The Bone-Box of James, âthe Brother of Jesusâ
Both the scholarly and larger lay communities were set abuzz in early October 2002, when an announcement was made that an ossuary â a Jewish âbone-boxâ used for the âsecond burialâ of Jewish remains in antiquity â had recently surfaced with an Aramaic inscription that stated: âJames, son of Joseph, broth(er) of Jesus.â The Washington press conference was co-hosted by the Discovery Channel and the Biblical Archaeological Society. The latter entity would publish the more detailed epigraphic evidence suggesting that the inscription was authentic and thus quite likely represented the earliest material evidence for the existence of Jesus, whose name is attested on the box. Ironically, although the bone-box had purportedly once housed the bones of James, he was less of a focus, as his brother was much more famous! AndrĂ© Lemaire, a professor of Hebrew and Aramaic philology and epigraphy at the Sorbonne University, was the person who stumbled upon the James ossuary, and he was instrumental in vigorously arguing for its authenticity.1 As the story goes, Lemaire, while in Jerusalem, was approached by a collector of antiquities who mentioned that he had several artifacts that he would like Lemaire to examine. The collector, Oded Golan, had a fairly extensive assemblage of ancient objects, including an inscription designated as the âJehoash Tablet,â which was claimed to be an artifact connected to the first Temple, built by Solomon. This particular ossuary was one of many in Golanâs collection.
The ossuary attributed to James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus, generated greater attention than Golanâs other objects, in part because of its presumed ramifications for authenticating a critical component of Christian history. Some scholars were interested in the figure of James himself, whose bones were to have been at one time placed in this ossuary for burial. When examined by Lemaire, the box was empty of bones, although Golan later claimed he had a small bag of fragments that he had preserved. James is an important character in the history of early Christianity as narrated in the Acts of the Apostles. It is believed that this James, either the half-brother of Jesus (by Joseph) or a cousin, took over leadership of the Jerusalem church in its early stages. A similar James is referred to in the apostle Paulâs letter to the Galatians, where Paul acknowledges him as one of the âpillarsâ of the Jerusalem church, alongside Peter and John (Gal. 2:9). Paul also explicitly refers to a James in Galatians 1:19 whom he calls âJames, the brother of the Lord.â Although often obscure in previous Protestant scholarship, in the decade or so just prior to the announcement of this discovery the figure of James had become an important character for New Testament scholars, not least because of the link he provided between Judaism and Christianity, which is significant also for contemporary Jewish-Christian interreligious dialogue. In other words, here was a venerable early Christian leader who evidently followed Jewish law, including the purity rituals. Indeed, in Galatians Paul refers to âmen from Jamesâ (2:9), who arrive from Jerusalem in Antioch, and who appear to have some influence on Peter when he withdraws from eating at the same table with Gentiles, who were according to Jewish law considered to be unclean. Acts 15 details some of the broader issues involved in the initial challenges and controversies instigated by the inclusion of Gentiles in the emergent Jewish movement that acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah and risen Lord. Thus, the James ossuary could provide material evidence that would further knit these early Christian texts together into a cohesive narrative.
Of course, the major hype was generated over the fact that the James ossuary mentioned the name of âJesus.â Aside from the obvious public interest in âproofâ for the historicity of Jesus, in the scholarly world this matter is of major significance, since there are relatively few references to the figure of Jesus outside of the New Testament that remain from the ancient world in which he lived. There are some ancient literary references to a figure of âJesusâ or âChrist,â2 but none of them fully achieve the result of affirming the existence of an individual named âJesusâ who did and said the things that are attributed to him in the Gospels of the New Testament. And to be sure, there is no artifact from the ancient world that attests to the existence of Jesus â no written graffiti, e.g., that states, âJesus of Nazareth, son of God (and Mary), Savior of humankind, brother of James, was here.â The bone-box of James proved to be a major excitement for this reason. For many scholars the James ossuary became something like the Rosetta Stone, providing an anchor of sorts in terms of historical orientation â that is, providing both an assurance that Jesus of Nazareth really did exist and a key to âtranslatingâ the terms of that existence. Frankly, while a few critics â mostly those who do not study the New Testament and early Christian literature professionally â have from time to time doubted that Jesus existed historically, the vast majority of scholars believe he quite likely did. Thus, the James ossuary really tells us nothing new. It does have much more significance for putting us in touch with James of Jerusalem, the brother of Jesus. And, for sure, there were calls for doing DNA analysis, to see what we might learn about the genetics of the lineage of Joseph.
