Peter Kirby

I'm sure that many of us watched the Discovery Channel program on the ossuary: "James the brother of Jesus."

Probably the best part of the program was that I got to put faces to all those names: Eisenman, Witherington, Lemaire, Golan, Altman, Bauckham, etc. That is, when I wasn't writing. I took notes on the program so that I could spark a discussion on what was said.

The program started by stating a common observation: if authentic and traceable to James the Just, the ossuary would be the first archaeological evidence for the life of Jesus. What I find interesting about this is that it suggests that the literary proof is not ironclad and/or doubts about the historical existence are widespread. Did the inscription found in Caesarea Maritima in 1961 bearing the name of Pilate start such a furor?

Eisenman stated that, if authentic, it would be the greatest find in 2000 years.

Murphy O'Conner indicated that James was the Jewish leader of the Jesus movement from 30 to 62 CE.

Ben Witherington III explained that a body was laid in a cave, allowed to decay, and then buried in an ossuary. Witherington commented that Jesus was headed for an ossuary but that circumstances intervened.

Andre Lemaire said thta, by chance, he met some antiquities collectors in Jerusalem. One said, "I have something to show you." Lemaire was astonished: under a magnifying glass, the shape and grammar of the inscription was legitimate.

Some say that Lemaire was too quick to authenticate the inscription. Baruch Halpern claimed that forgers are real professionals. Moreover, Halpern said, although forgers know how to think like scholars and know what tests will be performed and how scholars will react, scholars do not know how to think like forgers.

Oded Golan stands to gain the most from authenticity. If the ossuary was bought after 1978, the state can confiscate the item. Golan purchased 3 ossuaries when he was living with his parents, but he can't remember which dealer sold which ossuary.

The program showed a scene where Golan was talking to a Jerusalem antiquities dealer, Haj Amar. The dealer said that he had sold ossuaries with inscriptions but that he was illiterate. Golan thinks that he must have bought the item from another dealer.

Then we are told from the Arminean Patriarchate that the body of James was buried in the Kidron Valley, where a church was built, but that during the Muslim invasion the bones were redeposited in a cathedral inside Jerusalem. I don't quite understand why.

Richard Bauckham states that Jesus had at least four brothers and two sisters and that there are three explanations of this in light of the doctrine of the virginal conception of Jesus. The Catholic view is that the 'brothers' were cousins. The Orthodox view is that the siblings were from a previous marriage by Joseph. The Protestants say that Mary gave birth to other children after Jesus.

Ilani states that the limestone of the ossuary is particular to Selwan, near the Kidron Valley.

Amir Ganor says that Oded Golan has no proof to back up his story. Ganor believes that the ossuary was looted recently. Ganor says that there are 300 illegal excavations per year, and he shows us a typical tomb in the area.

Hershel Shanks says, "We have a spectacular find, no question about it."

The program says (incorrectly?) that Oded Golan turned the packing over to the shipping company.

Thorsell says that damage in transit was discovered. The program shows the restoration process. I was unaware of the extent of the damage until I saw the program. The ossuary was not just cracked but broken up into several completely separated pieces. The restoration is especially difficult because the ossuary is trapezoidal: 20" in length, 10" on one side, 12" on the other.

The program says that James got written out of the story of early Christianity, overshadowed by Paul, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the ossuary restores him to his place of importance.

If the box is a fake, it's hard to explain the slow, wavy encrustation called a 'patina'. So the box is authentic, but is the inscription?

Critics say that the 1st part is authentic but the 2nd part inauthentic. Some say the ayin (?) in the 1st half is different from the same letter in the second half.

Cross says that, if there were a forger, he is a "genius." It's all of one piece.

Rochelle Altman caused an academic furor, the program says. Unlike the first half, the second part is poorly done, not in a coherent script, and not spaced by speech.

Baruch Halpern says that the script starts off nicely, executed perfectly, but then that's not important anymore; as if tosay, "Oh ya, by the way, the brother of Jesus."

