Jesus: Tales from the crypt

brainwave

Jedi Master
This is gonna piss off the fundies.

Based on archeological discoveries in Jerusalem,James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici are working on a documentary that says Jesus never ressurected. There is supposed to be a press conference in Monday to announce it. They also made some Talmudist happy cause they previously worked together on a documentary also based on archeological discoveries, that essentially says the stories of exodous were real.


http://time-blog(dot)com/middle_east/2007/02/jesus_tales_from_the_crypt(dot)html
blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity.

In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.

Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.
Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.

There was also this little inconvenience that a few miles away, in the old city of Jerusalem, Christians for centuries had been worshipping the empty tomb of Christ at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Christ's resurrection, after all, is the main foundation of the faith, proof that a boy born to a carpenter's wife in a manger is the Son of God.

But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.

Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. News about the film, which will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain's Channel 4, Canada's Vision, and Israel's Channel 8, has been a hot blog topic in the Middle East (check out a personal favorite: Israelity Bites) Here in the Holy Land, Biblical Archeology is a dangerous profession. This 90-minute documentary is bound to outrage Christians and stir up a titanic debate between believers and skeptics. Stay tuned.
--Tim McGirk/Jerusalem
I tried to check around to see if this is fake and found another article.

http://biblical-studies(dot)ca/blog/wp/2007/02/24/jesus-tomb-in-the-news-again/

Jesus Tomb in the News Again

24th February 2007

There is another article out and about on the “Jesus Tomb� documentary by Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron. This one claims that Jesus’ burial site was discovered in Jerusalem’s Talpiyot neighborhood. The 2,000 year old cave reportedly contained ten coffins; six of which were carved with inscriptions reading the names: Jesua son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Matthew, Jofa (Joseph, identified as Jesus’ brother), Judah son of Jesua (Jesus’ son - or so the filmmakers claim).

As always there is much hype and sensationalism surrounding this story; see for instance, this bold claim from Ynet News:

If it proves true, the discovery… could shake up the Christian world as one of the most significant archaeological finds in history.

The coffins which, according to the filmmakers held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene will be displayed for the first time on Monday in New York.

It will be interesting to see what the actual announcement will be at Monday’s press conference (26 February 2007). After that we’ll have to sort through the mixture of fact and fiction to determine what actually has been discovered, especially considering Jacobovici’s track record of sensational yet somewhat misleading documentaries.

The documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, is scheduled to be aired in Canada on VisionTV on Tuesday 6 March at 8 p.m. and 12 a.m. ET.

jesus_family_tomb.jpgThere are also a couple books related to this discovery. Simcha Jacobovici co-authored a book with Charles Pellegrino related to the documentary:

* The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History (HarperCollins, February 2007; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com)

while Jame Tabor has written a more scholarly book on the subject:

* The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity is available from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com.

The first chapter of Tabor’s book, “The Tale of Two Tombs,� is available from the ABC News website.
 
Well, looking at the Tabor (scholarly) material as promoted on amazon, we read:

Tabor begins with several exciting archaeological finds with which he was involved, including the discovery of a cave that might have been used by John the Baptist and the very recent discovery of a tomb with ossuaries that could be linked to Jesus' family members.
and

the empty tomb narratives may contain an historical memory that the body had been removed (possibly by his brothers and sisters) from the temporary tomb of Joseph of Arimathea and reburied in an ossuary such as the one that has been discovered that possibly contains the remains of his brother James.
In short, he doesn't seem to be talking about the same "tomb situation" but rather about the ossuary of James that was recently declared to be either a forgery or misinterpreted (don't remember which).

So that means that the claimed "ten coffins" may be "misleading."

These guys claim that they have evidence of the exodus but I have dozens of scholarly works on the subject and it seems that there really is NO evidence of the Exodus as described in the Bible.

But, none of this is a surprise. Douglas Reed stated in Controversy of Zion that one of the planks of the Zionist platform was the destruction of Christianity.

And that's not to say that I think that Christianity, as it is formulated and promulgated is even close to truth. I am just noticing the interesting juxtaposition of ideas: Exodus is true, therefore Judaism is authentic vs. Crucifixion is false, therefore Christianity is bogus.

Well, it's gonna be interesting. All the Christian Zionists have in mind that they will convert the Jews and those they can't convert will be "lost." Meanwhile, the Zionists are moving forward with their plan to destroy Christianity and convert the Christians and they seem to have more "gung ho" as in control of the media.
 
The names on the tombs do not support the claim as i see it. And because there are 2 tombs with the name Maria, does not prove that they are Magdalene and the mother of Jesus. It might just have been a common name at the time. If you go out in the streets of my country today and you shout "Maria", half the females will turn around to see who is calling!
 
