New book on the fake James Ossuary

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaptainQuasar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book
AI Thread Summary
In 2002, an ossuary inscribed with "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" was presented as the first archaeological evidence of Jesus Christ's existence. However, by the end of 2004, the antiquities expert who discovered the ossuary faced charges of fraud and forgery in an Israeli court. The ensuing investigation revealed significant evidence of forgery, including tools and materials for creating fake artifacts found in the expert's home. Despite this, the trial has faced challenges, with expert testimonies conflicting and raising questions about the prosecution's ability to definitively prove the ossuary and other artifacts, like the Jehoash Tablet, were fakes. The complexities of proving the authenticity of such controversial artifacts in a Jewish state add another layer to the legal proceedings.
CaptainQuasar
Messages
372
Reaction score
0
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1850111,00.html" by Nina Burleigh
https://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/m1FJYKFB8C4V18"&tag=pfamazon01-20

In 2002 an ossuary (sort of coffin) with an inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" was unveiled as the first archaeological evidence of the existence of the Christ of Christianity.

At the end of 2004 the antiquities specialist who "found" the ossuary was charged with fraud, forgery, and other crimes by an Israeli court. The book documents the sleuthing that tracked down evidence of the forgery and disproved its authenticity.

BBC documentary on the Jehoash Tablet, one of the other artifacts faked by this group: http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=8xlBI8ENkqk"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Good to know. I remember watching some Dateline show on it awhile back.
 
so was the trial held because they had evidence, or because such an artifact creates so much controversy in a jewish state?
 
Watching the video it sure seemed to me as if they had evidence. When they searched the guy's house he had all sorts of tools and materials for manufacturing fake artifacts as well as many half-made artifacts. And they showed experts who seemed to be able to explain exactly how he would have made the tablet and the ossuary using those materials.

But that latest story cites the judge saying something about how the different experts who testified disagreed with one another, so maybe it's a matter of that and not having specific evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt (or whatever the equivalent Israeli judicial standard is) of how those two specific artifacts would have been faked.
⚛​
 
thing is, i think it's likely such people would deal in both real artifacts and fakes. and that brings the prosecution back around to needing to prove that this very artifact is a fake.
 
I watched the documentary on this being a fake a few years ago.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top