[KyHammer]

If you've been following the "James brother of Jesus" bone box controversy this is a bombshell, although it is from May I just spotted it this morning.

[satchmodog9]

Thanks. I forgot about this after i let my subscription lapse last year.

[silverleaf]

ping

[angkor]

Thanks, that just inspired me to resubscribe to BAR, many years after I let it lapse.

[annie laurie]

Ping?

[Varda]

Thanks for posting this update. Given that this professors result backs up that of other such experts, I suspect the find will turn out to authentic.

That said, I think people have overlooked the most obvious interpretation of the find. James was most probably a disciple of Jesus not a biological relative.

[dangus]

The big fraud is that the inscription does NOT read "James, brother of Jesus"!!!

It simply reads, "James, of Jesus, of Joseph."

The natural way to read that would be "James, son of Jesus, son of Joseph." If the ossuary actually means THAT Jesus, son of Joseph, than it is quite reasonable to expect that a different relationship is implied. It is NOT reasonable to presume that the relationship implied is full-blood brother.