...
If you go out in the streets of my country today and you shout "Maria",
half the females will turn around to see who is calling!
Huh? Seems to me if you shout *anyone's* name in public, many [including males] will turn heads regardless of who's name is called? I think I get your point, but... to use the above statement as definitive proof supporting your claim, I digress. ;)
 
I guess there is a tv show ready Stateside too:

http://dsc.discovery(dot)com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000

The excerpt:

Feb. 25, 2007 — New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah.

The DNA findings, alongside statistical conclusions made about the artifacts — originally excavated in 1980 — open a potentially significant chapter in Biblical archaeological history.

A documentary presenting the evidence, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," will premiere on the Discovery Channel on March 4 at 9 p.m. ET/PT. The documentary comes from executive producer James Cameron and director Simcha Jacobovici.

I'm sorry.....but what possible good will DNA evidence do? There is nothing to compare it to. Anyone can be buried in those ossuaries...and I haven't seen any independant examinations done of the inscriptions either.


Kinda stinks to me.


Gimpy
 
Here's another link about this crypt. Some information about the inscriptions, too, written in different languages, which is interesting. Especially the "Mary known as the master" inscription written in Greek.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000

Jesus Family Tomb Believed Found
Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News


Feb. 25, 2007 — New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah.

The DNA findings, alongside statistical conclusions made about the artifacts — originally excavated in 1980 — open a potentially significant chapter in Biblical archaeological history.

A documentary presenting the evidence, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," will premiere on the Discovery Channel on March 4 at 9 p.m. ET/PT. The documentary comes from executive producer James Cameron and director Simcha Jacobovici.

The Talpiot Tomb

On March 28, 1980, a construction crew developing an apartment complex in Talpiot, Jerusalem, uncovered a tomb, which archaeologists from the Israeli Antiquities Authority excavated shortly thereafter. Archaeologist Shimon Gibson surveyed the site and drew a layout plan. Scholar L.Y. Rahmani later published "A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries" that described 10 ossuaries, or limestone bone boxes, found in the tomb.

Scholars know that from 30 B.C. to 70 A.D., many people in Jerusalem would first wrap bodies in shrouds after death. The bodies were then placed in carved rock tombs, where they decomposed for a year before the bones were placed in an ossuary.

Five of the 10 discovered boxes in the Talpiot tomb were inscribed with names believed to be associated with key figures in the New Testament: Jesus, Mary, Matthew, Joseph and Mary Magdalene. A sixth inscription, written in Aramaic, translates to "Judah Son of Jesus."

"Such tombs are very typical for that region," Aaron Brody, associate professor of Bible and archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion and director of California's Bade Museum told Discovery News.

Ossuary Inscriptions

At least four leading epigraphers have corroborated the ossuary inscriptions for the documentary, according to the Discovery Channel.

Frank Moore Cross, a professor emeritus in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "The inscriptions are from the Herodian Period (which occurred from around 1 B.C. to 1 A.D.). The use of limestone ossuaries and the varied script styles are characteristic of that time."

Jodi Magness, associate department chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told Discovery News that, based on the New Testament writings, "Jesus likely lived during the first century A.D."

In addition to the "Judah son of Jesus" inscription, which is written in Aramaic on one of the ossuaries, another limestone burial box is labeled in Aramaic with "Jesus Son of Joseph." Another bears the Hebrew inscription "Maria," a Latin version of "Miriam," or, in English, "Mary." Yet another ossuary inscription, written in Hebrew, reads "Matia," the original Hebrew word for "Matthew." Only one of the inscriptions is written in Greek. It reads, "Mariamene e Mara," which can be translated as, "Mary known as the master."

Francois Bovon, professor of the history of religion at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "Mariamene, or Mariamne, probably was the actual name given to Mary Magdalene."

Bovon explained that he and a colleague discovered a fourteenth century copy in Greek of a fourth century text that contains the most complete version of the "Acts of Philip" ever found. Although not included in the Bible, the "Acts of Philip" mentions the apostles and Mariamne, sister of the apostle Philip.

"When Philip is weak, she is strong," Bovon said. "She likely was a great teacher who even inspired her own sect of followers, called Mariamnists, who existed from around the 2nd to the 3rd century."


DNA Analysis

Jacobovici, director, producer and writer of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," and his team obtained two sets of samples from the ossuaries for DNA and chemical analysis. The first set consisted of bits of matter taken from the "Jesus Son of Joseph" and "Mariamene e Mara" ossuaries. The second set consisted of patina — a chemical film encrustation on one of the limestone boxes.

The human remains were analyzed by Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Mitochondrial DNA examination determined the individual in the Jesus ossuary and the person in the ossuary linked to Mary Magdalene were not related.

