Replies

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.

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...
This notion that the box has an "owner" impies that this whole process of disclosure is one of commercial motive; either that or notoriety, which doesn't fit with anonymity.

How does something this old escape detection or interest for so long? Surely no single possessor could deny curiosity.