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

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.

Your fantasies in #20 were INSIDE of God's Word???? Doesn't the Bible itself say not to add or detract from its words (that's a lower case w, btw)?

Or is it that any fantasy is OK so long as it agrees with YOPIOS?

By the way, I am still waiting for the Aramaic rendition from you of: The quick brown fox (or hyena if there is no Aramaic word for fox) jumped over the lazy dog. I would ask you to use "lazy dog's cousin" at the end but, as we know, there is no Aramaic word for cousin and you would likely get confused and use the Aramaic word for kinsman or brother. Assuming that you are fluent in Aramaic which I certainly am not.

What really comes to mind are the immortal words of the fictional KGB general and half-brother of Boris Pasternak's Dr. Yuri Andreivich Zhivago, General Yevgraf Andreivich Zhivago, speaking to the presumed daughter of his deceased brother after telling her the whole story: "Don't you believe? Don't you WANT to believe?"

Oh well, berned again!

You are wrong, of course, doctrinally, as to the priesthood. but that has nothing to do with the subject matter of the thread.

You can make a self-fulfilling prophecy by determining never to confess to a priest in which case, of course, no priest will be serving as a conduit for your seeking of forgiveness.

Remember in arguing, this is a no YOPIOS zone.

It is certainly silly and impudent for anyone to argue against the historicity of Jesus. Secular proofs of His existence abound, including the writings of the Flavius (?) Josephus, the Roman general who was a Jewish contemporary of Jesus from the Holy Land (and not a Christian) who referred to the crucifixion of Jesus in his secular historical treatise.

Nero was in the early 60's persecuting the Christians at Rome and, according to tradition, crucifying Peter upside down at a garden party, illuminated by the burning tar-and-pitch wrapped bodies of living Christians used as torches.

May I say on behalf of Catholics and those Christians non-Catholic, that anyone claiming the historical non-existence of Jesus, in addition to being a personal carnival of promiscuous theological errors, would also have to be a total ignoramus on the subject or an absolute liar? For once, we all ought to be able to agree on that particular aspect of Christianity and truth.

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?".

Here's why, IMHO, it is important. As Christians, we all agree that the Roman Catholic church is the "mother" church of all denominations. Now, many of those denominations don't look anything like the other. But, as St. Paul pointed out,just as a hand doesn't resemble a foot, all of Christianity can belong to the same body. Trouble is, each time we (Protestants) get close to being one body--like when Pope John-Paul I (one of the greatest, IMHO) instituted Vactican II--some thing pops up (like John-Paul II's recent pronouncements about the Rosary) to bite us on the cross. It separates us as from what Jesus wanted his holy catholic (meaning universal) church to be. Currently, the major point that separates Protestants from RC's is Marian philosophy. Now, granted, it is not as bizarre as Mormons believing in a fairy tale about an angel named Maroni selecting, of all people, a deranged individual named Joseph Smith to show golden plates to as another testament of Christ; or Jehova Witnesses's belief that only a select 144,000 may experience God's heavenly kingdom, but Marian philosophy is, in Protestant thought, strange--because there is absolutely no mention of St. Mary being emmaculately conceived, a perpetual virgin, or bodily assumed into heaven anywhere in Christian Scripture. St. Mary was simply the fully human mother of Christ and the link which allowed Christ to be human too.

but Marian philosophy is, in Protestant thought, strange--because there is absolutely no mention of St. Mary being emmaculately conceived, a perpetual virgin,

Actually, you are incorrect.

As noted above, even the 16th century "reformers" themselves confessed "Mariam semper virginem":

"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary." John Calvin, Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562

"It is an article of faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin.... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." Martin Luther, Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pp. 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.

John Calvin, Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli in Scripture?...pray, tell me, where? The thought that Mary could be ever virgin is counter to every Jewish custom known, and make no mistake, Mary was an obedient wife of an obedient Jew! Though I'm a bit surprised about Calvin's pronouncement, I had heard of Luther's before--but it shouldn't be much of a shock. He was, after all, a monk. However if you study the Protestant Reformation you'll discover much disatisfaction over Marian status. Of course it was the absolute power of the pope that began the rift (so too with the Eastern rite).

