of James is worth review. There is a clear contradiction between Shanks' descripton of how James' "body-disposal" would have been conducted and the burial references Eisenman makes.

Good golly, maybe Eisenman should put his intellectual muscle in the game and call Shanks and participate. That might make a nice follow-up to this "I have a hunch..." article. From my occasional reading of Shanks, I have confidence in his honesty to change his conclusion if presented with solid facts.

[Petronski]

Often, there is no description of how Jesus and his disciples travelled, but we assume it was on foot...

Hey, if they travelled by foot, cite a verse from the Bible that establishes it.

Either that, or just find an old stone tablet that says they travelled, then inscribe on it in a different hand, and in misspelled Aramaic the words 'on foot.' That ought to prove it. </satire>

(Also, in general, if there's a book of the Bible that you don't like, just delete it.)