There is little doubt in my mind the writings of James are legitimate and what they reveal about Christianity has prompted controversy and scorn even among Christians. Martin Luther wanted James removed because he so contradicted Paul. James also ran Paul out of Jerusalem as a fraud. (Acts) Paul in my opinion is the true founder of Christianity as it survived the bloodletting heresy wars after the 4th century. Paul's interpretation of Jesus as a savior from sin is the one accepted by orthodox Christians in general. But what is ignored and fluffed over by Christians is James, who knew Jesus in the flesh and was head of Jesus' church, not only rejected Paul's "faith alone" theology, but also totally contradicts him.

In the constant fight by Christians seeking proof of any kind outside scripture to bolster their claims on Jesus, James is the wrong one to use even if this latest fraud was true. This entire ossuary inscription business and the way it was paraded around as "proof" has achieved just the opposite that Christians desired.

I present three articles on James below, let the reader be the judge.

The ossuary was genuine, but the inscription was faked.

by Rochelle I. Altman

Courtesy of www.israelinsider.com

As an expert on scripts and an historian of writing systems, I was asked to examine this inscription and make a report. I did.

The bone-box is original; the first inscription, which is in Aramaic, "Jacob son of Joseph," is authentic. The second half of the inscription, "brother of Jesus," is a poorly executed fake and a later addition. This report has already been distributed on at least two scholarly lists.

Please note that the fraud is so blatant that I did not bother to go into extreme detail on whether the faked addition is supposed to be Hebrew or Aramaic. (If that's a vav, -- then it's Hebrew, not Aramaic; if it's yod, then it's says 'my brother', not 'his brother' or 'brother of'. By no stretch of the imagination can one claim this to be in Aramaic... 'of' in Aramaic is 'di'.)

You have to be blind as a bat not to see that the second part is a fraud.

Here is the report:

Report on the "James" ossuary inscription
I carefully checked many photos and writings on ossuaries and covenants before sending you my report. I make no claim to be an expert on ossuaries, but inscriptions and scripts are another story. It might be in order to warn you that I have a great deal of experience at spotting ancient frauds and forgeries.

There are a few things we have to bear in mind about ossuary inscriptions.

First, according to Rahmani (1981, 1982) on Jerusalem burial practices, most ossuaries are from the period between 30/20 BCE-70 CE -- but by no means all.

Second, human remains are not dug up and displaced without very good reasons. Ossuaries show up in quantity when burial space is at a premium.

Solutions to the burial space problem are quite varied. In Classical Greece, for example, low status people were buried in space-saving one-person shaft graves (with a tiny round marker on the spot with the necessary data). The Keramikon in Athens is full of these. In Italy, from the Renaissance until the late 19th-century, after 3 years, unless a family could afford an ossuary or pay another three years rent, the bones were dumped in a mass grave site -- usually a convenient quarry or crevice or what have you, filled with dirt layer by layer. In Athens, ossuaries are still used (metal boxes nowadays); again, that three-year rent period runs. Even in modern Louisiana, along the Mississippi water seepage makes it impossible to dig graves of a reasonable depth; burials are in family mausoleums and bones are pushed down to make way for the latest arrival.

As ossuaries, after all, contravene the normal rules for Jewish burial, the appearance of so many ossuaries in the period before the destruction of the Temple is strong evidence that the cemeteries around Jerusalem were in a space-crunch. (The post-70 reduction in ossuaries follows naturally enough from the removal of enough people from the area to reduce the need for bone- boxes.)

It is not a question of "popularity" at all (which when one thinks about it, is a most peculiar way to think about the subject), but a lack of burial space... which also gives us information about population density of a given area. (Oddly enough, there does not seem to be very much in the literature that addresses this point for the relevant period; yet the correlation between the space constraints indicated by the rise in ossuaries and the density of the population of a given area is rather obvious.)