Since tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses, Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. "Judah," whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the "lad" described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus' lap at the Last Supper.

Robert Genna, director of the Suffolk County Crime Laboratory in New York, analyzed both the patina taken from the Talpiot Tomb and chemical residue obtained from the "James" ossuary, which was also found around 1980, but subsequently disappeared and resurfaced in the antiquities market. Although controversy surrounds this burial box, Genna found that the two patinas matched.

"The samples were consistent with each other," Genna told Discovery News.

Upon examining the tomb, the filmmakers determined a space exists that would have fit the "James" ossuary. Given the patina match and this observation, Jacobovici theorizes the lost burial box could, in fact, be the "James" ossuary.

Statistical Data

A possible argument against the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb is that the collection of names on the ossuary inscriptions could be coincidental.

But Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics and mathematics at the University of Toronto, recently conducted a study addressing the probabilities that will soon be published in a leading statistical journal.

Feuerverger multiplied the instances that each name appeared during the tomb's time period with the instances of every other name. He initially found "Jesus Son of Joseph" appeared once out of 190 times, Mariamne appeared once out of 160 times and so on.

To be conservative, he next divided the resulting numbers by 25 percent, a statistical standard, and further divided the results by 1,000 to attempt to account for all tombs — even those that have not been uncovered — that could have existed in first century Jerusalem.

The study concludes that the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb. In other words, the conclusion works 599 times out of 600.

Another Tomb?

The researchers discovered a second, as-yet unexplored tomb about 65 1/2 feet from the Talpiot Tomb. During the documentary, they introduced a robotic camera into this second tomb, which captured the first-ever recorded footage of an undisturbed burial cave from Jesus' time. The team speculates that this other tomb could contain the remains of additional family members, or even disciples, though further examination and analysis are needed.

In the meantime, Discovery has set up a special Web site, www.discovery.com/tomb to provide related in-depth information and to allow viewers to come to their own conclusions about the entire matter.

As Academy Award-winner Cameron said in a press release, "It doesn't get bigger than this. We've done our homework; we've made the case; and now it's time for the debate to begin."
 
Azur quoting Discovery said:
Robert Genna, director of the Suffolk County Crime Laboratory in New York, analyzed both the patina taken from the Talpiot Tomb and chemical residue obtained from the "James" ossuary, which was also found around 1980, but subsequently disappeared and resurfaced in the antiquities market. Although controversy surrounds this burial box, Genna found that the two patinas matched.

"The samples were consistent with each other," Genna told Discovery News.
Well, since they have linked it to the James Ossuary, let's look at that.

From:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm

By Dr. Rochelle I. Altman
[...]
The James Ossuary
The Size and Shape of the James Ossuary

The size and shape of the James Ossuary are non-standard. The box is custom-made. It is 20 inches in length; the shape is a trapezoid: 10 inches in width at one end and 12 inches at the other. The shape is not convenient for either stacking or side-by-side storage. Its dimensions suggest that the box was intended for one-person storage only. The trapezoidal shape would reduce the amount of room. As the bones were arranged in a specific order, the skull would have been at the 12 inches end. The leg bones are long and the angle would reduce the amount of space.

The shape of the box bears a decided resemblance to a truncated Egyptian mummy case. The probability that this is indeed what was meant gains support when we turn to the inscription on the side of the box.
The Inscription on the James Ossuary

The inscription on the “James
 
More on the "James Ossuary"

From:

The James Ossuary is a sepulchral urn for containing bones, which was found in Israel in 2002 and was claimed to have been the ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus. Its provenance is now in serious doubt, and it is considered a modern forgery. Its discovery was followed in January 2003 by another contentious archaeological "find" soon connected with Oded Golan, the so-called "Jehoash Inscription" (see below).

[...]

The ossuary was going to be exhibited in Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) with permission of Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA), and there was talk of various documentary deals. When the ossuary arrived in Toronto in the morning of October 31, 2002, the ROM personnel on hand were horrified to see that the ossuary was packed in a cardboard box (whereas the standard for shipping antiquities is typically within a foam-lined metal or wooden crate). The next day they proceeded to "unwrap" the ossuary, only to find the few layers of bubble-wrap which surrounded the ossuary were thin enough to show the cracks which ran through the once-solid stone, the largest of which went right through the famed inscription. When the museum conservators proceeded to repair the damage, they discovered a carved rosette decoration on the site opposite the inscription.

Critical voices were soon heard. Robert Eisenman of California State University at Long Beach, a scholar specializing in biblical James, declared the discovery "too perfect".

