November 15, 2002
James ossuary on display: why a faked inscription may prove its authenticity
The Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto has announced that the cracks in the celebrated ossuary have been repaired.
Officials also discovered an incised star-circle and minute flecks of red paint on the back of the box, common decorations on ossuaries dating between 50-70 A.D.Yet while the inscription may be ancient, that does not mean that it is entirely contemporary with the ossuary itself. In fact, the sharpest attack on the inscription's authenticity fully accepts that the first part is original, but states that the second part is later ("a couple, three hundred years" is the ballpark figure provided).
"We did get to see it up close and personal and we're delighted that
everything we see is consistent to both the antiquity of the object and
the antiquity of the inscription," said director of collections Dan
Rahimi.
In fact, after initial skepticism, I am now rather strongly inclined to believe that the ossuary did indeed belong to the biblical James. Were the inscription all of one piece, it could well have marked the bones of some other James. But if the words, "brother of Jesus" were added a few hundred years later, there can be no doubt about which James was intended (note, too, that Jewish use of the name "Jesus" was almost entirely abandoned once Christianity began to spread).
If the second part of the inscription postdates the first by a few hundred years, could it not have been part of the Constantinian program of embellishment of the Christian sites of the Holy Land? Many of the places over which Constantine erected shrines and basilicas had long been venerated, if not so elaborately marked. In any case, it seems unlikely that the inscription would have been modified as it was, when it was, if the intent had been to deceive. James' burial place must have been well known to the local Christian community, leaving little motive for placing such an inscription anywhere else.
Why others have not come to this conclusion, I do not know. But as an ABD whose area of specialization was late antiquity, I can safely assert that many if not most scholars of this period bring some pretty strong biases to the table. The study of early Rabbinic Judaism and the study of early Christianity sometimes seem like oil and water, even though the actual subjects of study were inextricably interrelated.
So it is hardly surprising that Rochelle Altman's observation that the ossuary inscription consisted of two very different parts led her to dismiss the attribution of the ossuary to the biblical James. And it is hardly surprising that those who study early Christianity would reject this dismissal, for by and large, they want to believe. It is ironic, then, that in rejecting Altman's argument, they appear to have overlooked the most conclusive evidence yet presented in favor of the ossuary being a genuine Christian artifact of the greatest importance.
NOTE: Roger Viklund has pointed out that only the "brother of Jesus" portion of the inscription has been attacked as a later addition, and not the "son of Joseph". The text above has been corrected accordingly. For more on the controversy, see this update.
Posted by David on November 15, 2002 2:37 PM
Interesting theory, but it has one major weakness. It has never been said that "son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" was added, only "brother of Jesus".
That is, the ossuary had the inscription "Jacob son of Joseph". Only the "brother of Jesus" was added later. There would have been hundreds, maybe thousands of ossuaries with that combination of names.
Best regards, Roger Viklund
Posted by: Roger Viklund on November 24, 2002 12:30 PM
You are entirely correct about the general acceptance of the "son of Joseph" portion of the inscription as original; the original post has been corrected to reflect this.
At this point it would be useful to know exactly how many ossuaries were likely to have borne such an inscription. I would venture to say that it could not be thousands, given the relatively narrow date range of the ossuary, and likely not even hundreds.
In fact, what I would say is the major weakness of the argument is not the number of possible candidates for the first part of the inscription (assuming, for the moment, that the inscription is indeed in two parts), but the question of whether knowledge of James' burial site remained a living tradition through the tumult of the Jewish Revolt and Roman expulsion. If that knowledge was lost, then someone might well have "improved" an appropriately-marked ossuary to create a new shrine (and source of relics). If the knowledge was not lost, there would have been little motive to try to pass off another burial as that of James.
Posted by: David on November 25, 2002 9:18 AM
David wrote:
”At this point it would be useful to know exactly how many ossuaries were likely to have bore such an inscription. I would venture to say that it could not be thousands, given the relatively narrow date range of the ossuary, and likely not even hundreds.”
First of all we have to know where and when the inscription was made. In a personal letter to Kelly Wellington, which he published 10 Oct 2002 on the JesusMysteries list, Dr Shimon Ilani ( The Geological Survey of Israel and one of the geologist who analyzed the ossuary originally) said that the Ossuary was made of chalk, not limestone. He also said that it cannot be determined from which area this chalk came.
“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.”
The vicinity includes not only Palestine but also many neighbouring countries. And given that, as far as I know, it was a common tradition for Jews in the diaspora to have their bones brought to Jerusalem (The Holy City) to be buried, it is really IMPOSSIBLE to calculate how many Jacobs with a father named Joseph there were.
Then we have to know what time span we shall include. Despite that most articles tend to date the inscription to 50 CE – 70 CE and often 63 CE, that is by no means certain. A twenty years gap is very narrow if you shall date it only according the specific handwriting. I suppose 50 years are more accurate. Ossuaries were used frequently in Palestine between circa 30/20 BCE to 70 CE. However they existed both before and afterwards. There is also a Herodian Rosette on the back of the box. As I have understood it, the maker of the ossuary put this symbol on it. The Rosette was used during the Herodian period: 30/20 BC - 30 CE and not afterwards.
And then the names: Joseph was the second most common name (after Simon). Also Jesus was a very common name and Jacob was fairly common. Mary was the most common female name. Previously two ossuaries have been discovered with the inscriptions “Jesus, son of Joseph”. One of those was found in a family grave where also ossuaries with the inscriptions Joseph, Mary, Jude and another Mary were found.
Paul Flesher has dated the second part of the inscription somewhere between the late second to sixth century.
“It turns out that although the dialect of the inscription can be made to fit into first-century Jerusalem, it actually fits much better with the Galilean dialect of the late second to sixth century.” (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/James_Ossuary.htm)
Rochelle Altman believes that the second part of the inscription was made some two to three hundred years later than the first inscription “by someone who did not know the script-systems of the relevant period”.
Roger Viklund
Posted by: Roger Viklund on November 27, 2002 5:00 PM
gmail.com