Third, while today, grave markers are carved by pros, this was not the case in these Jewish ossuary inscriptions. The apparently wide variations in ossuary inscriptions come from a simple fact: these ossuary inscriptions are covenants, vows to affirm continuing respect for the deceased in spite of having disinterred his/her remains. As with any other vow, the text must be in the hand of the one making the vow. Thus (as is noted in the literature), a surviving member of the family painted on, or scratched into, the (usually) limestone box the memorial data. In some cases a professional would carve over the handwriting exactly as written. (By the way, this is the standard practice for all professionally carved covenants.)

In other words, all those ossuary inscriptions are holographs. Needless to say, in such a mass of individual writing, literacy varied tremendously from semi-literates who wrote only upon occasion to schoolboys to scholars. [What is relevant to sorting out the apparent lack of relation between status and ossuary is not the wealth or social status of the individual(s) (up to three sets of same-family bones can show up in an ossuary), but the level of literacy and status of the survivors. Thus, there is a relationship between status and inscription... but we would need information on the "survivors" in each case to know who, what, when, how, and why.]

From the writing on the ossuary inscriptions, some are clearly written by youngsters and semi-literates who did not have complete control of graph sizes and could not hold a straight line. Others are clearly the holographs of literate people.

James inscription was written by two different people
The inscription on the "James" ossuary is a bit more complicated. First it has been gone over by a professional carver; the words are excised (not incised). Second, it was written by two different people.

Translated, with the amendments to the original spelling as given in the article, the inscription reads:

Jacob son of Joseph brother of Joshua.

The emended translation does not indicate the way the words are actually written, which is in two distinct groups:

Y(KOBBRYWSF )XWW(Y#W(

[Editor's note: the transliteration provided by the author is in accordance with the Michigan-Claremont Encoding System for ASCII]

Nor does the translation give any indication of the change from the carefully executed and expertly spaced *inscriptional* cursive -- including careful angles and the cuneiform wedge on the bet's, the resh, and the yod -- in

Y(KOBBRYWSF
[Jacob son of Joseph]

to the less than expertly executed *commercial* sans-wedge cursive in

)XWW(Y#W(
[brother of Joshua]

While it is customary to dismiss such differences as unimportant ("scribes are not typewriters"), here the differences between the two parts are glaring and impossible not to see.

In the first part, the script is formal
In part 1, the script is formal, the ayin has an acute angle, the bets, resh, and yod have the cuneiform wedge, and the yods are consistent in size and cannot be confused with the vavs.

The person who wrote the first part of the inscription [ Y(KOBBRYWSF ] was necessarily a surviving member of the family. He was fully literate; he clearly was familiar with the formal square script (those cuneiform wedges), the writing is internally consistent, and this part of the inscription is his expertly written holograph.

In the second part, the script is informal
In part 2, the script is informal, the two ayins are completely different from each other and differ yet again from the ayin in part 1. When we compare the yod in Y(KOB with the (amended) three yod's in )XWW(Y#W( we immediately can see that this is a different person writing. First of all, the yod in 'brother of' and the first yod in W(Y#W( are written as vavs. With the model of the correct way to write the yod-ayin [ Y( ] right in front of his nose on 'Jacob', there is no reason at all for the extended vav or the extra vav in what should be Y(#(. Then, the yod in the peculiarly misspelled W(Y#W( does not resemble the yod in Joseph [ YWSF ] as written in part 1 which also has a wedge. The shin in W(Y#W( [damned if I can figure out how to trans-literate this abhorrent spelling of Joshua] is wedgeless and does not accord with the first part of the inscription... but then, none of the forms in the second part agree with the script of the first part.

The person who wrote the second part [ )XWW(Y#W( ] may have been literate, but it is doubtful that he was literate in Aramaic or Hebrew. Again, aberrant spelling is dismissed as dialectic. True, there are dialectic variants, but there is always some linguistic logic behind these variants. There is nothing logical about these misspellings. They smell of someone guessing how the words "brother of" and the name "Joshua" would have been spelled a couple, three hundred years earlier. Once again, the writing in this part is internally consistent in its semi-literacy. Part 2 has the characteristics of a later addition by someone attempting to imitate an unfamiliar script and write in an unfamiliar language.

