There is also the "James Ossuary", on which is written in Aramaic "James, son of Joseph, brother(s?) of Jesus".
Here is a summary of the facts:
An ossuary is essentially a bone-box where the bones of the deceased are stored. When a person died his body was laid and stored somewhere safe. It would take maybe two years for there only to be bones remaining, at which point the bones would be put in an ossuary.
On the side of the "James Ossuary" is written in Aramaic "Yacobus, son of Yusuf, brother of Yeshua" or "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus".
You can read on google about the accusation and court case. The Israeli authorities took the owner of the ossuary to court claiming it was a forgery. (Obviously, if it is genuine it is worth a few dollars.)
The court concluded there was insufficient evidence to say it was definately a forgery.
The evidence is thus: all are agreed the box itself is first century. Ossuaries were used in Palestine from 20 BC until 70 AD. The accusation was about the inscription "James, son of.." etc. In particular had "brother of Yeshua" been added in modern times by forgers?
Palestine ossuaries gain "patina" over the centuries. This one had patina. In the groove of the inscription "brother of Yeshua" there was also patina, showing this could not have been written in modern times (unless the forgers had skills that no one else had, which was supposed to be a possibility and was a suspicion of the Israeli authority). In fact the patina was in one of the grooves of one of the letters of the word "Yeshua". The Israeli Authority suggested that the patina had grown in an old fault line on the surface of the box of which the forgers had made use and incorporated into their word "Yeshua".
There were a plethora of experts involved in examining the box and its inscription. Experts in the way Aramaic letters are written, which varied over the centuries, said it was the style which belonged to the decades immediately preceding the Jewish-Roman War around 70 AD, i.e. about 50 to 70 AD. Josephus the first century historian tells us James the brother of Jesus was killed on the orders of Annas the High Priest. According to Josephus, this Annas (Josephus calls him the younger Annas) was one of the sons of the Annas the High Priest, whom Josephus calls "Annas the Elder". Annas the Elder is the one written about in the Gospels and early Acts of the Apostles. The younger Annas was High Priest for only 3 months or so after the death of the governor Festus in 62 (or maybe 63) AD.
In essence, the date of the style of the writing of the Aramaic letters fits perfectly with the date of the death of James the brother of Jesus according to Josephus.
A world authority in first century Aramaic said the phrase "brother of yeshua" was not genuine, and was a sign the phrase was a modern forgery. Then later the same expert did an about turn - the phrase "brother of Yeshua" was definately genuine! Why did he change his mind? The Aramaic word used for "brother" was actually in the plural, so literally for first century aramaic it read "James, son of Joseph, brothers of Jesus". At first the expert believed that "brothers" was never used to mean "brother" in the first century: "brothers" was used to mean "brother" only in later centuries, it was a later development in aramaic. So the inscription was a forgery, the person who wrote it did not know what he was doing. But then the expert found new evidence which showed that actually "brothers" was already being used to mean "brother" in the first century; furthermore there was no way any forger could possibly have known that, he had only just found it out himself.
So this expert in first century Aramaic decided the inscription on the ossuary is genuinely ancient and not a modern forgery. It is of "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus".
Could it be of some other James, and some other Jesus? The mathematical odds of there being another James with a father called Joseph and a brother called Jesus is negligible. I cannot remember the exact figure, but it is so small as to be impossible to be any other James.
Permit me to add here information about how these mathematical odds were arrived at.
Much investigation has been carried out by several scholars interested in knowing the frequency of Jewish names in late antiquity. A summary account of these investigations (together with ground breaking arguments as to the authenticity of the Gospels based on these investigations) can be found in the book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" by Richard Bauckham (Eerdmans, 2006).
For instance, there was Tal ILAN, an Israeli scholar who published in 2002 a "Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I: Palestine 330BCE-200CE". She looked at the frequency of names by recording names from all relevant sources including "the works of Josephus, the New Testament, the texts from the Judean desert and from Masada, ossuary inscriptions from Jerusalem, and the earliest (tannaitic) rabbinic sources".
Bauckham writes: "It may come as a surprise to many readers that we know the names of as many as three thousand Palestinian Jews who lived during the five centuries covered by Ilan's Lexicon." (Page 68)
Bauckham also summarises the investigations of Rachel Hachlili and others.
Bauckham himself made a comparison of the frequency of names in the Gospels with the frequency of names for the same period and place outside the Gospels using Josephus, the ossuary inscriptions, etc. What he found was a striking agreement between the Gospels and the other sources for the frequency of both male and female names: which lead him to write his book making a very strong argument that the Gospels are "eyewitness testimony". Peter Williams presents the argument of Richard Bauckham on youtube at:
From the studies of Richard Bauckham, Rachel Hachlili, etc, the percentage frequency of the name Yeshua/Jesus amongst men in Palestine in the first century period was 9 percent. For Yacob/Yacobus (James) is 2 percent. For Yusuf (Joseph) it is 14 percent.
So if there are at least two men in a first century Jewish family in Palestine the chances of one of them being called Joseph is 14%, and the chances of another of them being called James is 2%. So the chance of a family having both a Joseph and a James is 14% times 2% or 0.28%. The chance that the father is Joseph and the son is James is half of 0.28%, i.e. 0.14%. All the calculations of probability can be seen in the e-book starting at the bottom of page 14.
Where I find myself struggling with the numbers is that Hershel speaks of the number of possible James "over two generations". In that the styling of the Aramaic letters restricts the Ossuary to the 20 years before 70 AD I would have thought this would only allow for one generation (not two): meaning the potential number of James is half that spoken of by Hershel Shanks.
Postscript: Hershel says there were on the laws of probability 20 James with a father of Joseph and a brother of Jesus. This is a much higher figure than the one others have quoted which is a grand total of 1.71 possible Jameses with these relatives. Well, thanks for that Hershel. Just as I thought we were getting to rock solid evidence he pipes up with 20 possible Jameses, not the less than 2 that I previously read about. I don't know why the discrepancy, but the rarity of naming a brother at all is still highly significant. Over 200 ossuaries have been found, and only one other ossuary has more than one relative named in addition to the name of the deceased. The "Yeshua" inscribed on the ossuary is someone very important.
Post post script:
In first century Palestine the frequency of the names was thus:-
Joseph (Yusuf) - 14%
Jesus (Yeshua) - 9%
James (Yacobus) - 2%
The different family combination possiblities are 4: i.e. 3 brothers, James is father, Jesus is father, Joseph is father.
So the possibility of a family having Joseph as father and Jesus and James as brothers is: 9% * 2% * 14% / 4 = 0.0063%. Or 6.3 families with this combination if the population is 100,000. (Unfortunately, it is difficult/impossible to say how many such families there were (with father Joseph and two sons Jesus and James) because estimates of the total population of Jerusalem in the 1st century vary enormously, as they do for the Roman Empire as a whole.)
In addition to the above, rarely do ossuaries have the name of even one other relative of the deceased. But the James Ossuary is one of only two ossuaries so far discovered to have two other relatives named. To have the name of a brother mentioned suggests/indicates that the brother would be very well known or important.
If you go to the biblical archaeology webpage linked immediately below there is an offer of the free e-book called "James, the brother of Jesus: the forgery trial of the century" by Hershel Shanks.