There we were asked to assess a dramatic announcement made public a few days before: That someone had discovered the James Ossuary – the reburial box for the bones of the brother of Jesus.

Five years later, the consensus is that the “brother of Jesus” portion of the box was added to an original inscription that read “James son of Joseph.” And Oded Golan, the owner of the ossuary, is standing trial in Israel accused of antiquities fraud.

The people involved in the latest tomb discovery story are different but the story line is similar.

According to a new Discovery Channel documentary and a companion book, a tomb unearthed in the Talpiyot neighborhood of Jerusalem in 1980 contains the bones of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Judah, son of Jesus.

They also claim that the James Ossuary is real and came from the same tomb.

I was one of the early skeptics of the James Ossuary. I questioned whether the latter part of the inscription was original or had been added.

I was also critical of the fact that the artifact was "unprovenanced" -- its place of origin unknown -- and should not have been given the kind of reception and regard it instantly achieved when the Royal Ontario Museum signed on and planned a show on short notice.

I’m just as skeptical of the new claims and I’m not alone.

Professor Amos Kloner, former chief archaeologist for Jerusalem, who excavated the Talpiot tomb 27 years ago, says the dimensions of the so-called James Ossuary do not match and could not have come from the Talpiot tomb.

Other archaeologists are skeptical because the “Jesus Family” tomb is quite out of the ordinary and the names are as common as any that are found in the First Century.

Biblical scholars are skeptical, as well. Reburial in an ossuary would place Jesus in the mainstream of a custom that was more common in Judea than in Galilee, in Jerusalem than in Nazareth. Only the most pious Jews were believed to have practiced such a custom.

Religious leaders are skeptical, if not outraged, about claims that the “Jesus Family” tomb proves there was no resurrection, or that Jesus had a son, with or without Mary Magdalene.

Are we really to believe that the empty-tomb traditions of the New Testament are untrue?

Are we to believe that the body of Jesus was conveyed from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, buried elsewhere, and then reburied in a tomb in the southernmost tip of Jerusalem, thus contradicting New Testament sources?

Relax.

While we shouldn’t dismiss outright all the claims being made about the “Jesus Family” tomb, we should be skeptical.

We should allow archaeologists and biblical scholars to sift through the findings.

We should continue to investigate more fully not only the contents of these tombs, but also their social and religious contexts.

And we should remember this: Regardless of the outcome of the debate, there are many paths to the truth. Archeology is only one of them, and when it challenges the traditional wisdom of generations of scholars and theologians, we have a right to be skeptical.