Ben Witherington III says that there is no evidence of forgery. He appeals to the authority of Cross and Lemaire.

The program explains that the patina is a thin film that develops when stone is exposed to air. If a forger made the inscription, there would be no patina. The patina inside the letters is compared to the patina outside.

Halpern counters: Forging a patina is not difficult. All you have to do is take calcium carbonate, make a paste, paint it on, and bake.

We are lead to believe that an ultraviolet inspection of the ossuary would reveal whether this had been done. If the inscription stands out, it's a forgery. But both parts of the inscription look the same.

Someone says that he doesn't think it's a forgery but that it doesn't tell us which James, Joseph, or Jesus is on the ossuary.

Fuchs says that there were hundreds or thousands of people named James. The relevant question is, how many had these relationships?

Supposedly, only 3 candidates are left from the Jerusalem population after taking away females, the illiterate, the poor and factor in the name James and the father Joseph. And when one stipulates that his brother was named Jesus, there is only one possibility, or so it goes.

Oded Golan says he bought it in the early 1970s. How did it end up with Golan? According to tradition, James was thrown off the wall of the Temple. There was a chapel at the base of the memorial to his gravesite. John Allegro organized an expedition and found the remains of a chapel where the Armenians said there would be one. Is it possible that diggers removed the ossuary? The program says that it is entirely plausible that the ossuary sate with the dealer until Golan bought it. Why don't the Armenians have a tradition of the ossuary? On a 12th century mural, there is an image of James above a trapezoidal ossuary.

Any comments? What do you think about the documentary?

best,
Peter Kirby

Sauron

Peter Kirby wrote:
My comments below:
Small nit - Eisenman is not a proponent of the ossuary's authenticity. I found it interesting that the producers of this show borrowed Eisenman's evaluation, but didn't follow through to show Eisenman's actual position on authenticity. Quoting half the person's viewpoint, in order to create a totally opposite effect.
I thought this was a good point. If you aren't looking for a forgery, then it's unlikely you would recognize one. But if your whole goal is to pass off a forgery, then you approach the same situation with totally different mindset.

Actually, I believe he stated that it was Senonian limestone, which is consistent with Jerusalem, not particular to it. There is a big difference. In fact, it was this precise point of confusion that prompted Ilani to issue a clarification:
http://www.iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...1&t=000726&p=4

Dear Dr Welling,

Duba passed to me your request. I and my colleague Dr Amnon Rosenfeld studied the rock type and the patina the THE ossuary. The rock type is Senonian chalk of the Menuha Formation. In the eastern parts of Jerusalem, such as Mount Scopus and Siluan area, the country rocks belong to this formation. There are several ancient quarries and workshops within this lithology, such as sites in Hizma, Anata and the eastern slopes of Mount Scopus. See Magen 1984, 1988, 1994, 2002 where he describe the excavations of these sites in which stone ware industry existed during the Second Temple period.

To your specific question, we cannot say for sure that the ossuary was produced in the Jerusalem area, because this Senonian chalk is exposed in many places in Israel and the vicinity. To the present knowledge, there are no specific characteristic signs of that chalk to specific site. Yet, the evidence of the quarries and the workshops of that ancient time in the vicinity of Jerusalem, using this chalk, is what we can say at present.

Dr Shimon Ilani
The Geological Survey of Israel.

Kyle McCarter, renowned paleographer and Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins, has an interesting explanation for this (as well as for the lack of differentiation in the patina, which you also note):
http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0403web/wholly.html

"The first question is whether the object itself is ancient," McCarter says. "I don't have any doubts that it's an ancient ossuary. The second question is whether the inscription is ancient."

The age of the ossuary was established to McCarter's satisfaction by laboratory analysis performed by the Geological Survey of Israel. The box is made of limestone, which through contact with air acquires a patina over the centuries. The GSI analyzed this patina, and found traces of it in the grooves of the inscription, indicating that the letters had not been incised at a significantly later date. But something else about the inscription troubles skeptical experts: At its midway point the inscription's lettering changes. The reference to Jesus appears to have been added later.