When the Toronto exhibition of the James Ossuary began, Oded Golan flew to Ontario to participate. Lemaire defended his conclusion in a related session of the Society of Biblical Literature. Shanks belittled his critics and defended Oded Golan.

However, on June 18, 2003, the Israeli Antiquities Authority published a report concluding that the inscription is a modern forgery based on their analysis of the patina. Specifically, it appears that the inscription was added recently and made to look old by addition of a chalk solution.

[...]

In January 2003, another artifact, dubbed the Jehoash Inscription, appeared in Israel. It was rumored to have surfaced in the construction site or in the Muslim cemetery near the Temple Mount of Jerusalem. It supposedly described repairs made to the temple in Jerusalem by Jehoash, son of King Ahaziah of Judah, and corresponded to the account in 2 Kings 12. Once again, the owner was an anonymous antiquities dealer, this time in Hebron. GSI initially backed up this claim too.

The "find" also reignited the conflict between Muslim authorities on the Temple Mount and the Israeli group of Temple Mount Faithful, who declared that the find was a divine sign that the al-Aqsa Mosque of the Temple Mount should be demolished and the new temple built on it immediately.

In the unfolding scandal already surrounding the "James Ossuary", criticism appeared again. Israeli historian Nadav Na'aman, who had theorized that the books of the Kings could be based on public inscriptions, opined that the possible forger could have used his theory as a basis. Epigrapher Joseph Naveh of the Hebrew University revealed to the IAA and police that he had met the owners of the stone and had recognized the inscription as a collection of Hebrew, Aramaic and Moabite letters. Frank Cross of Harvard University noted various errors in spelling and terminology. Yuval Goren of Tel-Aviv University demonstrated how the convincing fake could be produced by abrasive airbrushing. The stone itself remained hidden.

[edit] Police investigation

Israeli magazine Maariv correspondent Boaz Gaon reported that IIA Theft Unit had focused their attention of the "Jehoash Inscription" as being an expensive bait to defraud a prominent collector in London. Israeli investigators linked a phony business card and a phone number to a Tel Aviv private eye who admitted that his employee was Oded Golan, the "collector" who owned the James Ossuary. Oded denied that he was the owner of the stone and claimed that the real owner was a Palestinian antiquities dealer who lived in an area under Palestinian Authority and must therefore remain nameless.

A March 19, 2003, article in Maariv told that court had issued a search warrant for Golan's apartment, office and rented warehouse. The search brought forth incriminating documents and photographs of Golan beside the Jehoash Inscription. Under interrogation, Golan promised to reveal the locations of the stone in exchange for immunity from prosecution but was refused.

Then police made a new search in storage space that Golan had rented in Ramat Gan but had not disclosed to the police. They found scores of dubious artifacts, forged ancient seals and other inscriptions in various stages of production and tools and documentation to help in the manufacture of the forgeries. Under harsh questioning, Golan reputedly broke down, confessed and promised to hand over the Jehoash Inscription. [...]

IAA commission

Limor Livnat, Israeli Minister of Culture, mandated the work of a scientific commission to study the suspicious finds. IAA begun a heavy investigation about the affair.

As for the James Ossuary, epigraphers of IAA concluded that the inscription was modern. Chalk type of the ossuary did match with the type of chalk in various other ancient ossuaries. However, Yuval Goren and Avner Ayalon of GSI identified three different coatings in the ossuary, the last of which was artificial and covered only the inscription. Letters had been cut through the patina and covered with artificial coating. Different parts of the text in different styles had been copied from a catalog of Jewish ossuaries and possible carved by the aid of scanning software. Ossuary was authentic - albeit unusual in shape - but the inscription was a fake.

As for the Jehoash Inscription, the commission concluded that various mistakes in the spelling and the mixture of different alphabets indicated that this was a modern forgery. The stone was typical to western Cyprus and areas further west. Patina over the chiseled letters was different from that of the back of the stone and could easily be wiped off the stone by hand.

In a press conference in Jerusalem on June 18, 2003 the IAA commission declared that both inscriptions were modern forgeries. [...]

The Israeli Antiquities Authority has never offered any report explaining why it concluded the ossuary is a forgery. Therefore, a number of international experts refuse to agree that it is a forgery until the IAA allows scholars to review its findings. For example, Ed Keall, the Senior Curator at the Royal Ontario Museum, Near Eastern & Asian Civilizations Department, continues to argue for the ossuary’s authenticity, “The ROM has always been open to questioning the ossuary's authenticity, but so far no definitive proof of forgery has yet been presented, in spite of the current claims being made." [1]

Meanwhile Biblical Archaeology Review also continued to defend the ossuary. In articles in the February 2005 issues, several experts in writing on stone argue that the James Ossuary is authentic and should be examined by specialists outside of Israel. Another article claims the cleaning of the James Ossuary before it was examined may have caused the problem with the patina.