There is yet another tell-tale sign of fraud here. As noted, the text is excised. (Which indicates a wealthy family.) Nobody excises an entire block of stone to raise the text; not even the Yadi stele is entirely excised. In "name" plates or other small inscriptions, if excised rather than incised (cheaper), the normal practice is to excise the text and a frame, which frame itself is excised by incised limits but never beyond them. Only the area within the frame will be excised; the rest of the block will be left alone. Far too much here has been excised from around the names. More to the point, where is the original frame?

Second part of inscription added later
Well, to anybody who knows something about anti-fraud techniques as practiced in antiquity, it is rather obvious. The frame was removed to add the second part of this inscription. The original frame would have been the barest minimum distance from the text and have appeared something like this:

|-------------------|
|Y(KOBBRYWSF | )XWW(Y#W(
|____________|

If the entire inscription on the ossuary is genuine, then somebody has to explain why there are two hands of clearly different levels of literacy and two different scripts. They also have to explain why the second hand did not know how to write 'brother of' in Aramaic or even spell 'Joshua'. Further, they had better explain where the frame has gone.

The ossuary itself is undoubtedly genuine; the well-executed and formal first part of the inscription is a holographic original by a literate (and wealthy) survivor of Jacob Ben Josef in the 1st century CE. The second part of the inscription bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition and is questionable to say the least.

Copyright © 1995 - 2002 Aish HaTorah

The recent discovery of an ancient ossuary box in Jerusalem stirs world wide debate

From http://www.about.com/

An ancient limestone box, stolen from a cave near Jerusalem, and held in a private collection for many years, has now surfaced, and in a forthcoming scholarly article has been identified as the earliest known reference outside the New Testament to the historical Jesus. The box, an "ossuary" used during the time of Christ to store the bones of a deceased relative, is distinguished by a simple Aramaic inscription: Ya 'a kov bar Yosef a khui Yeshua -- "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Scholars who have examined the ossuary and the inscription have concluded that a strong case can be made for its age and authenticity. Could this be the ossuary used by the surviving members of Christ's family to bury the brother of Jesus who at the time of his death was the head of the growing Christian movement, then centered in Jerusalem?

The possibility is intriguing. Still, if this object does come from first century Jerusalem, what are the odds that it might have held the bones of another James, son of another Joseph, and brother of another Jesus ... thus rendering this discovery a mere coincidence?  In fact, the three names that are referenced in the inscription were common ones among Jewish families, and given that the population of Jerusalem at the time is estimated at about 80,000, there may well have been more than one man named James with a father, Joseph, and a brother, Jesus. Yet, the plot thickens a bit as the normal inscription on an ossuary of this kind would be, "James, son of Joseph of Nazareth," referring to the father of the deceased and perhaps his place of birth. Only in rare cases where a brother was a person of some notoriety would his name be mentioned at all. Hence there is a very real possibility that this is the first archaeological evidence of Christ's existence, and a reference that verifies what we know about his family from the New Testament.

None of this will, of course, prove much of anything to anybody, for few doubt that Jesus existed, and those who do will not be persuaded by such circumstantial evidence. Nevertheless, this discovery and the forthcoming article in the Biblical Archaeological Review will be discussed for some time, for it focuses the public's attention on a question that has perplexed scholars for centuries. What, if anything, can we actually learn about the life and teachings of Jesus that may be certified as historical fact as opposed to being affirmed as a matter of faith? And if what we know about Jesus through historical, textual and archaeological inquiry differs substantially from the story of his life, death and resurrection as passed down through Christian tradition and teaching, then should that teaching be revised? For people of faith this is explosive stuff. Clearly, for example, if one were to find an ossuary used to store the bones of Jesus, indicating that he did not rise from the dead after three days in the tomb, many would consider this a mortal blow to Christianity itself. 

