Talk:James Ossuary

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

Professor Krumbein's Analysis
Ben Witherington recently reported on his journal that "Professor Wolfgang E. Krumbein, a world-renowned authority...has reached startling conclusions that will change the debate over this highly controversial artifact." Read the copy of the report on his journal here. -- Hairouna

Proof or not?
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)


 * Well, evidence anyway. The PBS show I saw back in 2002 calculated the probability of a man dieing during the time ossuaries were in use that would have been named James, and would have had a father named Joseph and a big shot brother named Jesus important enough to be mentioned on the ossuary.  Pretty slim actually.  Of course the question of Messiah don't come into it. Tobor8 05:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel's best interest
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)
 * Actually, to my knowledge, Judaic tradition holds that Jesus existed. They merely argue that he was not in fact the Messiah. Technogeek 20:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, the following has been delete, though not by me: "Some people still refused to believe the conclusion. 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." --11:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The final section of this article on the Ted Koppel critical look documentary is incredibly one-sided. Good points were made on both sides of that discussion, and this article only represents one side with no attempt to even mention the other side. For example:

1) I'm not sure the film ever suggested that they "must" be husband and wife, and it was a fact that the quote used from the forensic archaeologist in the film was a quote. That's the nature of film: he was on video saying husband and wife was a possibility, and it in fact is.

2) While the crime lab said the patinas of the two ossuaries were not a "match" in a technical sense of "match," they did say they were consistent, which provides evidence that they are from the same tomb. It doesn't prove this, but it does provide evidence.

3) While Kloner says he doesn't remember the 10th ossuary as having inscriptions, there are no photographs of the ossuary and it was not obvious to anyone involved that it went missing when they cataloged them, so I'm not sure we can conclude with the certainty that this biased report uses that Kloner must be right.

Ending by saying Dever "summed it up" suggests you have proven the truth and he is merely summarizing it for you, when in fact this is still an open question and Wikipedia is not here for you to merely try to win arguments. So, I've deleted your biased conclusion about Ted Koppel simply being right (come on, he refuted "ALL" the evidence? Who's going beyond reasonableness here?), but left your biased presentation of the evidence (which is a part of the evidence, and so I don't think I should delete it) for others to clean-up.

Roachman 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Roachman

Changed 'urn' in opening sentence. A 'rock box' is not an 'urn'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.199.232 (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What? Findings by Canadians not good enough for you?
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)

Has the Royal Ontario Museum published anything on the James Ossuary? I didn't find anything using google scholar search for Keall or the Royal Onatario Museum.--Davefoc (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe findings by any Canadian scientist are ultimately clouded by their mistaken belief that the Avro Arrow was the most technologically advanced fighter of all time, which, when combined with the Iroquis engine and sufficient quantities of maple syrup, would have guaranteed Canadian national sovereingty. 71.197.183.28 (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Davepl

LovelyLilith added this sentence to the article: "The Discovery Channel's 2004 documentary James, Brother of Jesus shows the examination of the inscription's patina by the Royal Ontario Museum using longwave ultraviolet light, and they concluded there was "nothing suspicious" about the engraving." I was not able to find where any of the the results of the research reputedly done by the Ontario Royal Museum published in any peer reviewed literature. The only pro-authenticity James Ossuary advocates all seem to have a tie-in to the Biblical Archeological Review and I have not found that published results in peer reviewed literature by any of them. This article already gives undue weight to this group. Adding information about research derived from a television program takes this article another step further in the direction of poorly referenced descriptions of research done by people associated with a single publication. I suggest that it, at least, should be removed, but I also think a good look at the way the article deals with the non-peer reviewed research on the James Ossuary is justified. At a minimum the fact that these people don't seem to have published their results in peer reviewed literature and their research all seems to have been associated with a magazine that has a vested interest in promoting a connection between archeology and the bible should be noted.--Davefoc (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Translation?
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)


 * 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)

That makes sense. What about Ya'akov/Jacob/James. Is there a similar standardization here?66.205.213.38 (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I checked the Jacob article and this is indeed the case. 66.205.213.38 (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