Oded Golan claimed publicly to believe his findings were genuine. Hershel Shanks declared that he did not believe the evidence and launched a personal complaint against IAA director Shuka Dorfman. Lemaire supported his original assessment when Frank Cross regretted Shank's attitude.

Joe Nickell, an investigative columnist for the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, very early on, pointed out several suspicious facts about the ossuary that needed further explanation. http://www.livescience.com/history/reason_ossuary_050112.html

In particular, a provenance was utterly lacking. (Golan said he cannot remember or no longer identify the dealer from whom he purchased the ossuary.)

Ossuaries are usually decorated and inscribed on one side only. There are rosettes on this ossuary on the opposite side of the inscription and the rosettes are badly worn with age, whereas the inscription has comparatively sharp edges. Why did Andre Lemaire, the French paleographic expert who collaborated with BAR, originally claim that the ossuary was otherwise completely unadorned?

Obviously, religious-politico, academic, and economic interests go 'hand in hand' with the truth about this ossuary. Many institutions have much to lose and others to gain from this bizarre discovery and 'Indiana Jones-like' adventure.

If this 'archaeological' find is to be believed to be the $1,000,000.00 insured ossuary of James' the brother of Jesus Christ, why was it stored in a bathroom, sitting on a toilet in the home of Golan? http://www.archaeology.org/0309/abstracts/ossuary.html

The Royal Ontario Museum has this to say as its final words in a statement about Oded Golan's arrest and the validity of the so-called James Ossuary: "There is always a question of authenticity when objects do not come from a controlled archaeological excavation, as is the case with the James Ossuary." http://www.rom.on.ca/news/releases/public.php?mediakey=vhggdo3048

On December 29, 2004, the Israeli justice ministry charged Golan, three other Israelis, and one Palestinian, with running a forgery ring that had been operating for more than 20 years. Golan was indicted in an Israeli court along with his three co-conspirators: Robert Deutsch, an epigraphy expert who has given lectures at Haifa University; collector Shlomo Cohen; and antiquities dealer Faiz al-Amaleh. They were accused of manufacturing numerous artifacts, including an ivory pomegranate which had previously been generally accepted as the only proven relic from the temple of King Solomon. Golan denied the charges.
There were, of course, at this point, arguments in favor of the James Ossuary. Since they came from "Biblical archaeology types," one wonders if their zeal to authenticate the James Ossuary was not simply to authenticate the reality of the existence of Jesus without realizing that there was something else in the background: i.e. that the whole thing was going to lead to a deconstruction of the very thing they were trying to defend!!!

But there is more.
 
Here is one of the defenses of the James Ossuary written by a Christian. You will see here that he is going to realize shortly that he has put his foot in his mouth big time:

http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar95.htm

The James Ossuary

Dr. Paul L. Maier

It was an electrifying announcement: a stone burial box had come to light in Jerusalem that may have contained the bones of Jesus' half-brother James. An Aramaic inscription on the artifact reads: Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

If these three names are our familiar New Testament personalities, then this is a discovery for which the term "astounding" is not too strong. This would mark the first time that Jesus' name has appeared in stone from the first century.

While this October announcement may be gladdening - even sensational - news, believers should always weigh such evidence carefully.

What are the facts?
An ossuary is a limestone box for burying bones that was used by Jews primarily in the first century AD. As a kind of space-saving way to deal with the dead, this "second-burial" system first interred the deceased in sepulchers to decompose for a year or two, then gathered the bones that remained and put them into stone boxes or "ossuaries." Jesus Himself was in the first stage of this burial method, and had it not been for the resurrection, His bones would have been transferred to an ossuary a year or two after His crucifixion and death.

Archaeological aids
In fact, three crucial ossuary discoveries in the last quarter century have been extremely supportive of the New Testament records.

Critics used to doubt that Jesus was ever nailed to a cross, insisting that John's Gospel was indulging in fantasy rather than fact in claiming such. No longer! In 1968, at a suburb of northern Jerusalem, the ossuary of Yohanan benHa'galgol was discovered. While otherwise unknown, this man had been crucified, as the seven-inch iron spike still transfixing his heel bones offers mute testimony.

In November 1990, the bones of the first Biblical personality ever discovered came to light in another ossuary, which was magnificently carved with perfect fluting along the edges and two great whorls adorning its face. Clearly, this bone box must have been adorned for an important person. And, indeed, on the other side was his name, incised twice in Aramaic: Iosef bar-Caiapha, or "Joseph, son of Caiaphas," the high priest who indicted Jesus before Pontius Pilate on Good Friday, a major Biblical figure and another stunning discovery.

