This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/374068.html has some updates -- Zero 04:08, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
James Ossuary → James ossuary – "Ossuary" is not a proper noun in this context. Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 19:53, 17 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
James Ossuary. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
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 {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Scientific Research Publishing is a predatory publisher of scientific papers. The specific controversies surrounding them were not limited to one particular journal [1] [2] [3], 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)
@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)
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)
An editor has removed the contents by saying, "Most of these sources fail WP:RS."
Here are the sources:
Please explain why these are unreliable sources.
69.75.54.130 ( talk) 02:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
The expert opinion of most of the scientists who have examined the inscriptions on the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet : They may be real, after all.
Based on all the trial evidence presented I think the case in favor of authenticity has become quite compelling.
The expert opinion of most of the scientists who have examined the inscriptions on the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet : They may be real, after all.
Zevit’s phallic interpretation of the Christian creation story, not surprisingly, has some readers threatening to cancel their subscriptions to Biblical Archaeology Review.
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)
Nearly all modern scholars of antiquity, which is the majority viewpoint, agree that Jesus existed and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.
@117.198.5.70, You have recently removed the following two sentences from the lead section.
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. [1] Prof. James Tabor summarized the topic by stating, "Based on all the trial evidence presented I think the case in favor of authenticity has become quite compelling." [2]
Your reason for the removal was: "Old 2011 article and violation WP:NPOV."
69.75.54.130 ( talk) 19:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
References
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/374068.html has some updates -- Zero 04:08, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
James Ossuary → James ossuary – "Ossuary" is not a proper noun in this context. Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 19:53, 17 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
James Ossuary. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
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 {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Scientific Research Publishing is a predatory publisher of scientific papers. The specific controversies surrounding them were not limited to one particular journal [1] [2] [3], 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)
@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)
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)
An editor has removed the contents by saying, "Most of these sources fail WP:RS."
Here are the sources:
Please explain why these are unreliable sources.
69.75.54.130 ( talk) 02:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
The expert opinion of most of the scientists who have examined the inscriptions on the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet : They may be real, after all.
Based on all the trial evidence presented I think the case in favor of authenticity has become quite compelling.
The expert opinion of most of the scientists who have examined the inscriptions on the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet : They may be real, after all.
Zevit’s phallic interpretation of the Christian creation story, not surprisingly, has some readers threatening to cancel their subscriptions to Biblical Archaeology Review.
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)
Nearly all modern scholars of antiquity, which is the majority viewpoint, agree that Jesus existed and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.
@117.198.5.70, You have recently removed the following two sentences from the lead section.
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. [1] Prof. James Tabor summarized the topic by stating, "Based on all the trial evidence presented I think the case in favor of authenticity has become quite compelling." [2]
Your reason for the removal was: "Old 2011 article and violation WP:NPOV."
69.75.54.130 ( talk) 19:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
References
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
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)