The James ossuary was brought to the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada about one month after its existence had been rolled out publicly with great fanfare. In November 2002, an exhibition of the ossuary went on display, exactly around the same time that the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion held its annual meetings in that city. Obviously the fact that the largest professional gathering of biblical scholars and scholars of religion took place at exactly the same time as the exhibit made for the possibility of a large audience of critical scholars who would not just want to see the exciting artifact for themselves, but who also would be quite willing to comment, blog, and discuss the James ossuary at length in any media format that would be made available. As we recall, there was a definite stir at that conference, with one of the first questions asked of fellow participants being whether or not they had gone out to see the ossuary yet. Some biblical scholars took pride in declaring that they were not going to see the exhibit, that they were not going to give in to the hype and media frenzy. Wherever particular scholars stood, most were aware of the controversy surrounding the James ossuary â and that it was considered by many scholars to be a forgery. The specter of forgery was in fact a major facet of the early conversation, right after the announcement of the ossuaryâs existence. Scholars were skeptical â it was a bit âtoo easyâ that a bone-box with the three names âJames,â âJoseph,â and âJesusâ surfaced; it was a little too convenient. Indeed, the fact that details regarding the origins of the find were somewhat murky, and remain so, added to the skepticism around the James ossuaryâs authenticity.
Golan claimed he had been sold the ossuary many decades earlier by an antiquities dealer whose name he could not recall. Given that it was bought off the open market, and not properly excavated, one can reasonably presume that the object had been acquired illegally and most likely looted from its site of origin. The bone-box was in Golanâs possession for a long while before he approached Lemaire and asked him to examine the object. It did seem a little too good to be true, that this Israeli collector happened to have this potentially shocking artifact that somehow lay in obscurity for so long. If Golan had thought to ask someone to look at it years later, why not earlier? Or was the inscription not on the bone-box earlier? Was it in fact a forged inscription, added by someone in order to make an otherwise ordinary ancient ossuary (which is not all that rare a find) into something quite extraordinary â and for sure also incredibly valuable from a monetary standpoint. The James ossuary itself is estimated to be worth several million U.S. dollars, but only because of its inscription and attribution. Any ordinary ossuary or one with the inscription of an unrecognizable figure from the past, which is almost always the case, would be worth much less. This is as close to the âHoly Grailâ that collectors and scholars get, and so the value is raised significantly as a result.
Scholars of the New Testament, Christian origins, and early Christianity were, and are, split on the issue of the James ossuary. Many wanted to believe, and still do believe, that the ossuary was the authentic bone-box of James, the brother of Jesus. Others are quite convinced that the inscription of an ossuary dating to the first century CE had been added or altered later, in the much more recent past. There was some evidence for this conclusion in terms of analysis of the lettering. The first part, âJames, son of Joseph,â seemed to be done in a different cursive script than that of âbrother of Jesus.â Of course, that could still mean the first part was genuine, which would perhaps not undermine its value all that much. The patina that had developed around the inscription was analyzed as well, and the results of analysis were mixed. Some of these results suggest that the patina could have been added later, others insist that the patina was uneven throughout the inscription, and still others attest to its antiquity and thus proof of the authenticity of the inscription. It did not help that the inscription was partially damaged in the transit of the James ossuary to the Royal Museum of Ontario, when a crack developed in its façade, a fact which only served to heighten the media spectacle surrounding the object. Not only had this sacred relic from the past been at long last revealed, but now it was also damaged!
