"Brother of Jesus" bone-box plot thickens [Israeli Scholars: Jesus' 'Brother' Box Fraud]

Israel Insider ^ | November 5, 2002 | Ellis Shuman

[Polycarp]

"Brother of Jesus" bone-box plot thickens

By Ellis Shuman

November 5, 2002

An ancient burial box believed to have belonged to James, the Biblical brother of Jesus, was damaged while being sent for display at a Toronto museum. The museum is awaiting word from the ossuary's owner before attempting to repair the box, but the owner is being questioned by police as the burial box may actually belong to the State of Israel. Meanwhile, Israeli scholars insist that the inscription on the box is a fraud.

Staff at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto discovered numerous cracks Friday in the 2,000-year-old limestone burial box. The cracks appear under an Aramaic inscription which states: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Herschel Shanks, the Jewish publisher of the respected Biblical Archaeology Review, announced the discovery of the box last month as the "first archaeological attestation of Jesus."

"We sent out a conservation proposal to the owner on the weekend and he's decided he wants to wait," Royal Ontario Museum spokesman Francisco Alvarez told The Globe and Mail. The museum sent the owner images of the damage caused in transit, and said that repairs would have to be done in Toronto. The museum plans to exhibit the box between November 16 and December 29.

When granting an export license, officials at the Israel Antiquity Authority received a promise from the ossuary's owner that it would be returned to Israel after four months so that they could continue to study the box in attempts to date it.

Owner may have acquired ossuary illegally "We put one and one together and realized that [the ossuary's owner] must be Oded Golan," says Dr. Uzi Dahari, deputy director of the Antiquities Authority.

Golan, 51, the chief executive at a Tel Aviv high tech company, said he purchased the ossuary from an antiquities dealer some thirty years ago, apparently when he was in his early twenties. "Until a short time ago, I didn't realize the historical importance [of the box] to the Christian world. When I sent the box to an exhibition overseas, it had a small crack in its side that apparently widened during the transit to Canada," Golan told Maariv.

Shortly after the Biblical Archaeology Review announced its finding, Tel Aviv police summoned Golan for questioning. Investigators at the Antiquities Authority claim that Golan acquired the box illegally. According to Israel's Antiquities Law, an artifact that "was discovered or found in Israel" after 1978, when the law was enacted, is "state property." Original media reports indicated that Golan acquired the box about 15 years ago, which would mean that it belongs to the State of Israel.

Scholars insist: inscription is a fraud Israel Insider posted exclusively on October 29 the report of an expert of ancient scripts and writing systems who claimed that while the burial box appeared to be genuine, as was the first part of the inscription, the second half of the inscription, "brother of Jesus," was a "poorly executed fake" and a later addition.

Rochelle I. Altman, co-coordinator of IOUDAIOS-L, a virtual community of scholars engaged in on-line discussion of Judaism in the Greco-Roman world, says that people are taking Sorbonne University paleographer Andre Lemaire's word too quickly when he stated "that the inscription is incised."

Both Altman and noted paleographer Ada Yardeni have concluded that the second part of the inscription was added later. "There are two hands; two different scripts; two different social strata, two different levels of execution, two different levels of literacy, and two different carvers," Altman says.

Altman believes that the second half was actually written in the 3rd or 4th century, while Paul Flesher at the University of Wyoming, an expert on Hebraicized Aramaic dialects, dates it anywhere between the 2nd and 7th centuries.

"The reason the police are onto Golan is that there are two such ossuaries, both already known and photographed in a book on the ossuaries in collections in Israel published in 1996. This one was not bought at an antique dealer in the 1960s, but at an auction, from a museum, in the 1980s," Altman says.

© 2001-2002 Koret Communications Ltd. All rights reserved.

[meandog]

It was only recently, in the mid 1800's, that protestants began denying this continuous belief of Christianity. So contrary to the thinking that the RCC "attached itself to a new doctrine... ...the Truth is that protestantism detached itself from the continuous teachings of Christianity regarding Mary, only about a century ago.

Please review your Jerusalem Bible and the Apocrypha--these are the only canonical books accepted by the Church of Rome.

[al_c]

Notice that the limestone is so ancient, so brittle, and so fragile, that merely moving it causes it to nearly disintegrate.

But, of course, forcefully HACKING letters into the 2000 + year old surface did NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!!

"Altman believes that the second half was actually written in the 3rd or 4th century ..."

[polemikos]

What we have here is a pi%%ing contest that has been going on for centuries.

Um, my understanding is this is a relatively new "pi%%ing contest", maybe only 150 years old or so. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all held the same view as the church. The controversy wrought by the new position smells like a "tradition of man". ;-)

[american colleen]

"‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23)

Guess He was kidding.

[polemikos]

THAT IS YOUR IDEA OF A "HOAX"?????

At least one expert claimed that, statistically, there were approximately 20 James-Joseph (son-father) combinations in the population at the time. Personally, I can accept the possibility that this is still the ossuary of The James in question, because I think there are a number of arguments that increase the odds above the statistical 5% possibility.

I'm inclined to lean towards a scenario that the box fell into the hands of the Christian community after 70 A.D. because (a) the added inscription is apparently by a non-native speaker (while I would think that the relatives of James would still have their Aramaic language skills), (b) the added inscription would have been important to the Christians (but not necessarily to the relatives), and (c) the Christians had a history of preserving the remains of early church figures (while Israelites on the run could easily have chosen to leave bone boxes behind). Still, one can imagine all sorts of possibilities and ownership changes.

Still, I think comments about this not necessarily being a "fraud" per se are well taken. I don't know the religious beliefs of the "expert" evaluators, but it is possible that those outside of Christianity have an anti-Jesus agenda. Fraud in the "interpretation" of facts might exist, but probably can't be proven.

