The Blaze79%

Jesus' brother's bones? The hotly disputed treasure that shocked Jase Robertson 42%

By BlazeTV Staff87%

7/19/2026, 6:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Bandwagon, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 14.2% saturation with 88 hits. Analysis detected 899 faulty-reasoning hits from 620 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.9% and a BS Rank of 42% (12,842 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.70% of the article peer group.

When he’s not filming “Unashamed” podcasts, duck hunting, or hanging out with his family, Jase Robertson can usually be found combing the land with his metal detector. 
His interest in treasure hunting sparked several years ago when a family friend battling cancer introduced him to the hobby. 
His enthusiasm for metal detecting grew over time and eventually culminated in the Fox Nation series “Duck Family Treasure.” 
This deep fondness for unearthing lost treasure recently drew Jase to a story about a lost biblical treasure that many have forgotten or perhaps never heard of. 
On a recent episode of “Unashamed,” Jase shared the fascinating and mysterious tale of Oded Golan and the James Ossuary. 
Golan is a Tel Aviv-based Israeli antiquities collector. 
According to his testimony, he purchased a bone box in the mid-1970s from a Jerusalem antiquities dealer, paying only a modest sum. 
The box bore an Aramaic inscription that read: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” 
The implications of such a discovery, Jase explains, were enormous because if proved legitimate, it would “give proof to the Bible itself.” 
But for decades, Golan didn’t think much of the box or its inscription. 
As a secular Jew, he didn't connect it to the biblical James. 
Around 2001, however, he happened to show the box to a visiting French epigrapher André Lemaire, who instantly recognized the potential significance. 
Lemaire published his analysis of Golan’s bone box in “Biblical Archaeology Review.” 
The ossuary was then briefly exhibited at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, causing worldwide sensation as possible first archaeological evidence linked to Jesus. 
“This turned into an eight-year trial,” Jase exclaims. 
The public attention attracted the Israel Antiquities Authority, which then convened experts to analyze the box’s inscription. 
They ultimately declared the "brother of Jesus" part was a modern forgery , citing patina analysis, style differences, and other evidence. 
“I'm a treasure hunter so I was familiar with [patina],” says Jase. 
“The patina all seemed legit except on the part where it said ‘brother of Jesus.’” 
But this accusation makes him a bit skeptical. 
“[The box] had a lot of patina on it, which you can't fake patina. ... 
Any treasure hunter knows that,” he says. 
The experts’ conclusion that the “brother of Jesus” inscription was forged ignited a massive international scandal, complete with police raids on Golan’s home, dramatic claims of a sophisticated forgery ring, and headlines labeling it the “forgery trial of the century.” 
The ensuing years-long legal saga became a grueling courtroom battle of rival experts, ending in Golan’s 2012 acquittal on forgery charges (though he was convicted on a minor trading offense). 
The judge, however, noted the verdict did not prove the inscription authentic. 
“They just really couldn't prove that it wasn't authentic,” says Jase. 
The ossuary was eventually returned to Golan. 
It remains one of the most controversial artifacts in biblical archaeology, with scholars still divided on its authenticity. 
Jase wonders if the authorities’ seeming frenzy to disprove the inscription stemmed from Judaism’s rejection of Jesus as deity. 
“In their mind, they're like, ‘Well, Jesus is not the son of God. 
This guy's got some proof,’” he remarks. 
Ultimately, whether the box contained the actual bones of Jesus Christ’s brother James is not a matter of great importance, Jase argues. 
While he believes there’s “pretty strong evidence” the bone box could be legitimate, trying to prove its authenticity is “the wrong search,” he says. 
“I really feel like in my heart that we serve God in faith. 
If you're trying to look to prove there's a God, I just don't think that's the way God designed it.” 
To hear more, watch the episode above. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.9%BlazeTV Staff: 8.1%Blaze Media: 5.6%Confirmation Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%BlazeTV Staff: 5.2%Blaze Media: 3.2%Availability Heuristic8.5%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.7%Blaze Media: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.7%Blaze Media: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%BlazeTV Staff: 3.0%Blaze Media: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias4.4%This article: 1.8%BlazeTV Staff: 10.6%Blaze Media: 9.6%Framing Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.1%BlazeTV Staff: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.7%Optimism Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.4%Blaze Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%BlazeTV Staff: 9.3%Blaze Media: 9.8%Negativity Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.3%Blaze Media: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%BlazeTV Staff: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error3.1%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%BlazeTV Staff: 4.8%Blaze Media: 2.7%In-Group Bias4.0%This article: 1.9%BlazeTV Staff: 2.6%Blaze Media: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 6.8%Blaze Media: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%BlazeTV Staff: 1.2%Blaze Media: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.9%This article: 3.2%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.2%This article: 3.1%BlazeTV Staff: 1.5%Blaze Media: 2.6%Ad Hominem3.1%This article: 2.1%BlazeTV Staff: 2.1%Blaze Media: 1.2%Straw Man2.1%This article: 11.9%BlazeTV Staff: 3.7%Blaze Media: 3.7%Appeal to Authority11.9%This article: 3.9%BlazeTV Staff: 2.7%Blaze Media: 2.4%False Dilemma3.9%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.0%Blaze Media: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.1%BlazeTV Staff: 13.4%Blaze Media: 8.9%Hasty Generalization1.1%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 10.3%BlazeTV Staff: 1.8%Blaze Media: 0.9%Bandwagon10.3%This article: 8.5%BlazeTV Staff: 12.2%Blaze Media: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion8.5%This article: 3.2%BlazeTV Staff: 1.8%Blaze Media: 1.5%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 6.3%BlazeTV Staff: 2.9%Blaze Media: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.3%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.8%BlazeTV Staff: 1.3%Blaze Media: 1.0%Burden of Proof1.8%This article: 3.2%BlazeTV Staff: 1.1%Blaze Media: 0.3%Appeal to Nature3.2%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.1%BlazeTV Staff: 7.4%Blaze Media: 2.6%Anecdotal1.1%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.4%BlazeTV Staff: 2.0%Blaze Media: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.4%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Middle Ground2.9%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.5%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.2%Special Pleading3.5%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.8%Blaze Media: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 2.9%Blaze Media: 2.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 2.8%Blaze Media: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.7%BlazeTV Staff: 11.4%Blaze Media: 10.6%Biased Writer Voice9.7%This article: 14.2%BlazeTV Staff: 7.4%Blaze Media: 4.5%Indoctrination14.2%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 9.2%Blaze Media: 7.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%BlazeTV Staff: 6.6%Blaze Media: 2.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.1%

620 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers40%attributed speech369writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageOded Golan • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJase Robertson • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJase Robertson • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageIsrael Antiquities Authority • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJase Robertson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJase Robertson • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJase Robertson • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJase Robertson • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJase Robertson • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJase Robertson • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJase Robertson • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJase Robertson • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJase Robertson • 22 words • 100.0% coverageJase Robertson • 24 words • 100.0% coverageJase Robertson • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJase Robertson • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jase Robertson

96%flagged-word coverage
208 attributed words83% of attributed speech47% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Indoctrination+42.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jase Robertson: 42.3%42.3%Biased Writer Voice-16.3 ptsWriter: 16.3%Jase Robertson: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.9 ptsWriter: 1.9%Jase Robertson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.