The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), which is the main arm of the Israeli government in charge of overseeing archaeological projects and remains, believed the James ossuary was a fake. More specifically, the agency believed that Golan or someone else came across an ancient and authentic ossuary, which was initially uninscribed. According to the IAAâs reconstruction of events, someone then added the inscription as a means to create the potential for selling it on the open market at an exorbitant price. Within the year of the announcement of its discovery, the ossuary was confiscated by the IAA and Golan was investigated for forgery and attempt to commit fraud. The forging of artifacts is a widespread phenomenon and has become increasingly sophisticated, and certainly when it comes to âHoly Landâ objects it is all the rage as there is a considerable consumer base for such items. As it turns out, in the investigation of Golan the authorities uncovered a facility that had evidence of a group invested in reproducing replicas of ancient artifacts, with all the tools necessary to create the various elements to indicate âantiquity,â such as patinas and inscriptions. Golan was charged, and so began an intricate ten-year long struggle with the Israeli state regarding his alleged involvement in a forgery ring, along with the fraudulent nature of the James ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet. After a long legal process, utilizing an array of experts of all types examining all possible aspects related to the authenticity of the ossuary, the court finally ruled in Golanâs favor. No one claimed him âinnocentâ by any standard. However, it was deemed impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ossuary, or the inscription on it, was fake. The IAA then waged a legal battle to keep the ossuary in its custody. Golan, however, finally won the privilege to have the ossuary returned to his collection in the spring of 2014. In a somewhat ironic, if circular, twist of events, the James ossuary will now â some twelve years after it was first put on display at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, only to be seized shortly thereafter â go back on display in a museum, once again as the famous find that attests to âJames, the son of Joseph, the broth[er] of Jesus.â
While it is quite likely that we will never know with certainty whether or not the inscription on the ossuary signaling this individual âJamesâ from antiquity is genuine, we ourselves are nevertheless highly skeptical of its authenticity. That said, many scholars, particularly those committed to the relative historical accuracy of the accounts of early Christian history that we find in the New Testament, continue to be adamantly committed to the genuineness of the inscription and, more importantly, to its significance as an assurance that events described in the New Testament have a factual, historical, and material basis. In other words, rather than simply pointing us in the direction of a historical curiosity â âlook at the way that Jews in the ancient world buried their dead, and isnât it interesting that we find in this instance a reference to an ancient figure who might be James of Jerusalem and also the brother of Jesusâ â we find, rather, an opening for a fairly heated public debate regarding the broader historicity of the New Testament materials more generally. In other words, the James ossuary has come to signify a much larger issue regarding our own certainty about the events described in the New Testament and the significance they might have. The James ossuary is thus a site for thinking about some of the most basic methodological issues and questions in the study of the New Testament, Christian origins, and early Christianity.
We raise the matter of the James ossuary at the opening of this book not because we are interested or invested in the outcome of the debates and controversies that swirled around the bone-box of the brother of Jesus, but because, in our estimation, it provides a helpful heuristic framework in which to think about the larger questions that guide New Testament interpretation and that shape the categories and issues that scholars of early Christianity might use to ask such questions about the material. For instance, that the first major issue became one of âauthenticityâ versus âinauthenticityâ related to the inscription on the James ossuary reveals something important about how scholars have come, over a long period of time in the development of New Testament studies as a discipline, to conceptualize the past. The James ossuary clearly has struck a visceral nerve with scholars and the public, as it appears to be a tangible object that could place one directly in touch with an ancient sacred past. Like the relics of the Middle Ages, which would lure Christian pilgrims from all over to this shrine or that one to see this bone of Saint Peter or that bone of Saint Paul or Mary Magdaleneâs tooth, so also today we see the power of the object to transport the viewer back in time, to a period of âholy beginnings,â allowing us to nearly touch this past, becoming a part of it in an unmediated manner.
One cannot discount the powerfully emotional and mental feature that something like the James ossuary can provide. For us, though, the use of such objects by scholars is most interesting, and we are particularly struck by the deployment of the language of âbeginningsâ and âoriginsâ to facilitate for a larger lay population the link to the past that is already partly in motion. Scholars do not invest their energies in those emotions, however. They are more concerned about situating the object in question within a larger âorder of things,â a greater structure of meaning in which the ossuary both invokes and answers questions that New Testament scholarship considers vital for assessing this past. And to be sure, whether the James ossuary is considered to be âauthenticâ or not is beside the point. Both sides in this debate are still invested in the same fundamental set of questions regarding the New Testament, along with how our investigative efforts should proceed and how they should be framed. The James ossuary controversy thus reveals a great deal about how scholars focus on the past, how we conceptualize hi...
