The so-called “James Ossuary” from a few years back is in the news again. Ben Witherington speculates on the significance of the “discoverer’s” vindication in court, and the possibility that the “brother of Jesus” inscription is ancient (in the sense of more than 100 years old). He seems to see importance here.
I just don’t. I don’t think this is “our” James. I think it is another James, who probably died at least a half century before James the Just. It is possible – perhaps even likely – that a later inscriber wrongly inferred that the ossuary belonged to James the Just and clarified this by adding an inscription. Or it is possible that it is plain old forgery – ancient or modern.
A refresher on the James Ossuary can be found here
Interesting because I just blogged on this a few days back. I’m not sure where I stand on which James it is, but I am skeptical (as it seems you are) of Witherington’s conclusions:
http://kashow.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/witherington-going-too-far/
I read your review. Like you, I have a lot of respect for BW3. I just watched a very interesting panel he was on with Dan Wallace, and (err… I forget)…
He’s far too conservative for my taste, and I think that does color his conclusions. But he’s something like the creme de la creme of conservative popular Bible scholars.
I wasn’t aware that he endorses the Shroud of Turin (?!) as one of your commenters points out. That just goes to show that expertise in one area doesn’t guarantee expertise in others, I guess.