First contemporary evidence of the central figure in Christianity??

In 2002, archaeologists discovered an ancient limestone bone box known as an ossuary. On one side of the box was an inscription which read 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus'. Estimated to date from 63 AD, it is potentially the very first contemporary evidence of the central figure in Christianity.

The programme follows Dr Andre Lemaire, one of the world's leading epigraphers (a specialist in ancient inscriptions) as he tests the 20 inch long box, commonly used during the time to hold human remains. Analysis of the limestone, the patina and shape of the lettering and the soil reveals no trace of modern elements that lead experts to conclude the box might well be authentic.

Full program Brother of Jesus was on from Sunday 19th December, 21.00 GMT on Discovery Civilisation.

Hoax? Real? Are we allowed to know?

I understood that numerous evidence to the existence of the historical figure of Jesus has already been uncovered, on what basis would this be the first contemporary evidence?

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Amarillo_Brice]

It was a hoax to make money and even some museums fell for it, they even found the workshop with tools that were used to alter the relics.

Sorry but it was a hoax, and it not first time it has been done, is very easy to play with the faith of believers.

Sad but true.

Originally posted by Bondi
In 2002, archaeologists discovered an ancient limestone bone box known as an ossuary. On one side of the box was an inscription which read 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus'.

Its been found to be a fraud. Moreover, the guy who presented it sold many items to many museums and many of them are beleived to be frauds. Its not even know exactly which ones he sold are which.

amarillo brice
Numerous evidence to the existence of the historical figure of Jesus has already been uncovered

When, where?

Yep, there was an excellent writeup in an Archeology mag a while back... Look for the "James Ossuary". It was an excellent hoax, and fooled many biblical scholars and museums before the forgery became evident.

Interestingly enough, one should remember that "Jesus" was more of a title than a name, so this should have been the scholars' first clue... Oh well...bottom line, it is an exposed hoax.

Originally posted by Amarillo_Brice
Numerous evidence to the existence of the historical figure of Jesus has already been uncovered, on what basis would this be the first contemporary evidence?

I was on about the program, that is how they advertised it, it wasn't my opinion on the evidence

I understand bondi, I watched the program with my husband, but I knew before that from other sources, see that particular relic has been around for quite some time, but it wasn't until recent that it was oficially proven a hoax even when some were claiming to be a hoax even earlier that it was.

I have the feeling that most of the real relics are hidden on illegal private collections and we probably will never find out about them.

Originally posted by Bondi

Originally posted by Amarillo_Brice
Numerous evidence to the existence of the historical figure of Jesus has already been uncovered, on what basis would this be the first contemporary evidence?

I was on about the program, that is how they advertised it, it wasn't my opinion on the evidence

Yeah, I got that, don't worry, I wasn't questioning you or casting aspersions, just raising the question in general.

Originally posted by Nygdan

amarillo brice
Numerous evidence to the existence of the historical figure of Jesus has already been uncovered

When, where?

Sorry, should've been an "I understand", or an "allegedly" in that. I have a book somewhere on the subject that is most compelling, but until I can remember what it's called or where it is this'll have to do, with much credit and refernces to Dan Berger of Bluffton University, who can explain better than I. Note I said evidence, not proof, and I agree that there are flaws in some of the outlined cases.

There is plenty of historical evidence, from a variety of sources, that Jesus existed. No one who takes the trouble to familiarize herself with the evidence can doubt it. The "Enlightenment" position that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth, itinerant Jewish preacher, is quite dead.

To see that in it's entirety, along with the actual evidence itself visit www.madsci.org...

The below culled from the 'Real in History' section of www.jesusisreal.org... , a site that is a tad too biased for my tastes, but is better than nothing. PLease follow the link in order to view the entirety of the evidence.

Recent archaeological discoveries from the distant past ....

Abraham�s home city
Joseph, Abraham�s great grandson, rules Egypt
The Red Sea crossing and the remains of Pharaoh�s army!
The mountain of God (Mt. Sinai), and Israel�s camp, in Saudi Arabia!
Conquest of Jericho
Seal of King Jeraboam
The scroll of Isaiah
Archaeological and historical evidence from Jesus� time ....

