HOW MUCH OF THIS IS BELIEVABLE
Most experts think the ossuary itself is genuine, but many of them think the inscription is fake. Scientific analysis can’t conclusively date when the inscription was added.
While archeologically very interesting, I don’t think it changes much, as most atheists would concede that Jesus (the person) probably existed, and was executed by the Romans.
Here’s where my thoughts tend to go. If this Jesus did exist- he made quite a reputation among the Community he lived in or preached in. Fed 5000, cured the sick raised the dead etc. etc.
IF he was indeed killed by the Romans at the behest of the Jews , wouldn’t this be grounds for Romans as well
as Other people of note to record why this man was executed? Except for slanted biblical accounts there are none. I’ve been watching “ Good Omens” . Despite the controversy , that piece of humorous portrayal outlines clearly why the Bible is such a controversial piece of literature.
Jesus really existed just like Thor , Hercules and Romulus.
relevantThere is no concrete evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. His existence is culturally supported by the historical and collective beliefs of a few billions of people.....
There is archaeological evidence that Nazareth did not even exist at the time of Jesus' birth but significantly it was thriving by the fourth century.
It is highly relevant to remember that the Greek scriptures and historical documents were hand copied and therefore subject to partisan tampering. This was especially the case for those Christian writers whose status was dependent on the successful establishment of Constantine's Catholic Church.
One of the most notorious sources for a historical Jesus is from the pen of the historian Flavius Josephus--or was it someone else's pen?
Josephus actually lived a short distance from where Nazareth later became a town and he was born just a handful of years after Jesus was supposed to have lived--and yet he never researched or wrote an expansive account of this local wunderkind who could raise the dead. Any ordinary conscientious historian (like Josephus was) would have thrashed out the details.
If you don't know the literature this has generated over the centuries-- and have a week to spare-- look up Testimonium Flavianum and just think what the Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea had to gain or lose from supporting his case in the argument.
The nature of religious belief however is driven by a will to prove that the numinous triumphs over the mundane and no doubt the ossuary was attributed to Jesus to this same end.
And by the way, Ancient Origins, although dealing with interesting issues, is on the mass entertainment side of archaeology.
Very interesting -- appreciate the link/share.
Who knows, the guy who owns it says he bought it black market, without provenance and in situ study, the thing is just a box, people will debate it forever. Most of us don't realize what a huge underground industry faking antiquities is. Highly skilled people dedicate their lives to learning how to beat the tests being done. The same guy was involved with the "Solomon Pomegranate" fraud. To complicate the matter, many of the experts asked to authenticate this stuff might have mixed motives.
Wouldn't it be a kick in the balls if Jesus were real...
...but turned out to be like this guy?
OK, I've got to comment on this one. First, whoever is responsible for the link in the OP (perhaps the entire site?) is a Witness. Quotations from the Bible have "Jehovah" in the NT and "exercise faith," a unique Freddie Franz/NWT rendering.
Second, there was an interesting lawsuit in Israel regarding this artifact. The best summary of it, with implications as to the ossuary's authenticity, is in a 21-page appendix in Pieter van der Horst's 2015 book Saxa judaica loquunter: Lessons from Early Jewish Inscriptions (Brill). The Latin in the title means "Jewish stones speak." Van der Horst is a top-notch Dutch scholar who has no interest in biblical faith or apologetics. The value of his contribution is in exposing how, as revealed through the Israeli court case, many of the claims of inauthenticity "were inspired by the fear of being misrepresented as ‘uncritical’ by colleagues” (p. 87). In other words, bona fide scholars jumped on the bandwagon of calling the artifact a fake because they were afraid of being labeled apologetic believers. Nowhere does van der Horst argue for the ossuary’s authenticity, but he certainly does contend for a truly unprejudiced investigation of it.