(meandog as quoted by Polycarp) but Marian philosophy is, in Protestant thought, strange--because there is absolutely no mention of St. Mary being emmaculately conceived, a perpetual virgin,

(Polycarp) Actually, you are incorrect.

Actually, you didn't pay attention. I must assume you are honorable and "accidentally" missed the highlighted passage:

"...but Marian philosophy is, in Protestant thought, strange--because there is absolutely no mention of St. Mary being emmaculately conceived, a perpetual virgin, or bodily assumed into heaven anywhere in Christian Scripture.

That is, unless you have a different interpretation of Scripture.

Do not judge us by the likes of the "Jerusalem Bible" which footnotes so many of the remarks of Jesus by ssuring that He meant to say thus and such when He said the precise opposite. Try Douay-Rheims or the Haydock edition of same or the Knox Bible or the Catholic Confraternity edition or at least SOMETHING competent.

In the category of facts that may offer surprise, and understanding the danger that heresies may lurk within, my own preference is for the majestic language of the King James version, not the modern distortions of it but the translation ordered by King James I of England in the early 17th Century.

If I were a language scholar, I might prefer the Vulgate, but my knowledge of Latin is still somewhat, indeed substantially, inferior to my understanding of English. Of course, no one should EVER bother with any church's popularized editions which seek to dumb down the word of God to the level of an Oprah dialogue or worse to tell us what we want to hear rather than what He wants us to hear.

Here's why, IMHO, it is important. As Christians, we all agree that the Roman Catholic church is the "mother" church of all denominations.

I certainly don't agree. Largest - o.k. Oldest with a continuous written history - o.k.

"Mother"? The RC Church of today has little, or no, resemblance to the early Crhistian Church. The Church which gained it's property, wealth, and power from Constantine is not the "mother" of the Christian Church I recognize.

YOPIOS meets polemikos' OPIOS and it looks looks like they may have a match!

Yes, and you and Polycarp's NOT-VIA-DIOS (Non-truths Of The Vatican's Incorrect And Debunked Isterpretation Of Scripture) are ALSO a perfect match!

The only problem is, the horsehockey Polycarop tried to sling in note # 21 was debunked BY HIS OWN CATECHISM!!! (See # 27!)

Re. Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli:

As meandog pointed out, the writings of these men are not to be considered Scripture.

These men were practicing Catholics, attempting to reform a corrupt Church.

They were, at the least, just as Catholic as the SSPX.

Are the SSPX Catholic?

So what?????

Which passage of Scripture mentions the alleged burial of St. James the Just in an ossuary with the reported inscriptions in separate languages and separate times by separate people, whoever they may have been? And, if so, which of the several boxes with such inscriptions was referenced?

Andrew must not have died yet. It isn't anywhere in Scripture. Likewise James the Just (uh oh, that's a complication). None of the other apostles are dead either other than Judas and James the Greater because the Bible does not tell us so! Right?

Luther did not exist. Nor did Zwingli. Nor did Calvin. No mention of them either. In fact, you and I aren't mentioned and so we must be imagining this conversation which must be imaginary? Right???? And Freep is also (how you say?) unScriptural because not mentioned in Scripture either so we are only imagining this website too. Hey, it's a Vatican plot and so successful that even you have been taken in.

The SSPX is in schism and no longer (if ever) Catholic.

I don't know a lot about Zwingli but Jean Cauvin aka Calvin was the son of a secretary to a French bishop or archbishop and his education was fully paid by the diocese or archdiocese in question. While Cauvin was brought up Catholic, he apostasized promptly after graduation and removed himself to Switzerland to avoid the consequences. His Scriptural differences with Rome were more over matters like free will vs. predestination than about corruption. Yes???

SSPX attempts to keep doctrine, dogma and tradition (save the last forty years) intact, while making disobedience to legitimate authority a way of life. Luther, Zwingli and Calvin shared te disobedience but did deviate rather substantially from doctrine, dogma and tradition or these threads would be generating conbsiderably less in the way of activity and posts.did not.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.