Accuracy of names, places and dates in the gospels
Ports of Galilee revealed
Pontius Pilate�s inscription
A coin like that shown by Jesus to the Pharisees
Jesus� prophecy about the temple
Darkness over the Middle East at time of Jesus� death
Excavation at Calvary (start here)
> The Crucifixion Site
> Jesus' Tomb
> The Ark of the Covenant
Early dates for the writing of the gospels
Testimony of the Talmud - Strange events at the temple between Jesus' death and the destruction of Jerusalem 40 years later.
Witnesses of Jesus� resurrection - The apostles gave their lives for what they knew to be true
The Ultimate Physical Evidence? - Thorough examination of the Shroud of Turin, with extraordinary new evidence that solves the dating problem and points to its authenticity.

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Amarillo_Brice]

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Amarillo_Brice]

Originally posted by marg6043
I have the feeling that most of the real relics are hidden on illegal private collections and we probably will never find out about them.

That would be in the vatican then

No seriously, I am well aware of the hoax, which is why I put the last sentence into my post. I was most interested in the last bit, would we be allowed to know?

I have often felt that the governing bodies of religion censor and only let out what benefits what they teach. For a popular example look at the Gospel of St Thomas, if they said yer that is the word of Christ, people would stop going to church, would put a bit of a dent in their pocket. This has been covered befored, to which i posted a similar comment.

Are our religions to censored, are we allowed to know all, is more of what I was asking.

Becoming more inclined to post messages a chimp would understand for the amount of time people get the wrong idea

Alot seem too concerned with debunking and arguing to read the posts entirely.

Originally posted by Bondi

Becoming more inclined to post messages a chimp would understand for the amount of time people get the wrong idea

Alot seem too concerned with debunking and arguing to read the posts entirely.

Was that directed at me? Because if so that wasn't my intention, I was merely raising a question with the show itself, not with you, and if not sorry for taking up room.

Hoax or otherwise, proof positive, maybe not. Its for you to decide if there was a touch of truth on what has been written to discribe a higher power. What is it for you, or me, to question there is more to realize in this universe, then ourselfs... We choose to ignore that simple factor. But we can't see it as a result of our ongoing Wars.. to destroy ourselfs takes more energy with regret, then it does to do right and give life... Maybe there was one person that was trying to tell us that, you make the call as to who that might be for you... I know my first choice!

Originally posted by Amarillo_Brice
Was that directed at me? Because if so that wasn't my intention, I was merely raising a question with the show itself, not with you, and if not sorry for taking up room.

No it wasn't , this is not a forum I usually post in so forgot to mention it wasn't directed at anyone, more of a general aspertion. I get a lot of conflict in the Secret Society forums and am known not to retaliate or direct any ill thought towards anyone in particular. Sorry for the worry.

Did you see the show? although obviously not as you wouldn't of needed to ask the question. I never saw it myself, I just happened to come across it whilst looking into another program, marg6043 may be able to shed some light, or provide a link, to the evidence used in the show.

Are our religions to censored, are we allowed to know all, is more of what I was asking.

Look at the books excluded from the Bible. Look at the changes through the Bible throughout history. And this is just considering one religion. You'll see the answer is a resounding NO.

Interestingly enough, this is even STATED somewhat in the Bible, in Genesis in fact, when God commands Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge (before they so cleverly changed this to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). Originally, this story was basically saying in essence, "all you need to know I (the church) will teach you...do not seek knowledge on your own".

Originally posted by Gazrok
Look at the books excluded from the Bible. Look at the changes through the Bible throughout history. And this is just considering one religion. You'll see the answer is a resounding NO.

Why were they excluded, and who decided they should be excluded?

And I presume by one of the religions you mean Christianity?

I don't know much about religion, they all seem the same in essence to me, just with different figure heads so I apologies if the questions seem daft

Originally posted by Gazrok
Interestingly enough, this is even STATED somewhat in the Bible, in Genesis in fact, when God commands Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge (before they so cleverly changed this to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). Originally, this story was basically saying in essence, "all you need to know I (the church) will teach you...

Didn't realise there was a church at the time of Genesis, thought they only came about in AD times, well the church as we see it today anyway ?

Didn't think the bible was about then either, but both are relied on heavily for the Christian faith ?

Originally posted by Gazrok
do not seek knowledge on your own".

Okay now this may sound stupid, but why would someone all powerful and all knowing, that is the Christian perspective of God isn't it?, create something with the ability to do something and then forbid them to use it, ie the mind.

How can anyone find faith in scripture if they cannot think for themselves? There was no definition to terms and no basic instruction in any of it, isn't it all down to interpretation? if it is I don't think I would trust anyone to tell me what it means with so much riding on getting it right, but again that would all depend on me believing in that particular faith and book wouldn't it.

Do you think that you know all you can about Christianity, again I presume this is your faith, and that all things Christian are available to you?

Personally, I believe that the james ossuary inscription that includes the word "Jesus" is a fake. Here's a few things to consider, both pro and con.


The chest or box itself is almost universally seen as having been created at or near the 1st century CE. (The argument is whether the inscription was added later, and if so, HOW much later.)

The evidence has been altered once that we know of. The museum that had planned to display it in Canada shipped it in an improper container, without any padding, and it arrived in Canada in at least 2 large pieces.

The Israel Antiquities Authority formed a panel of 14 scientists, who ultimately ruled that the object was altered, by adding the phrase "the brother of Jesus" to the inscription. Although the commitee released its summary two years ago, the full report has not yet been published. One member of the committee called a press conference and officially changed his opinion, deciding that the whole inscription is genuine.

The find came from a private collector. This in itself is extremely suspicious. First, it means that the object has little value from an archaeological standpoint, since we don't have it's provenance (When and where it was found).

The private collector is in a sticky wicket, since if it is genuine, and was acquired after about 1978, then he has committed a major crime in Israel by withholding it from the community of scholars. Presumeably, if the collector knows the provenance, he won't give the info to the public, since it could indicate whether or not he has committed a crime.

The patina of oxidized stone in the inscription is different from that of the circular lily/star of david motifs on the side of the box. Does different mean older/ younger, or merely that the box was sticking out of the dirt for the first thousand years it sat in a cave????

BAR magazine has used the issue to question the way archaeologists arrive at consensus. Last year they offered a 10,000$ prize to the university team that submitted the "best fake." (one of the best ways to disprove a forgery is to show how it was accomplished.) There is some question about at least one of the entries. Some have accused the winning team of submitting a GENUINE artefact in order to get the prize . . .


Basically, I personally have no way of knowing whether the James ossuary has a forged ammendment to its inscription. The fact is, since we don't have provenance, the artefact doesn't tell us anything valuable, even if genuine.

In other words: Real? Fake? ---Neither; it's irrelevant from a scientific standpoint.

Originally posted by Amarillo_Brice
To see that in it's entirety, along with the actual evidence itself visit www.madsci.org...

The below culled from the 'Real in History' section of www.jesusisreal.org... , a site that is a tad too biased for my tastes, but is better than nothing. PLease follow the link in order to view the entirety of the evidence.

I'll have to take a look at it, thanks.

bondi
For a popular example look at the Gospel of St Thomas, if they said yer that is the word of Christ, people would stop going to church

But that gospel was thought to have be written long after the early christian period no? They didn't just reject it because it was 'dangerous' to them, they rejected it because it doesn't stand as an ancient document, as far as I understand it anyway. What evidence suggests that the gospel is authentic?

Originally posted by Nygdan

But that gospel was thought to have be written long after the early christian period no? They didn't just reject it because it was 'dangerous' to them, they rejected it because it doesn't stand as an ancient document, as far as I understand it anyway. What evidence suggests that the gospel is authentic?

Too be honest I couldn't tell you, as I stated earlier religion is an overly strong subject of mine, but saying that I don't believe the bible was written until a while after it's events either

The Thomas Gospel is contemporary with the canonicals maybe even a bit older.
as i recall The Jesus seminar has established dates for them all. at least circa dates.

Yeah, well the Jesus Seminar lost a lot of credibility with most Q scholars when they claimed a date earlier than 200 AD for the Gospel of Thomas. Most leading Q scholars, ie. Kloppenborg, stress that Thomas is NOT Q, and was written sometime after Luke was completed. Certainly, the sayings in Thomas are earlier than 200, but any date before the oldest manuscript is speculation, rather than conclusion based on evidence.