"My feeling is that it is an ancient inscription, but I think it was written by two different hands," says McCarter. "The first part" -- Ya'akov, bar Yosef -- "is written in a formal hand and script, very typical of the mid-first century and a script that I know very well because it's the script of the Copper Scroll. The 'brother of Jesus' part" -- akhui di Yeshua -- "is written in a more cursive hand and has individual letter forms that are attested only in the second century."

Is this evidence that the ossuary should not be regarded as that of Jesus' brother? Not necessarily, McCarter says. "Why would somebody in the second century add 'brother of Jesus'? I think there are two possible reasons. One is a pious fraud. There were people in the second century who already venerated the memory of James, and the second century is not too early for the beginning of the creation of relics. There were groups that could have taken an ordinary ossuary that had those two very common names on it -- James and Joseph -- then added 'brother of Jesus.'

Another possibility, though, which to me is just as likely, maybe even more likely, is there were people who had knowledge of this family tomb. When James died -- according to Josephus he died in 62 -- he could have been buried in an ossuary that simply identified him as the son of Joseph. But by the second century, the early Christian church would have been well enough developed that it would have been important to identify him as the brother of Jesus. People would have wanted to go back and make explicit what was already implicit in the original inscription."


As above - a 2nd century addition, done for pious reasons, would also show the same kind of patina as well as a lack of modern tools.

I found this weak. Fuchs started with the total population of Jerusalem between the key year-dates, and systematically removed several groups. Thus, reducing the number of possible people who might have fit the name trio of James, Joseph, and Jesus. But Fuchs' assumptions for removing of several groups from the sample Jerusalem population is confusing. It's understandable that he removed the women and tose who died in infancy. But I saw no reason to remove either the illiterate or the poor, and thus artificially reducing the sample size of the population.

Illiterate - the assumption for removing the illiterate was that only the families of literate Jerusalemites would have the skill to include an inscription on the ossuary. Therefore, James & his family must have been part of the literate subgroup, thus making the population pool smaller. This is unconvincing, because it could just as easily be argued that James and his family were illiterate, but that his position and influence in the new Jerusalem Church were such that someone from the circle of new Christian believers saw fit to inscribe the box. This was a movement that emphasized collective responsibility and sharing:

ACT 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
ACT 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Poor - the assumption for removing the poor was that only the families of wealthier Jerusalemites would have the financial means to provide an ossuary for a dead loved one. But again, and for the similar reasons, I don't see any reason why James couldn't have also been poor. Given his role in the early Jerusalem Church and his (alleged) violent martyrdom, his followers could have seen fit to come together and collectively purchase an ossuary for the man who led their church for decades. Given the nature of messianic movements, and the emphasis on charity and their belief in an immiment kingdom of God and Judgement Day, it would seem an obvious "parting gift" to the head of the Jerusalem Church.

Vinnie

I noticed that as well when I heard it. The DC clearly slipped up on that one. There is no need to "prove" what is already known. Without the literary sources the ossuary would be meaningless. If authentic it only confirms what we already know and gives some strength to some theories about James.

I made note of all the names as well and it was cool to see the faces. From my notes these peeps were mentioned and shown: Eisenman, O' Connor, Painter, Lemaire, Halpurn, Golan, Bauckham, Altman, Shanks, Reed, Fitzmeyer, Cross, Altman, Mevorah and Witherington.

I noticed a comment or two at the end about "rolling away stones" as well.

Three is probably much too precise and should not be overly stressed. It reminds me of losing points in science class because I forgot about taking into account significant figures. One problem deals with the starting figure. The exact number of the population could be off by hundreds of thousands of people. How would this effect the three in the end? The population of men, women, the illiterate and poor cannot be exactly reconstructed can it? Then it was said that Josphus, Jesus and James make up the follwoing percentage of names: 8%, 4% and 2%. How exact is this?