In the end, actual or not, the authenticity of the box can't be proven one way or the other. So I suspect that everyone will fall back on their existing belief systems.

[berned]

Your take is reasonable and well thought out.

[OLD REGGIE]

Typical. Guess you forgot about the Shroud of Turin tho....

Does Jesus have long hair on the Shroud of Turin?

1Cor.11
[14] Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him,

Tch tch. Could Paul speak of Jesus this way?

[Dajjal]

I must say that this is more than I was expecting. I expected either the whole inscription to be a fraud, or the "son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" part to be a fraud. But now we have substantial archaeological evidence that somebody named Joseph had a son named Jakob somewhere between 20 BC - 70 AD, give or take. Remarkable!

[wkhjr]

This is not necessarily to you MeanDog, but for the group in general.

I find this to be one of the more amusing strings going on as of yet. This seems to be a pi$$ing match between skunks, although I do find one particular woman to be rather learned in what she is referring to. Bottom line seems to be "who gives a rat's butt?".

If there is one subject more controversial than politics, it certainly has to be religion. Strangely enough, religious beliefs are about the only things that cannot be either proven or disproven in any logical manner. Faith is simply belief in something that cannot be proven - that does not mean by default it can be disproven. People have taken great umbrage at this post, obviously, and have absolutely exhausted themselves in attempting to defend their opinions (which are not actually their own, rather the dogmatic decrees of whatever particular denomination they belong to - of which sadly so few understand the reasons and origins of such).

I consider myself a Christian (well, I am trying to be one everyday - somedays I fall short of my goal), but all of this stupid bickering is mere folly. I could care less if Mary remained a virgin, was even a virgin or whatever. I could care less if Jesus had cousins, brothers, pesky in-laws, and whatever else. So what? Does any of this amount to any bit of a difference in the incontrovertable fact that this is the single most influential man to ever walk the earth? I don't care if he got here via the cabbage patch or a wild nite on the town. These details will most likely never be conclusively proven, mainly out of sensitive prejudices and obstinance. Even so, they are inconsequential anyway.

Very dear friends of my family are Jewish, and this was uttered by a Jew during a Christmas party at my home - I will never forget it. During the blessing of the meal, a Jewish follower said the following "Thank you, God, for sending Jesus - how awful the world would be without him." That is pretty darned powerful. Christ did not have such an impact on the world because Mary was supposedly a virgin for life, or whether he had biological brothers or not. Christ had such an impact because of the message he brought, and the hope that he gave us. Who cares about hashing out the details of over 2000 years ago? The details of such mean nothing to me, but his message means everything.

Let the historians, theologians, the Vatican, Jerry Falwell and whoever else bicker endlessly over that which makes no difference. I on the other hand, choose to follow the teachings of Christ, in the hope and faith that I will come to know him in this life, live a life as he would be proud of, and spend eterntity with him in the hereafter.

If there ever was a classic case of failing to see the forest through the trees......

Cheers,
WKH

[gaspar]

The unspoken element in this concoction is the role of Shanks. Granted he is a polemical type (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls), but why he would go out on such a long limb unless he had the box checked out six ways to Sunday, is inexplicable.

[TheBattman]

Hate to put a bug in the discussion, but I remember reading that the inscription was in "Aramaic" - a far cry from Hebrew.

[unspun]

Here's something interesting:

John 20:24-29

http://www.biblegateway.com/bgaudio/english/niv/hurl?passage=john+20

[AnAmericanMother]

True, but aren't the ceremonial letters done in a similar style, and right-to-left?

[razorbak]

Mary's perpetual virginity is taught nowhere in Scripture. Professing "believers" from the first few centuries A.D. have taught all sorts of unbiblical doctrines.

[razorbak]

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Mat 1:19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. Mat 1:20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. Mat 1:22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Mat 1:23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. Mat 1:24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; Mat 1:25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.

[dark_lord]

No.

The ossuary itself is undoubtedly genuine; the well executed and formal first part of the inscription is a holographic original by a literate (and wealthy) survivor of Jacob Ben Josef in the 1st century CE. The second part of the inscription bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition and is questionable to say the least.

I don't agree with the conclusion. The interpretation, yes. The conclusion does not necessarily follow. Because. Yes, the 2nd part o fthe inscription was added later. Clearly. But does that mean it was "fraudulent"? Why? If it was added later (as in, a couple of centuries later) for clarification, then why is it fraudulent?

[polemikos]

I agree that "fraud" is likely an overstatement.
Someone has an agenda?
See my post 45.

[Polycarp]

knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.

My democrat Catholic grandmother never voted Republican till the day she died.

It woluld be news to her indeed that by your logic she must have voted Republican after that point.

Likewise my beloved great uncle never voted Democrat till the day he died.

Of course, he lived in Chicago, so he has been voting Democrat ever since the day he died ;-)

I think even you might get my point here...

[Polycarp]

Mary's perpetual virginity is taught nowhere in Scripture.

For that matter, neither is the Trinity taught explicitly in scripture as orthodox Christians understand the concept either.

Furthermore, sola scriptura isn't taught in scripture, and the idea that every Christian doctrine and dogma is explicitly and clearly taught in scripture (like the Trinity, for instance) is an unbiblical tradition of men introduced by the Reformers.

[Binghamton_native]

Surely when you say "Protestants, in general, will never admit to the virginity of Mary" you mean Protestants will never admit to the perpetual virginity of Mary. I've asked before on other related threads and I'll ask again...why are two different Greek words used for brother and cousin, and why is the same Greek word for brother used in the passage about Jesus as is used in the passage about Peter and Andrew?