Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Beleg_Strongbow · 04-12-2004, 02:35 PM

There was this show on Discovery channel last night, I wonder if any of you caught it. Apparently, they found this bone box, and on it was inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" They put it through all of these tests, and concluded that it was authentic, not a forgery, etc. Now they're saying it's conclusive proof for that Jesus existed. For those who caught it, what do you think of this?

Christopher Fox · 04-12-2004, 02:44 PM

That's interesting. A similar documentary programme was shown in the UK a couple of months ago, and in this show the box was shown to be a forgery!

I think this was based on the assertion that some of the forms of lettering found on the side of the coffin did not begin to be used until somewhat later in History.

I wonder why your documentary found it to be genuine

Chris

Toto · 04-12-2004, 02:45 PM

That's a repeat, and very out of date. Since that show was first aired about a year ago, the bone box has been declared to be a forgery by the government of Israel. The "owner" of the box, Oded Golan, has been arrested and indictments are rumored to be forthcoming.

Go to the Biblical Criticism and History forum and search for "Ossuary."

Christopher Fox · 04-12-2004, 02:48 PM

Thanks Toto. I'll do that.

funinspace · 04-12-2004, 02:50 PM

TV is mostly about ratings and $$. Check out this Xian site of archeology:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/...ees_report.htm

Here's one quote:

Quote:

In summary, the different handwritings of the two parts indicate that the inscription is not authentic, although the original ossuary may possibly have contained the first part of the inscription, the second part was added later. Based on the depth of the letters, I am uncertain of even this possibility, and it seems more likely to me that the forger wrote the inscription in two stages.

There are a half dozen different reports on this site as well covering the subject. They seem to pretty much agree, it's a forgery.

DK

Beleg_Strongbow · 04-12-2004, 03:49 PM

Weird. The discovery channel advertised it in advance, and didn't mention that it was an old rerun. Don't you think they should have mentioned how the case turned out?

Quote:

In summary, the different handwritings of the two parts indicate that the inscription is not authentic, although the original ossuary may possibly have contained the first part of the inscription, the second part was added later. Based on the depth of the letters, I am uncertain of even this possibility, and it seems more likely to me that the forger wrote the inscription in two stages.

This was mentioned in the special, but they called in a bunch of "experts" who said this wasn't the case, and they did a special test which supposedly proved that the words were inscribed 2000 years ago. Anyone know what happened?

Toto · 04-12-2004, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beleg_Strongbow

Weird. The discovery channel advertised it in advance, and didn't mention that it was an old rerun. Don't you think they should have mentioned how the case turned out?

Yup. But Hershel Shanks, the lawyer who runs BAR, still wants to keep the possibility open that it is not a fraud. He has few defenders.

The April 12 issue of the New Yorker has an article about the whole thing.

Quote:

This was mentioned in the special, but they called in a bunch of "experts" who said this wasn't the case, and they did a special test which supposedly proved that the words were inscribed 2000 years ago. Anyone know what happened?

The tests that had been done at that point were not as good as the later tests. Bibleinterp has some good articles, or search on BCH.

mrmoderate · 04-12-2004, 04:05 PM

For the best up to date info on the Joseph ossuary read Biblical Archaeology Review or go to their website (I don't know what it is off hand.)

The main reason for the ossuary having been deemed a forgery is because it came from the antiquities market rather than from a government sponsored dig. In other words, we don't know who has had access to it.

There are no conclusive tests to give reason to believe the ossuary is a forgery. Actually, no one is contesting the time of the ossuaries manufacturing. What is being contested is some of the lettering which has a different patena coating on it. Experts who are rejecting this lettering have admitted that the difference could very well be a result of someone attempting to clean that section of writing.

Even if the ossuary and it's lettering are dated at the time of Jesus the Christ, the names on the ossuary are so common that there is still only a 20% probabiltiy that the name Jesus refers to "the" Jesus. If you add in the factor that only a famous brothers name would be included in the inscription the percentage goes to 80+% that the inscription refers to Jesus the Christ.

Toto · 04-12-2004, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmoderate

. . .
Experts who are rejecting this lettering have admitted that the difference could very well be a result of someone attempting to clean that section of writing.
. . .

This is just Shanks' pathetic attempt to save his reputation. None of the experts who testify in favor of a modern forgery think that the problems with the patina could have been caused by simple cleaning.

The tests using oxygen isotopes (a test that the forger did not forsee would be used) pretty clearly indicate that someone forged the inscription and covered it with a patina of modern manufacture.

greenbear · 04-12-2004, 10:18 PM

The ossuary is a fraud. The owner of the ossuary is a know antiquities forger but the concrete evidence comes from scientific analysis of the ossuary. Forget Biblical Archaeology Magazine as a credible source as they have an unsavory reputation in the world of Archaeology as promoters of fraudulent relics and slipshod reportage. Instead go to Archaeology Magazine's website. Search for articles concerning the ossuary and Herschel Shanks.

04-12-2004, 02:35 PM	#1
Beleg_Strongbow Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada Posts: 233	James, Brother of Jesus There was this show on Discovery channel last night, I wonder if any of you caught it. Apparently, they found this bone box, and on it was inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" They put it through all of these tests, and concluded that it was authentic, not a forgery, etc. Now they're saying it's conclusive proof for that Jesus existed. For those who caught it, what do you think of this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-12-2004, 02:44 PM	#2
Christopher Fox Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: England Posts: 22	That's interesting. A similar documentary programme was shown in the UK a couple of months ago, and in this show the box was shown to be a forgery! I think this was based on the assertion that some of the forms of lettering found on the side of the coffin did not begin to be used until somewhat later in History. I wonder why your documentary found it to be genuine Chris

04-12-2004, 02:45 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	That's a repeat, and very out of date. Since that show was first aired about a year ago, the bone box has been declared to be a forgery by the government of Israel. The "owner" of the box, Oded Golan, has been arrested and indictments are rumored to be forthcoming. Go to the Biblical Criticism and History forum and search for "Ossuary."

04-12-2004, 02:48 PM	#4
Christopher Fox Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: England Posts: 22	Thanks Toto. I'll do that.

04-12-2004, 04:05 PM	#8
mrmoderate Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Baltimore/DC area Posts: 1,306	For the best up to date info on the Joseph ossuary read Biblical Archaeology Review or go to their website (I don't know what it is off hand.) The main reason for the ossuary having been deemed a forgery is because it came from the antiquities market rather than from a government sponsored dig. In other words, we don't know who has had access to it. There are no conclusive tests to give reason to believe the ossuary is a forgery. Actually, no one is contesting the time of the ossuaries manufacturing. What is being contested is some of the lettering which has a different patena coating on it. Experts who are rejecting this lettering have admitted that the difference could very well be a result of someone attempting to clean that section of writing. Even if the ossuary and it's lettering are dated at the time of Jesus the Christ, the names on the ossuary are so common that there is still only a 20% probabiltiy that the name Jesus refers to "the" Jesus. If you add in the factor that only a famous brothers name would be included in the inscription the percentage goes to 80+% that the inscription refers to Jesus the Christ.

04-12-2004, 10:18 PM	#10
greenbear Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Six Flags Posts: 906	The ossuary is a fraud. The owner of the ossuary is a know antiquities forger but the concrete evidence comes from scientific analysis of the ossuary. Forget Biblical Archaeology Magazine as a credible source as they have an unsavory reputation in the world of Archaeology as promoters of fraudulent relics and slipshod reportage. Instead go to Archaeology Magazine's website. Search for articles concerning the ossuary and Herschel Shanks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.