These are all best guesses and produce a number of three. But I wouldn't trumpet three as an exact number. It would be better to say that there could only be a few potential candidates based upon scholarly calculations which need to be allowed room for error.

I would then ask how often one is identified by his brother on an ossuary? The show concluded that being identified in such a way on an ossuary is unique or extremely rare. That would force me to conclude on the side that it probably is Jame's ossuary if authentic. Afterall, we already have Josephus and Paul which mention James in relation to his brother Jesus.

The major problem lies in whether its authentic or not. The ultraviolet test seemed to pass though.

Vinnie

Haran

I was not very impressed by the program. It, like the program after it, seemed only geared for popular entertainment. Suppose that's what I should've expected...sensationalism.

Aside from that, it was definitely interesting to see the different scholars, especially the esteemed Dr. Cross and Dr. Fitzmyer. It was kind of strange to put a face with Dr. Altman, the one who lashed out at me so unreasonably for my response to her report. I was frustrated that the DC didn't mention why she had caused an academic "furor". It was because of several basic and obvious mistakes in her report and early theories.

At least they followed up with the opinions of Lemaire, Fitzmyer, and Cross. I especially enjoyed hearing the comments of Dr. Cross, that the inscription is in one hand and that if there were a forger he is a genius.

By the way, I do believe that Ilani said that his tests indicated that the ossuary would have most likely come from Jerusalem. Peter, do you have an exact record of his wording at that point in the show?

Bede

Well, it seems the balance of probability is that box and inscription are genuine. It could be a fake but we have no particular reason to think so. Whether it contained James brother of Jesus known as Christ, we have no way of knowing, although the possible provenance through the Armenian connection is interesting.

But I am getting rather fed up with people (like on the programme) claiming it is of earth shattering importance. It tells us nothing we don't know and isn't even pretty to look at.

Now if someone found a copy of Q on an Egyptian rubbish dump, that would be interesting.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vinnie

I couldn't have said it better myself. That whole plug about it being the best solid proof for Jesus or whatever is all a marketing gimmick. The ossuary doesn't really change anything or tell us anything we don't know. That is why I haven't really been too interested in all the debates on it here.

Vinnie

Haran

I definitely agree that the ossuary is not earth shattering, but I don't think I agree that it does not have implications for several fields of historical research.

Why do you guys think that the ossuary doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know? I'm just curious, especially in light of the many major scholars who have already been weighing in on it.

Sure, it can never be proven conclusively that the box was actually that of James brother of Jesus the Messiah, but why do you think that means the box doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know? Do you just mean about the historical Jesus? What about the whole virginity issue with Mary?

My opinion is that the ossuary has some impact rather than no impact. Its major impact may be more in the the fields of paleography, aramaic orthography, and ossuary studies than with the historical Jesus.

Also, whether it has any impact on scholarly fields, it still makes an impact on people and probably makes many wonder...Could this really be James' burial box? There is something of an awe "what if" factor, I think.

Vinnie

You mean the boring scholarly fields not receiving much publicity? They are marketing Jesus, not aramaic orthography. It may greatly impact these fields but I don't see it as a major find regarding HJ studies. Calling it a major find of HJ research is just a nice marketing gimmick IMO.

Vinnie

Answerer

Guess what guys, I can't watch the programme again, arghhhhh.

Anyway, even if James existed, it does not prove Jesus' immortality status. For what I know, some scholars believe that James could be the true messiah instead of Jesus because he was born in the correct date (0 B.C.) as predicted in the bible. whereas they argued that Jesus was born on the year of 7 B.C, seven years before the actual birth date of the Messiah.

Haran

Ok. That I can pretty much agree with. They are really hyping the thing. I don't understand that. Who wants another Shroud of Turin??

Do you really think it has zero effect on HJ research, though? What about the history of James? Zero? I have no idea. I suppose we'll see what happens.