--- The name "james" can be derived from "jacob", and so on, but it's not a standard translation. Likewise for jesus/joshua. Why go with a translation that automatically biases the reader towards accepting the ossuary as the tomb of jesus' brother? (Kate Wishing), when I tried to alter tranlastion, undid the edit, arguing that the article doesn't make sense unless the the inscription is translated to "James" and "Jesus." I see (Kate Wishing)'s point, but I agree with Davefoc that an explanatory note would be a good idea. I would have the standard translation of "Jacob" and "Joshua", and add the respective new testament character names in brackets next to each one. This helps in a small way to present the Ossuary as a historical artefact, valuable in its own right, rather than simply as a religious relic. The Ossuary is a great find, whoever is in there. Herbie Keys (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

-- Fair point, KateWishing. So, in that case, would you say a reliable expert could be any reliable classical linguist, (who might say something along the lines of "the direct english translation of Yaakov is Jacob"") or would you say it has to be someone talking in the context of this particular artefact? Herbie Keys (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

Move?
James Ossuary → James ossuary – "Ossuary" is not a proper noun in this context. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 19:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment isn't the whole term "James Ossuary" supposed to be a proper noun? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, this is definitely not a proper noun. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose weakly, The issue is whether James Ossuary constitutes a proper noun. I think the answer is that it does because it refers to a specific ossuary. If it referred to a kind of ossuary known as James ossuaries then ossuary would not be capitalized. I looked at a couple of Wikipedia articles to see now Wikipedia deals with this kind of thing:
 * Edward D. Dupont House
 * Grant's Tomb
 * The Grant's Tomb example seemed particularly on point. Internet usage was also not consistent with the proposed change. Ossuary was capitalized in all but one of the first twenty or so references Yahoo reported for it. I realize that the Wikipedia style leans to minimal capitalization and based on that my initial reaction was to support the change, but in this case it seems like Wikipedia practice, common practice and standard grammar rules support the view that the title with James and Ossuary capitalized is correct.--Davefoc (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Contrast Grant's Tomb with Eisenhower jacket. Here the phrase, Eisenhower jacket, refers to a jacket of a particular style and not to a particular jacket. As such, jacket, is correctly not capitalized. --Davefoc (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, thanks to Dave for bringing this here. I had initially proposed it as a noncontroversial technical move, the only thing barring my moving it myself being the existence of a redirect at the target. I was up late when I made the request and it's likely that, if I had thought it through a little more, I would have come to the same conclusion as Dave. I thus withdraw my support for the move, but will be glad to see others give their input before the discussion is closed. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 06:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Still support - Edward D. Dupont House and Grant's Tomb are landmarks with official names, like Buckingham Palace, which is fine if this is a building, like the Sedlec Ossuary (a building), but this is a box of bones, comparable with X ossuary, X grave. If we look at Google Scholar, publications which are meant to follow Chicago or SBL MOS mainly, mainly 'the James ossuary' when reference to the book removed. ..the Moatfield ossuary and the Uxbridge ossuary are divided. Personally the results being even to in favour of small caps, I'd small-cap it simply to avoid anyone who doesn't know what ossuary means thinking it is an Indonesian surname, James Oswary. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Brno Ossuary, Douaumont ossuary (should be caps, bit of French capitalization overspill) - buildings
 * Caiaphas ossuary, Miriam ossuary - bone boxes.
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Appears to me to be a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Doesn't appear as a proper name to me. Hill Crest&#39;s WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 00:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support It is not a proper name. In several books that I have that mention the James ossuary ("The Jesus Discovery", "The Jesus Family Tombs", a couple more) it is always "James ossuary", not "James Ossuary". The word "ossuary" should not be capitalized, because it is not a name, merely what "James" "owns". "Tomb" and "House" get a pass (although they should realistically be lower case as well) because those words are common in the English language, and not likely to be mistaken for a last name. The word "ossuary" is not common, and could be mistaken for a last name. Vyselink (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

History2007's removal of sentence claiming that not all scholars accept the IAA findings
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)

LA Times article misrepresented
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)
 * 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)

Categorizations
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)

Authenticity: 2014 study
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)
 * 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)

