Recently, there was a discovery in Israel that many are claiming shows still more evidence of the existence of Jesus. It was an ossuary, a box made of limestone used for the burial of bones. It has been dated to approximately AD 63. The bit that has people raising eyebrows is the inscription on it. It reads, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
Now, I have to point out three things. First, the names James, Joseph, and Jesus were very common names in that location at that time. There could have been dozens of James who had a brother named Jesus and a father named Joseph.
Secondly, if this is that James, brother of that Jesus, why did the inscription not mention any of James' other siblings? After all, Jesus (allegedly not the son of Joseph) was only James' half-brother. But he had brothers named Joseph, Simon and Judas, and at least three sisters, too! Why are none of them on this inscription?
Is it because whoever did the inscription knew it was that Jesus and wanted to make important note of that? I doubt it. If so, he would have listed that relation first, putting Joseph second. Ah, but that goes against convention, many will say. The father would come first! But if that's to be believed, then convention would also dictate that the half-brother would be listed last, and certainly not supplant all the full relations. Besides which, it seems that James was a well-known person himself and was not called "brother of Jesus" in ancient sources. Please see a commentary by Prof. Robert Eisenman, posted here. [Note: if that link doesn't work, click here for my mirror of this page.]
I'll admit, however, that I'm not an expert on ossuary inscription protocol, so I could be entirely off-base with my line of thinking. But apparently, there's another line of thinking that deserves to be looked at even more closely: that the ossuary is legitimate, but the inscription itself is faked. One expert on inscriptions says, in fact, that the second half of the inscription (mentioning Jesus) is "a poorly executed fake and a later addition." Her complete report can be read here. [Mirrored here.] Or, for a more in-depth look at it, here's the final report. Thanks for the links, Rémy!
No, I'm sorry. This bit of archaeological interest is not any kind of convincing evidence for the actual existence of the Jesus of the Bible.