Such an ossuary has not been discovered, but there are significant implications deriving from what has been found. This latest discovery places the figure of James on center stage and focuses public attention upon his immediate family. To better understand the importance of all this, I interviewed John Painter, author of the recent book, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History & Tradition. Painter has painstakingly pulled together all that we know about the brother of Jesus from early church fathers, Nag Hammadi codices, and early Christian writing both within the New Testament and beyond. A fascinating picture emerges of the man who was chosen by Christ's apostles as leader of their growing movement. It is also a tragic story involving rivalry and conflict among early Christian leaders and the ultimate destruction of the Jerusalem church in 70CE when the Romans brutally crushed a Jewish insurrection. It was a time when Christians and Jews may have fought and died together having struggled as one nation against a common enemy. 

The story of James as carefully reconstructed by Painter also highlights two contemporary issues that are of immense importance. First, of course, is the conversation that is taking place between Christians and Jews about the similarities and differences that have often so tragically divided them, but are also a source of common understanding and a shared commitment to building a better world. For me, as a Christian, this dialogue and the network of friendships and collegiality I have experienced with my own Jewish "brothers and sisters" reminds me that we can once again see each other as members of one family struggling together for a better world. 

Painter suggests that the significance of the Jewish-Christian dialogue is even greater than this. As Christians enter into conversation with Jews, as they must, if only for the purpose of reaching a deeper understanding of the roots of their own faith, they are likely to become more adept at "broaching the border questions" that all too often keep people of different traditions alienated from each other, but can, if approached with an attitude of mutual respect, lead instead to a heightened capacity for building a global culture of peace in which people of all faith traditions participate as equal partners.

Secondly, Painter also feels that focusing upon the figure of James as this new discovery encourages us to do, will potentially bring into sharper focus the humanity of Jesus. Whatever one believes about his divinity, the human Jesus, the one with a real father and a real mother, with real brothers and sisters, is the one who may have the most to offer to the world today. After all, it is for the very reason that Jesus, brother of James, was so truly human, that he is capable of becoming a role model and inspiration for the whole human family. 

This I obtained from a Christian website and modified it. Note that there is still controversy among scholars over which James is which.

Who is the author of the New Testament Book of James?

And is this the same James who is the brother of Jesus?

There are quite a few mentioned in the New Testament.  And this has caused some confusion among readers of the Bible.

Who are some of these James?

Well, Jesus had several brothers, one of whom was named James.

Also, two of  Jesus'  original 12 Apostles were named James.  One was James, the brother of John, the other was James, the Son of Alphaeus.

And,  in Galatians 1:19, Paul spoke of a James, an  Apostle, whom he stated was the Lord's brother.

So what does all this mean? Was James, the brother of Jesus one of the Original 12 Apostles?  Or, did he become an apostle later? And, if so when? And did Jesus' brother, James, write the NT Book of James?

First of all, YES, Jesus did have a brother named James.

But, this brother was NOT one of the original 12 Apostles.  So, James, the brother of Jesus (and Jesus had several brothers) was NOT one of the original 12 apostles. So he is NOT James, the brother of John, and he is NOT James, the son of ALphaeus.

In fact, James, (the son of Mary and Joseph and, therefore, the half brother of Jesus), was at first a skeptic and did not believe that Jesus was God until  AFTER Jesus' death and resurrection.  But, then he did believe that Jesus was really  God and he became a "believer," a Christian.

Therefore, the James mentioned by Paul in Galatians 1:19  is, indeed, the Lord's brother and he was, indeed, an Apostle.  But, he did not become an apostle until  AFTER Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection from the dead.

James, the brother of Jesus, not only became a "believer" in Jesus, but he also became the "pastor" of the Church in Jerusalem and was an important and highly respected "leader" among Christians (Believers) in his day.

And, YES, while serving as Pastor and "leader" of the Church, one of the many things that James, the brother of Jesus, did was to write the New Testament Book (Letter) of James, the book which bears his name today.

Don't let the fact that there are several different James' mentioned in the New Testament confuse you.  James was a very common name in those days, just as "Tom, Dick, James, and Harry" are today.

So the bottom line is: Yes, there are several different James' in the New Testament, ONE of whom WAS the brother of the Lord, an Apostle, the Pastor of the Church in Jerusalem, and the author of the book of James.

Christian origins, conflicts, and key players.

 

Homepage Article List 1 Christianity Deism Page

Visitors since
March 2002