Out of Character
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)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Research Publishing
Scientific Research Publishing is a predatory publisher of scientific papers. The specific controversies surrounding them were not limited to one particular journal, nor are the criticisms of the publisher those which would conceivably be of problems limited to one journal, or even a subset of their journals. Furthermore, listing by the Institute for Scientific Information does not erase any of the problems such journals would face. Finally, extensive discussion at the RSN indicated that the consensus was not to use articles published by this particular publisher (as well as predatory publishers in general0, as can be seen here. It's worth noting that I repeatedly gave my opinion that not all articles published in such journals are necessarily bad. I still hold to that opinion. However, when simple publication is the only criteria given for the reliability of a source, and the form of that publication is through a predatory open access publisher, then the burden of proof that this is a reliable source is not met. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The parent publisher has near 250 journals. The particular journal in question, Open Journal of Geology, is ISI-indexed.  The Thomson Reuters journal selection process clearly states: "Evidence of unethical policies such as predatory publishing practices or editorial instructions leading to excessive, inauthentic journal self-citation or any other fraudulent practices are not acceptable in any journal under evaluation and result in immediate rejection."  If the journal were indeed predatory, then it would have been rejected already.  Find a predatory journal indexed by Thomson Reuters and you will have a case.  None of those predatory journals published by the parent publisher is found in ISI-index.


 * Furthermore, the paper was presented at 2008 Joint Meeting of The Geological Society of America. If the scientific finding is good enough for Geological Society of America, it should be good enough for the public.  And the authors of the paper are respected scientists.
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Was that really so hard? Next time, you're likely to end up getting blocked (you might still get blocked over this, that's up to the admins) if you insist upon edit warring instead of taking it to talk. By the way, your argument about the ISI doesn't hold water: It presumes the ISI listing is the final word (it's not, it's just an indicator), and it ignores the consensus here not to cite SRP journals. It's also an informal fallacy. But the evidence that the paper was presented at the conference (with no apparent backlash that I can find) and the credentials of the authors is good enough for me. Don't take this as endorsement of the journal or other articles cited in it. I'm one of a rather large number of editors who all agreed that any journal published by SRP is highly suspect. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your rational response. I am not endorsing the publisher either, and I understand of being suspicious of their journals.  I would've been hesitant to endorse the paper myself if it weren't for those extra supporting qualifications.  It's just that as someone who had experienced in publishing on a questionable journal, I've learned not to make a blanket assumption.  Now, I publish exclusively on an ISI-indexed journal for their trustworthiness.
 * P.S. My apologies for many edits. It wasn't my intention to start an edit war; if any of other editors had started Talk like you have done, I would have participated in the discussion.  Cheers
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Allow me to suggest a few links: Edit Warring is universally considered disruptive and usually results in administrative intervention. Identifying Reliable Sources explains what we look for in a potentially cite-able source, and Dispute Resolution outlines how content disputes should be handled; ideally by discussion resulting in a Consensus. I hope this helps.
 * For your information, I had requested page semi-protection for this article before your responded to me, above. Semi-protection means that unregistered users will not be able to edit the page. This would affect you (even if you register an account, until you become confirmed). I have not rescinded this request, because there were other unregistered editors involved who seem likely to continue the edit warring. I just want you to know that I'm satisfied with your argument above, and intend to leave statement and source in. But someone else may revert it before the page gets protected, or indeed after, if done by a registered user. In that case, you will need to submit an edit request. If you ping me (by including in it) to restore this source, I will do so, but not to the point of violated the 3 revert rule, which means I'll only do it once. I'm not sure that the 3RR is meant to include editors who "switched sides" in a content dispute, but I'd rather not be at the heart of the discussion to determine whether it does.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  03:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have had a look at the state of the article, in an attempt to work out whether this source is best included or left out. I don't think protection is the right answer as there isn't enough frequent back and forth to warrant a protection. I would recommend getting a third opinion from somebody who is thoroughly familiar with the guidelines for identifying reliable sources for natural sciences and go with what they say. WikiProject Archaeology might be a suitable contact point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Right now, I'm content that the credentials of the writers and the fact that the paper was presented at a respected conference with no apparent blow-back establishes that this article is reliable for this use. Others, of course, may disagree. If the disagreement fires up again, I think I'll take your advice. Thank you for you input. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I absolutely disagree. We do not cite unreliable sources. They can republish in a reliable source if they like, but we are not in the business of giving credibility and reputation boost to fraudulent publications. I feel sorry for the legitimate researchers who have been scammed, but it's not our problem to fix. The publisher is the problem, their model is a scam. A few journals may or may not have flown under the radar, it doesn't change the fact that the publisher is a scammer. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like be interested to know why this publishing model is considered fraudulent, as when I hear the word "scammer" I normally think of a Nigerian prince asking my bank details so he can squirrel 35 gazillion dollars out of a small country for a small "fee". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said when this was being discussed at RSN, simply being published in a journal owned by a predatory publisher doesn't render a paper invalid. Instead, it increases the burden of proof, since we can't rely on the peer-review process of the journal. In this case, the paer was published by a predatory publisher, which balanced the evidence against it. However, this paper was later subjected to a form of peer review by being presented at a well-known conference, to the author's peers, who did not -as far as I can tell- object to the contents. Between that and verifying the credentials of the authors, I feel confident that the results of this paper are not likely to be challenged by any better source. If they are, then at that point, the balance of evidence tips once again back to 'unreliable' and we can discard it.
 * Just as I pointed out that inclusion in the ISI doesn't negate the problems with the publisher, the problems with the publisher don't negate the neutral (or possibly favorable) reception by fellow experts, nor the acknowledged expertise of the authors.
 * , the problems are basically outlined at the publisher's article; Scientific Research Publishing. They are major problems, to be fair. But they're not problems which inevitably render irrelevant the conclusions of any paper they published, merely problems that cast serious doubts on them. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's considered fraudulent because the journals give a spurious appearance of independent peer review, whereas in fact no review is really done. And I'd remind people that conference papers are also generally not peer reviewed. Any bold or significant claim needs to be published in a reputable journal. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a particularly bold claim. It was neither the first nor the most significant work to claim the patina was as old as is claimed. If it was a bold claim, I'd still be more skeptical, but for something which boils down to just another paper taking a side on a minor debate that will never make a big impact on archeology? I think it's good enough. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@JzG, You have removed the citation that was deemed acceptable in this talk section. I would like to revert it back. 69.75.54.130 (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The removal has been undone as stated above.69.75.54.130 (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed it because it remains a predatory journal with no editorial standards. We have much better sources in the balance of the article, we do not need vanity spam. This would be the only citation tot hat company anywhere on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Newsweek Article
This scathing hitpiec--I mean, article from Newsweek on Hobby Lobby's "Museum of the Bible" states that the ossuary has been debunked as one of the "top 10 scientific hoaxes in history": http://www.newsweek.com/2016/04/15/hobby-lobby-steve-green-bible-museum-washington-dc-444752.html

Funny how the evidence against the authenticity of the inscription seems so weak, then. Am I missing something? Anyone care to update this page with whatever evidence Nina Burleigh is referring to? My gut impression while reading the article was that the author just has an axe to grind with the field of Biblical archaeology (particularly when its done by evangelicals), but I could be wrong. Valjeanlafitte (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like the article is an advertisement of the author's book, "Unholy Business". The book is based on the IAA trial.  I don't see how the author can claim that James Ossuary "has since been debunked as one of the top 10 scientific hoaxes in history" when in fact the trial itself had cleared the forgery charge.  The author is an atheist.
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Atheists would be the best source for neutral commentary on the inscription, of course, as they have no vested interest in it. It does not matter to an atheist whether Jesus was a real person or not. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Source dispute
An editor has removed the contents by saying, "Most of these sources fail WP:RS."

Here are the sources:
 * http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/free-ebooks/real-or-fake-a-special-report/
 * (a copy can be found at https://www.scribd.com/document/241369611/Real-or-Fake-a-Special-Report)


 * http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Authenticity_Letter.pdf
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703704009627
 * (a copy can be found at http://www.academia.edu/1052533/Sea-rain-lake_relation_in_the_Last_Glacial_East_Mediterranean_revealed_by_delta_18O-_delta_13C_in_Lake_Lisan_aragonites)

Please explain why these are unreliable sources.