Now, a dozen years later, we have number three: the James ossuary, a slightly trapezoidal box about 20 inches long, 10 inches wide, and 12 inches high, with removable stone lid. It has no adornment other than a narrow marginal border about a half-inch wide.

Is the Ossuary authentic?
Let's explore the evidence pro and con.

Against authenticity: Unfortunately, the ossuary was not discovered in situ, that is, it did not come to light in the course of an archaeological dig as was the case in the two previous. Accordingly, the context of this find is lost, and we have no exact idea where the ossuary was found, what else was buried there and the like - priceless evidence that has now vanished. Some 30 years ago, an Arab antiquities dealer in Jerusalem sold the ossuary for a few hundred dollars to a now-51-year-old engineer named Oded Golan living in Tel Aviv.

The dealer stated that the ossuary - one of many rifled from ancient tombs - came from the Silwan area in the Kidron Valley, southeast of the site where the Jerusalem Temple once stood.

Worse still, the bones originally inside the ossuary had been dumped out somewhere, which is the case in nearly all ossuaries not discovered by archaeologists. If the skeletal remains were left inside such bone boxes, looters would encounter hostility from ultra-orthodox Jews, who object to all disruption of human remains.

For authenticity: The evidence for authenticity of the James ossuary, however, is much stronger. The very fact that an ossuary is involved all but proves its first-century origin, since the only time Jews buried in that fashion was from approximately 20 B.C. to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The fragile condition of the ossuary cracks that widened en mute to its first public display at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto further attest to its antiquity. Any perpetrator of archaeological fraud would have found some way to make the "find" public much sooner than was actually the case. And finally, the Israel Geological Survey submitted the ossuary to a variety of scientific tests, which determined that the limestone of the ossuary had a patina or sheen consistent with a many-centuries-long sojourn in a cave.

Is the inscription authenic?

In a word, yes. The same patina covers the incised lettering of the inscription as the rest of the surface. If the inscription was recent, this would not be the case.

It is true that the first part of the inscription, "James son of Joseph," seems more deeply incised than the latter "brother of Jesus," but this may have no significance. Even if it does, differences in the hardness of the limestone may have been responsible, or the carver may have been pressed by time. Conceivably, he or someone else may have thought to add the further defining clause subsequently in view of its importance.

The script is cursive Aramaic - fully consistent with first-century lettering, according to Dr. Andre Lemaire, the Parisian epigrapher who first saw the importance of the inscription when Golan invited him to view the ossuary in his apartment. Furthermore, the inscription was not incised with modern tools, and contains no elements not available in the ancient world. The inscription, then, appears genuine.

Our James, Joseph and Jesus?

Here the evidence is not as conclusive. All three names were frequent for that era. Josephus, for example, mentions a score of different Jesuses in the first century. But this exact relationship Joseph the father, James a son, and Jesus a brother has never been cited in any extrabiblical ancient literary source or on stone. According to best estimates, only a tiny fraction of Jerusalem men would have had such a relationship, and even fewer would have been able to afford an ossuary. [...]
So, without knowing it, this guy has contributed to the deconstruction of the very religion that he sought to shore up with the James ossuary.
 
Next, there is this:

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2004/12/29/antiquitiesforgery041229.html

James ossuary part of Israeli fraud charges

Israeli authorities charged four antique dealers and collectors Wednesday with running a forgery ring that created fake biblical artifacts, including the so-called James ossuary exhibited at Toronto's Royal Ontario Museum in 2002.

The limestone burial box, which purportedly held the remains of James, Jesus' brother, was among a number of items listed as forgeries. The 27-page indictment also singled out an ivory pomegranate touted as the only existing relic from King Solomon's temple.

"During the last 20 years, many archeological items were sold, or an attempt was made to sell them, in Israel and in the world," read the indictment. "These items, many of them of great scientific, religious, sentimental, political and economic value, were created specifically with intent to defraud."

Police indicted Oded Golan and three dealers – Robert Deutsch, Shlomo Cohen and Faiz al-Amaleh – on 18 counts, including forgery, receiving fraudulent goods and damaging antiquities.

The authorities believe that the members of the forgery ring took genuine artifacts and altered them, adding inscriptions and chemically aging the pieces in order to inflate their value.

"We only discovered the tip of the iceberg. This spans the globe. It generated millions of dollars," Shuka Dorfman, head of Israel Antiquities Authority, told the Associated Press.

In fall 2002, the stone box was damaged and left with a crack during its trip to Toronto from Tel Aviv. As museum officials repaired the crack, they were able to examine the ossuary more carefully and discovered ancient fossils of roots in the stone.

