Talk:James Ossuary

message: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/374068.html has some updates --Zero 04:08, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: Even if this was a real artefact would the text: James, son of Jospeh, brother of Jesus proof that the Messiah existed? Jesus wasn't an uncommon in that time (same of Jospeh and James) so it might have been any James, son of a Joseph, brother of a Jesus.
I still hope they will found proof of Jesus' existence but how much proof can be left of one man's existence after 2000 years.
Jorgenpfhartogs 01:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof or not?

message: of course the Israelis would deny anything like this being real, If they said it was real then they would have to officially admit the existence of Jesus, and wouldn't that cause more controversy?--Tomtom 18:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel's best interest

message: National geographic has quoted Ed Keall, director of the Near Eastern and Ancient Civilization department of the Royal Ontario Museum.
"We looked over the box very carefully, and subjected it to analytical testing using a light polarizing microscope, ultraviolet light, a microscope with 60 times the magnification, and electron microscopy,"
"I'm very comfortable saying that the ossuary itself and the inscription are totally genuine and everything we found was consistent with considerable age. It's obvious someone had scrubbed the James part of the inscription," said Keall. "But it's like when you brush your teeth, no matter how hard you try to do a good job, there are always bits and pieces left. And that's true with the inscription; there are still bits and pieces left in the nooks and crannies, and they are consistent with the rest of the encrustation."
Sorry I'm new here, but, why does the Wikipedia article omit findings by the Royal Ontario Museum?
Jesus' Brother's "Bone Box" Closer to Being Authenticated - National Geographic News
April 18, 2003 article by Hillary Mayell
Tfavelle (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? Findings by Canadians not good enough for you? 

message: The transliteration reads "Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua". This is translated as "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Wouldn't this be better translated as "Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Joshua."66.205.213.38 (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a good point.  As it stands the translation uses the standard English translation practice that is made with regard to Yeshua: when it is the name of anybody in the Bible except Jesus Christ (central character of Christianity) it is translated as Joshua, but when it refers to the central character of Christianity it is translated as Jesus. The English name, Jesus, is derived from the Latin version of the Greek name for Yeshua. If a way of explaining this concisely can be found (assuming I am right of course) I would favor adding an explanation of this to the article. Otherwise, the translation as it stands is consistent with the standard method of translating Yeshua into English and is arguably the correct one. --Davefoc (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Per WP:DUE, I think we should open with the translation found in most reliable sources, which is James/Jesus. Our own preference doesn't matter. If a reliable source for the Jacob/Joshua rendering can be found, we can note that some authors prefer it, and explain why. Brackets without an explanation that they're the same name in Aramaic would probably confuse readers. KateWishing (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Just adding my two cents in after reading the posts. It seems that a generic "Yaakov is Jacob" source would be inadequate, as this is not an article on the name Yaakov, it is about this particular artifact. So a source that says something in the context of the James ossuary would seem to me to be more appropriate. Vyselink (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation? 

message: History 2007 removed this sentence from the lede:
" The IAA determination has not been universally accepted by scholars."
I think it is very likely that that the inscription on the James Ossuary is a forgery and I support most of the changes in the article that have begun to show what I think is the strong scholarly consensus that the inscription is a forgery. In the past, IMO, the article has placed too much emphasis on the opinions of a few scholars, which as far as I could determine have both not published anything on the James Ossuary in peer reviewed journals and which have all written articles published in the Biblical Archeology Review, a magazine that has a vested interest in promoting the biblical aspect of archeology.
However, I did not agree with History2007's edit in this case. In fact, there are scholars that don't agree with the IAA findings and they are referred to in the article itself. As such, since the lede serves primarily as a summary of the article it is not necessary to duplicate the references which document the opinions of these scholars. All that is necessary is that the sentence be representative of the content of the article and it was. --Davefoc (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History2007's removal of sentence claiming that not all scholars accept the IAA findings 

message: First paragraph: "According to the Los Angeles Times, most scholars hold the last part of the inscription to be a forgery.[2]" .... The article is an op-ed written by a "fourth generation atheist" (according to the Wikipedia entry for the author, Nina Burleigh). It is clear that she sides with the idea that the inscription is forged. But even she doesn't claim what this Wikipedia states using her article as a reference. She presents no evidence or statement about what "most scholars" believe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.137.223 (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the opinion of one person is not enough to make such a bold claim, so I have removed the citation. I will look to see if there is a good summary of the scholarly opinions of the ossuary. Teemu08 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  LA Times article misrepresented 

message: Are categorizations of this article among "Hoaxes in Israel" and "2002 hoaxes" compatible with Wikipedia's insistence on neutral point of view (NPOV)? Controversy, yes. Disagreement, yes. But a "hoax"? At that point Wikipedia seems to step outside NPOV and to proceed into original research where an encyclopedia becomes judge, jury, jailhouse keeper, and executioner. Rammer (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorizations 

message: The source clearly states (if you've read the source) that the patina is authentic which doesn't prove either way it should be added that Jesus(the real one) does not exist all it saying is that the inscription is authentic irrespective of belief READ the paper.Also it should be added (not that you would of known )other such artifact have been discovered they themselves have been confirmed as authentic using with the same method used(such as the Caiaphas Ossuary for example) by the Israel Antiquities Authority.If you can come up with a better method (such as MAGIC for example) then I would be prepared to listen my suggestion is that you go away and look for something else to criticize and stop wasting serious thinkers time Richardlord50 (talk)
:Yes, I've read the source. It's open access and can be found [ here]. It clearly states that the findings "strengthen the contention that the ossuary and its engravings are authentic," consistent with my revision, not yours. It does not "confirm" the authenticity any more than the previous studies "disproved" it. Apart from that inaccuracy, your version uses more words to say less. My version explains exactly why the study supports (not confirms) authenticity. You've jumbled some words together in something vaguely resembling an English sentence and left the reader with the impression that the scientists used their science tools to magically confirm authenticity. The presence of microfossils and "biological indicators" alone does not support authenticity. Other studies cited the microfossils to argue against authenticity. The key point of the study is that the microfossils seemed naturally deposited. KateWishing (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the source, I agree with the wording of KateWishing. The source clearly states that their research and findings "strengthen the contention" that the ossuary is authentic, it does not definitively state that there can be no further argument. The wording by Richardlord50 is clunky and incorrect. Vyselink (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Authenticity: 2014 study

message: For one familiar with the Epistle of James, it is fairly obvious that this is a forgery, at least once the suspicion is raised.  James does not mention Jesus in a single verse of the epistle.  His survivors would have acted out of character, had they included ″brother of Jesus" as his identification.  It would have been like they were thinking 2,000 years ahead, make sure the antiquarians know what they got in their hands. hgwb (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually he does refer to Jesus by name in chapter 2, verse 1. But this does not affect that the ossuary inscription is out of character. hgwb (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Character 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on James Ossuary. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/“brother-of-jesus”-proved-ancient-and-authentic/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on James Ossuary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110907100357/http://www.bib-arch.org/news/forgery-trial-news.asp to http://www.bib-arch.org/news/forgery-trial-news.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/%E2%80%9Cbrother-of-jesus%E2%80%9D-proved-ancient-and-authentic/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on James Ossuary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126132703/http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/05/judge-considers-verdict-in-5-year-long-jesus-forgery-trial/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/05/judge-considers-verdict-in-5-year-long-jesus-forgery-trial/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on James Ossuary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206120932/http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_Krumbeinsummary.asp to http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_krumbeinsummary.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616224241/http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/%E2%80%9Cbrother-of-jesus%E2%80%9D-proved-ancient-and-authentic/ to http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/%E2%80%9Cbrother-of-jesus%E2%80%9D-proved-ancient-and-authentic/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723233353/http://lnx.orientalisti.net/contributipubblicazioni/ioash to http://lnx.orientalisti.net/contributipubblicazioni/ioash/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090818045625/http://www.bib-arch.org/debates/antiquities-trial-00.asp to http://www.bib-arch.org/debates/antiquities-trial-00.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202153724/http://bibleinterp.com/articles/Chadwick_Indications.htm to http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chadwick_Indications.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have recently noted that the 2014 study supporting the authenticity of the Ossuary was published in Open Journal of Geology (OJoG), whose publisher Scientific Research Publishing is considered predatory according to our Wiki article. My question is whether this is reason that the study should be removed from the article altogether, or whether it should remain but the reader should be warned that the study is probably unreliable. What are other editors' opinions? Potatín5 (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that the study in question was originally published in a 2013 edited volume (see here). Given that, I think we should remove the source from the predatory journal and add the original, this time truly peer-reviewed publication of the original study. Potatín5 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predatory Publisher