69.75.54.130 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * biblicalarchaeology.org is an apologetic source with a distinct editorial bias, as is bibleinterp.com. Neither is likely to publish material refuting biblical interpretations of archaeological finds. The ytext you based on http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703704009627 looks to me to be novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * @Guy
 * Your accusation against them is unfounded. First, their editorial boards are not biased as I explain below.
 * Second, EVEN IF they are biased, that still does not mean that they are unreliable sources because WP:RS allows a biased source as a reliable source.
 * biblicalarchaeology.org
 * Their Biblical Archaeology Review magazine was the first source that introduced the existence of James ossuary to the world. Thus, it is natural that they would publish many in-depth information on this subject.
 * Regarding your accusation against them being biased, please read this article that they published -- apparently they have no problem publishing a controversial material that goes against the popular Biblical interpretation, and they did it more than once at the risk of losing their subscribers!
 * Moreover, they are trustworthy enough for other news organizations to cite them many times: here, here, here, etc.
 * bibleinterp.com
 * Their journal, The Bible and Interpretation, also exercises unbiased editorial practice. Not only have they published many reports (here, here, etc.) which summarize James ossuary as a forgery, they also published a controversial material that supports Christ Myth theory which definitely goes against the Bible itself.
 * They are also trustworthy enough to be cited by Hardvard university and other news orgainizations: here, here, etc.
 * sciencedirect.com
 * It only looks like a novel synthesis because you've disregarded the cited secondary source (biblicalarchaeology.org) which quoted this publication to explain its relevance to James ossuary -- read the p39 of the cited secondary source.
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that you very much want to state that this item is an authentic relic. That's your ideology, not Wikipedia's. The role of Biblical Archaeology Review in promulgating the claim is not forgotten, they have a vested interest in its authenticity quite apart from their obvious ideological bias. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that you very much want to state that this item is an authentic relic. That's your ideology, not Wikipedia's. The role of Biblical Archaeology Review in promulgating the claim is not forgotten, they have a vested interest in its authenticity quite apart from their obvious ideological bias. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * @JzG,
 * I have cited all my edits with reputable secondary sources. You, on the other hand, simply revert the edits without citing any sources.
 * I am trying to resolve our disagreement in a professional manner through civil discussion. Thus, I have supported my explanations here with multiple reputable secondary sources as well.  However, you simply continue with unsubstantiated claims again.
 * In the most recent edit that you have reverted, I have presented two reliable secondary sources which clearly state that the majority view of the scientists are in favor of the authenticity
 * http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/summer-2016/article/ancient-james-ossuary-and-jehoash-tablet-inscriptions-may-be-authentic-say-experts
 * https://jamestabor.com/whats-what-regarding-the-controversial-james-ossuary/
 * Although it is your personal choice to deny the majority view, I think it would be beneficial for Wikipedia to let the readers know about these information.
 * As a compromise, I have added the following phrase to the sentence:
 * Although the debate over the authenticity is still ongoing, the expert opinion of most of the scientists who have examined the inscription is that the James ossuary may be real after all.
 * Please let me know if you have better ideas on the wording, etc. Also, I've reinstated the unexplained removal.  Cheers
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are representing the small sample of clearly vested experts, as being representative of all scientists or experts. You are also making a statement of fervent hope, not a statement of fact. The correct factual statement is that scientific analysis has not, to date, been able to definitively establish the age of the inscription. If it did definitively establish the age it would still not establish its authenticity, as a first century fake would be indistinguishable from the genuine article in this regard. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are representing the small sample of clearly vested experts, as being representative of all scientists or experts. You are also making a statement of fervent hope, not a statement of fact. The correct factual statement is that scientific analysis has not, to date, been able to definitively establish the age of the inscription. If it did definitively establish the age it would still not establish its authenticity, as a first century fake would be indistinguishable from the genuine article in this regard. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @JzG,
 * With all due respect, I believe Wikipedia should be more like an encyropedia where facts rule. I have already presented my case with multiple reputable secondary sources.  You have cited ZERO source.  All I am asking is for you to back up your personal belief with reputable sources just like I have done.  Instead, you keep reverting the edits without backing up your claim.
 * I've already shown how your accusation against biblicalarchaeology and bibleinterp are unfounded.
 * I've already shown how popular-archaeology reported:
 * If you believe popular-archaeology report is wrong, then please cite your source. Where is your proof that scientists who favor the authenticity is not a majority view???
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, facts should rule. On Wikipedia, facts come from empirical evidence, not faith. You have asserted that my views on your favoured websites is incorrect, but you have not shown anything. Stating your opinion as fact is not a great idea here, so you might want to stop doing it (except that this is all you have ever done, anywhere on Wikipedia, as far as anyone can tell). You are mistaking an editorial view ("may be real" for a scientific conclusion ("cannot be proved to be false"). That's the problem. Do you understand now? Guy (Help!) 18:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, facts should rule. On Wikipedia, facts come from empirical evidence, not faith. You have asserted that my views on your favoured websites is incorrect, but you have not shown anything. Stating your opinion as fact is not a great idea here, so you might want to stop doing it (except that this is all you have ever done, anywhere on Wikipedia, as far as anyone can tell). You are mistaking an editorial view ("may be real" for a scientific conclusion ("cannot be proved to be false"). That's the problem. Do you understand now? Guy (Help!) 18:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @JzG
 * You have accused them that "Neither is likely to publish material refuting biblical interpretations of archaeological finds."
 * So, I have directly debunked your false accusation by citing the evidences that prove you wrong. I have also cited many reputable sources to support their reliabilities.  Yet, you claim that I have only "asserted"?  Anyone can scroll up and see my cited sources.  It's not an assertion when backed by evidences.  You, on the other hand, have cited ZERO source for your claims; now, that's an assertion.
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL! You suggest, for example, a piece that tries to reinterpret tsela in order to get around the trivially established fact, known for centuries, that men and women have the same number of ribs, and you somehow think that's an example of your favoured site courageously standing up to Biblical literalism? Get real. Those sources have a strong and obvious ideological bias - and so do you, looking at your edits promoting creationism. You have not refuted anything, only repudiated. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @JzG
 * Biblical Archaeology Review published material that goes against the well accepted Biblical interpretation at the risk of losing their subscribers. That debunks your accusation against them.
 * And The Bible and Interpretation published material on Christ Myth theory. That debunks your accusation against them, too.
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Significant because it might be "evidence for Jesus of Nazareth"?
Is it just me, or does this sentence assume the viability of the so-called Christ myth theory? Historians and archaeologists aren't, to the best of my knowledge, that eager to find "archaeological evidence for Jesus of Nazareth", presumably meaning evidence for his historical existence, because they don't take the remote possibility that he didn't exist seriously. If "evidence for Jesus" doesn't mean evidence that he existed, then does it mean evidence in favour of Jesus (i.e., supporting his message)? Because the James ossuary does not provide that kind of evidence. For whatever reason I can't access the cited source, but its title implies it is referring to the ossuary as evidence of Jesus's existence. Having archaeological evidence of Jesus would be pretty amazing, but I don't think it would change anything or have any meaning ("significance") beyond that, so "significant" seems like, at best, a peacock word... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the literal existence or otherwise of Jesus is an open question for archaeology, not because it's settled but because discussion of Jesus is not archaeologically significant. This is not someone who forms part of the record, like the various Caesars and Ptolemys. The significance of the cult of Jesus in the later Roman empire is clear, but does not depend on the literal existence of Jesus. The people looking for evidence of literal existence, are almost always looking to validate faith and are very often Biblical literalists. And it's not like this is the first time a relic has conveniently shown up to allegedly substantiate the Bible stories, and if it were conclusively proven to be a fake, it wouldn't be the first there either. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You may be (read: I think you are) right that it's about biblical inerrancy, but that isn't really relevant either, since James's death, let alone his ossuary, is not mentioned anywhere in the bible. I am sure there are Christians who think evidence that Jesus existed verifies their view that Jesus was the Son of God, but if that's what our article is talking about then it should be clarified. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Hijiri88
 * You are correct that the most historians consider Christ myth theory a fringe theory. Here is a quote from Historicity_of_Jesus.
 * Regarding the sentence: "The inscription is considered significant because, if genuine, it might provide archaeological evidence for Jesus of Nazareth."
 * I didn't think of it that way, but I see where you're coming from. If someone with zero knowledge on Jesus historicity reads the sentence, it might sound as if the academia currently considers the existence of Jesus to be false.  If you want to clarify the current majority view of the scholars, you're more than welcome to do so.
 * Or we could leave the sentence as is, and add Historicity_of_Jesus to the "See also" section. We may also want to add Christ myth theory to "See also" section as well in order to remain neutral by representing the minority view.
 * FYI, I would've definitely agreed with you if the sentence said only "evidence" instead of "archaeological evidence". There are abundant evidences for Jesus, but they are all in forms of writing.  The James Ossuary is significant because it would be the first archaeological artifact linked to Jesus.  I think this is why the sentence used the word, "significant".
 * P.S. I've fixed the dead link to the cited source for you.
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @JzG
 * I am sorry that you feel that people are in favor of the authenticity because they want to validate their faith. You should consider that there are people who are driven by the pursuit of truth.  For example, I highly doubt that Egyptologists debate because they wish to validate their faith to Ra or something.  If you have any source that you can cite that the majority of the scientists who support the authenticity are Christians, then please present it here.  As far as I know, they just happened to be the experts in their fields.  Thus, they may or may not be Christians.  And even if they are Christians, it's questionable that they would sacrifice their professional integrity by supporting a forgery.
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would you be sorry? There is nothing wrong with religious people seeking to validate their faith, it's just confirmation bias (and perhaps a bit of cherry picking and some cognitive dissonance). That doesn't make it correct, of course, but it's perfectly understandable. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

117.198.5.70 removal
@117.198.5.70, You have recently removed the following two sentences from the lead section.

Your reason for the removal was: "Old 2011 article and violation WP:NPOV."


 * First, the popular-archaeology article is a re-print. It was originally published in 2011, but they thought it was still relevant to re-publish in 2016.  Furthermore, 2011 is not "Old".  In addition, the Tabor article is from 2016, too.
 * Second, WP:NPOV encourages the clear explanation of the majority view. If you disagree with the majority view, please cite your source that the majority view is not in favor of the authenticity.  I have already presented my source that clearly states that the majority view is in favor of the authenticity.

69.75.54.130 (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See above. Your assertion that this represents scientific consensus is blatant POV-pushing. I support this removal, and frankly I am disappointed that you inserted it despite the rather obvious problems I pointed out. I would note at this point that you are a single-purpose editor and I am a ten year veteran admin, it's reasonable to assume that my understanding of Wikipedia policy is better than yours. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @JzG
 * Strawman fallacy -- I have never asserted that there was any scientific consensus. The majority view does NOT equate to the consensus.
 * As for the majority view, I have already cited a reputable secondary source. Let's make the Wikipedia to present the majority view, not your view.
 * I am disappointed that you consider the cited majority view as obvious problems.
 * I don't even know what a single-purpose editor is.
 * It's good that you're a ten year veteran admin. However, that does not magically turn you into a scientist.  This Wiki page is not about you and your admin status; this page is about scientific analysis of the archaeological artifact.  It is my hope that we make this page an encyclopedia where readers can come and learn scientific analyses of expert scientists backed by reputable sources, as I am trying to achieve.  You clearly disagree with what popular-archaeology stated on the majority view.  You claim to know Wiki policy better than me.  So, please please please cite your source!  Or is it a Wiki policy that an admin's personal view can trump a reputable source?
 * 69.75.54.130 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, you are using an editorial statement to misrepresent the scientific findings. Your unwillingness to accept the facts does not change them, and nor does your refusal to accept that you do not have consensus for this edit. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Besides both Popular Archeology and TaborBlog are blog publications which puts them very low on the totem pole of reliable.--2606:A000:7D44:100:7D41:5E77:94DE:6EC9 (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

Predatory Publisher
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)


 * 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)