About eight months later, Dorfman announced that though he believed the limestone ossuary truly dated from ancient times, the inscription that labelled it as the tomb of Jesus' brother had been forged.

Also, the Israel Museum announced last Friday that it believed the ivory pomegranate in its collection to be a forgery.

In a statement, Golan denied the accusations as a campaign of lies spread by the local archeological community to destroy the antiquities trade and said his name would be cleared in court.

"There is not one grain of truth in the fantastic allegations related to me," he said.
 
http://www.thenazareneway.com/ossuary_of_james.htm

~ Authenticity ~
In 2002, experts hailed the discovery of a burial box as a historic find. Now, accusations are flying.

The first group of experts heralded it as one of archaeology's greatest discoveries, a burial box inscribed with the earliest reference to Jesus ever found. But after a closer look, another group of specialists debunked the find as an elaborate hoax.

Now Israeli authorities have indicted the owner of the "James Ossuary" as a serial forger. The indictment has further polarized opposing sides in an increasingly vitriolic dispute.

Magazine editor Hershel Shanks, the most outspoken advocate of the box's possible authenticity, published an article in Biblical Archaeology Review detailing mistakes in what he called a "badly bungled" investigation by the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The response was immediate. Uzi Dahari, deputy director of the Antiquities Authority, dismissed Shanks as "totally crazy" and his claims as "pathetic." Dahari denounced ossuary owner Oded Golan as a "scoundrel" and a career criminal who lives off the proceeds of doctored artifacts.

All this has left the box trapped, perhaps forever, in historic limbo - revered by many believers as the onetime repository for the remains of Jesus' brother, James, even as skeptics revile the ossuary as an attempt to deceive biblical history.
Here again we see believers desperate to authenticate the James Ossuary... with no awareness that it is part of a "set" and that a new installment of the story was eventually to be unveiled, hoisting them on their own petard.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2003/06/18/ossuary030618.html
James ossuary a fake, experts declare
Last Updated: Thursday, July 3, 2003 | 1:36 PM ET
CBC News
A limestone box that was supposed to have held the bones of the brother of Jesus is a fake, Israel's Antiquities Authority said Wednesday.

The so-called James ossuary, which was on display in Toronto late last year, bears the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

Some scholars called it the oldest archeological link to New Testament figures, but Israeli authorities called the inscription a forgery.

"The ossuary probably is real, the inscription is a fake," said Shuka Dorfmann, with Israel's Antiquities Authority. [...]
So, we see that the Christians were determined to prove it true because they thought it proved that Jesus existed. Of course, having the bones of James is one thing, having the bones of Jesus and a wife and child would be quite another!

At the same time, we see that the Jews were definitely opposed to the authenticity of the item because, naturally, it would prove the authenticity of the Jesus legend... which would make them look bad.

So, what to do?

Well, of course! If you have James' Ossuary, why not have the whole family! That way you can give the Christians what they are demanding and then some!

So, with the wide media coverage, and the information about the James Ossuary, including the determination of experts that it is part real and part fake, it begins to look like a whole cloth Zionist fraud.
 
Dant said:
but... to use the above statement as definitive proof supporting your claim, I digress. wink
You are right of course Dant. Yet, there is not any evidence from what i read in this thread that supports the claims that the tombs found are Jesus' family's. How do we know that Jesus was actually named Jesus? Or he had a brother? whose name was James.

Actually the C's had something interesting to say on this:

950105
Q: (L) The other night when we were talking about Jesus, I asked if there was any historical person we knew who resembled him and said you were scanning.
A: No.
Q: (L) What was Jesus actual name?
A: Jesinavarah.
980530
Q: I have several questions: I have been corresponding with a woman on the web on the subject of Jesus. I noted in re-reading the transcripts on the subject
that you had said he lived 'near' Palestine and that the Bible was not entirely accurate. Where, precisely, did this person who came to be known as Jesus live?
A: Aramaia.
Q: Where is that?
A: In what is now Lebanon.
Q: His name was Jesinavarah, as you said before. During his lifetime, did he have a large following?
A: Towards the end, and after.
Q: You said that he was not crucified, that he was taken up into a ship on a beam of light - at what age did this happen?
A: Age is not measured.
Q: At that time, according to our measurement, how many years did he spend on the earth plane before he was taken up in this beam of light?
A: 43.
Q: Okay, when he was taken up in this beam of light, where did this event occur?
A: The Sea of Galilee. [Note: name of Galilee and possible relation to Gaul?]
Q: On the shore?
A: Yes.
Q: You said he had children by three Roman women and he also had a wife?
A: Close enough.
Q: Did he have a twin?
A: No.
Q: Was Judas Iscariot his brother?
A: No.
Q: Did he have a brother named Jude or Judas?
A: No.
Q: Did he have brothers and sisters?
A: No.
Q: Is any part of the nativity story true?
A: Slight.
and this one, which was timewise between the previous two:

980418
(L) I was reading some blurbs about Jesus on a mailing list. There are a lot of different ideas flying around. I realize that, in an earlier session, we asked about Jesus and you gave us a particular set of answers. I also know that you gave us a 'noise to signal' ratio about the accuracy of the information and how this relates to free will, and the problems of interference from various persons who are present have all been addressed. So, all things being considered, when we originally asked the questions about Jesus, I had the feeling that there was a lot of emotion weighing on those answers. Is that correct?
A: Maybe.
Q: Were the answers and information given about Jesus accurate?
A: Mostly.
Q: So, you are saying that a man named Jesinavarah lived in Palestine at about that period, was a teacher, achieved Christhood, and was taken up into a UFO and is in another dimensional time warp doing some kind of work... is that the case?
A: Yes. Replicated consciousness.
Q: And you also said something about Christ returning. Is that also true?
A: Discover.
Q: Was there anything about what was previously said about Jesus that was glaringly inaccurate?
A: Not glaringly, just naturally.
Q: Okay. You said that he was taken up and is doing this replicating. All these other people are saying that he went here and there and is buried here or there. Is any of this true?
A: No.
Q: Who is responsible for these stories? Some of them are quite old.
A: Many.
Q: What is the purpose of these stories?
A: Mixed.
Q: Is there any particular group of people that is seeking to obfuscate or confuse this issue?
A: Maybe.
Q: Who might that be?
A: Telltale signs lead you to the signpost.
Q: So, this could be a positive thing?
A: Partly.
Not that we should take what the C's say for granted, but there is not enough data/evidence to go contrary to C's claim so far, even if there is not very much to support it i think. But there'll be second coming, so we can ask directly i guess :P
 
That James Cameron did this says a lot. The guy seems at best a narcissist. I found no evidence that says this find is as they say but it sets up a convienent situation where, exodous is real and the resurrection is fake. We know both old and new testaments are loaded with lies, but threads of the gnostic tradition can be found in the NT. Then there is the jews are the only legitimate followers of god, the chosen ones meme. Christians wont' take it lightly. If this gets serious play, I can see a greater eruption of religious violence with christians and jews against muslims as well as christians against jews. It is then that the world will be ripe for the new age savior.

The second article in my post has scholarly books written of the find. Maybe it will be found to be a fraud too.
 
After reading the links provided by Laura about the "James" Ossuary, I'd like to make a few observations to see if I've missed something.

1) The "James" Ossuary has been identified to have been from the right period. The name "James" appears on it, but the reference to "Brother of Jesus" part of the inscription has been shown to have been added recently (and forged with fake patina using chalk). The first part of the inscription "James Son of Joseph" (translated as Jacob son of Joseph) looks to be authentic. So we have an Ossuary with the names of James, son of Joseph. No evidence to support that it is the same Joseph that is said to be the father of Jesus.

2) A tomb containing a number of Ossuaries have been found with a number of names on them with inscriptions written in different languages. In the articles on those ossuaries, the scientific analysis presented are:

a) the patina from the "Jesus Family" ossuaries matched the patina from the "James" ossuary. We have to infer here that they mean from the entire box, and not only the inscription, or at least not the "fake" patina from the "James" forged inscription part. That's an open question.

b) The DNA evidence only confirms that the man in the "Jesus" box was not related to the woman in the "Mary" box.

c) Some statistical analysis of a combination of names in one place with an historical assumption that this was a tomb that housed the same family. (The statistical combination of names is based, I might add, on historical "understanding" of name frequency of 2000 years ago, probably from the only surviving texts available).


No bones were in the "James" Ossuary, so no DNA testing is possible.


So the link to the "James" Ossuary is essentially meaningless, except to say that the boxes are from the same period (with the caveat that the patina was sampled from non-forged parts of the box).

There's no mention of DNA testing of the "Judah" person, indicating if there is a DNA link between the "Jesus" man and "Mary" woman.

There is an inference that since the name "Mary" appears on the female Ossuary, that it was Mary Magdalene, and not some other "Mary".

Another inference is that this is a family, since they were all in the same tomb. (That is pretty fair, but certainly not conclusive).


Did I miss anything?


BTW, I have no vested interest in this find being authentic or not. I have never been religious, albeit semi-raised as a Catholic, only as to not stand out in the community. (At age 13, I asked my Dad if I still had to go to Church. He asked "Why?". My response was: "Are these people paying attention?" He smiled, nodded, and said "No, we don't have to go, but keep watching". )

I certainly am interested in where this dog and pony show is going, though. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom