SPECIAL REPORT

Bone (Box) of Contention: The James Ossuary

JOE NICKELL

upposedly recently discovered, the this tradition the corpse would first be C.E.—of Jesus of Nazareth" (Lemaire James ossuary—a limestone mor- interred in a niche in a burial cave. After 2002, 33). tuary box that purportedly held about a year, when the remains became Lemaire believes the inscription has a S skeletonized, the bones were gathered consistency and correctness that show the remains of Jesus' brother—is the subject of controversy. It has captured into a chest, usually made from a hol- "it is genuinely ancient and not a fake." the attention of theologians, secular lowed-out block of limestone fitted with The box was examined by two experts a lid [Figueras 1983, 26]). scholars, laity, and journalists around from the Geological Survey of Israel at the world. Some have rushed die request of BAR. They to suggest that the inscrip- concluded that the ossuary tion on it is the earliest- had a gray patina (or coating known reference to Jesus out- of age). "The same gray side the bible, providing patina is found also within archaeological evidence of his some of the letters," he historical existence. wrote, "although the inscrip- "World Exclusive!" pro- tion was cleaned and the claimed Biblical Archaeology patina is therefore absent Review. "Evidence of Jesus from several letters." They Written in Stone," the cover added, "The patina has a continued; "Ossuary of cauliflower shape known to James, Brother of Jesus' be developed in a cave envi- ronment." The experts also found in Jerusalem." Urged The James Ossuary: Did this limestone box—the focus of heated contro- the contents page: "Read versy—once hold the bones of Jesus' brother? (Photographs by Joe Nickell) reported they saw no evi- how this important object dence of "the use of a mod- came to light and how scientists proved Incised on one of the James ossuary's ern tool or instrument" (Rosenfeld and it wasn't a modern forgery." long sides, the inscription consists of a Hani 2002). Actually, as we shall soon see, the single line of twenty small Aramaic Unfortunately, the cleaning of the matter is much less clear than such hype characters. It reads (from right to left): inscription—an act either of stupidity would suggest, and there are many ques- "Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui diYeshua"— or shrewdness—is problematic. It might tions yet to be answered. that is, "Jacob [English James], son of have removed traces of modern tooling. Yosef [Joseph], brother of Yeshua And when we are told that the patina is Background [Jesus]." Based on the script, Lemaire found "within some of the letters," we The initial report in Biblical Archaeology dates the inscription to some time should certainly want to know which Review (BAR) was written by a French between 20 B.C. and 70 A.D. And he ones, since scholars have debated scholar, Andre* Lemaire (2002), who believes that the inscription's mention of whether the phrase "brother of Jesus" believes both the artifact and its inscrip- a father named Joseph plus a brodicr might be a spurious addition (Altman tion authentic. Such an ossuary, or named Jesus suggests "that this is the 2002: Shuman 2002). "bone box," was used to store bones in ossuary of the James in the New Jewish burial practice during the period Testament," which in turn "would also Joe Nickell, CSlCOP's Senior Research from the first century B.C. to the Roman mean that we have here the first Fellow, is author of Pen, Ink and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (In epigraphic mention—from about 63 Evidence and Detecting Forgery.

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER March/April 2003 19 It is even possible for traces of pati- museum, and then, when the museum identified due to concerns for privacy. nation in an inscription to be original sold off some of its collection, was "It's a character issue," he told the when the carving is not. That could bought by a private collector. Associated Press (Laub 2002). "I don't happen if—as is the case of the James Provenance matters more with a like publicity." But Golan received some ossuary—shallow carving was done over sensational artifact, and the refusal or attention that may have been most a deeply pitted surface. The patinated inability of an owner to explain how he unwanted: He came under investigation bottoms of remnant pits could thus or she acquired an item is, prima facie, by the Antiquities Authority's theft unit remain inside the fresh scribings. suspicious—a possible indicator of (Scrivener 2002). In any case the patina may not be all forgery or theft. One of my cases, for According to Golan, he bought the it is claimed. According to one forgery instance, concerned a purported manu- ossuary in the Old City (old Jerusalem) expert, because pati nation is expected script of Lincoln's celebrated Gettys- "in the 1970s," paying a few hundred with age, "The production of a con- burg Address (actually the second sheet dollars to an Arab antiquities dealer he vincing patina has therefore can no longer identify (Van been of great interest to Biema 2002; Adams 2002; those engaged in faking or Wilford 2002). He has said restoration" (Jones 1990). that it was the box's engraving Although false patinas are that interested him, yet noth- most commonly applied to ing in the phrase "James, son metalwork, stone sculp- of Joseph, brother of Jesus" tures and artifacts—includ- ever "rang a bell" in Golan's ing fake "prehistoric" flint mind (Adams 2002). implements—have been Incredibly, the sensational treated to create the appear- The ossuary' s inscription (a portion of which is shown here) seems inscription had to wait three ance of antiquity (Jones suspiciously sharp-edged for its apparent age. decades before finally being 1990). For example, the appreciated by Andre Lemaire. versatile forger Alceo Dossena ot what was ostensibly a two-page Many scholars were horrified that the (1878-1937) produced convincing draft, signed by Lincoln). Suspicions ossuary had apparently been looted from patinas on marble (a hard, metamor- were raised when it was reported that its burial site—not just because looting is phic limestone) that gave his works "an the dealer who sold the item wanted to illegal and immoral, but because an arti- incredible look of age" (Sox 1987). remain anonymous, and my subse- facts being robbed of its context "com- The patina traces of the James quent ultraviolet and stereomicro- promises everything," according to P. ossuary inscription have already been scopic examination revealed it was a Kyle McCarter Jr., who chairs the Near questioned. Responding to the claim forgery (Nickell 1996). Eastern studies department at Johns that patina was cleaned from the inscrip- With the James ossuary, the prove- Hopkins University. McCarter added, tion, one art expert notes that genuine nance seems to be, well, under develop- "We don't know where [die box] came patina would be difficult to remove ment. In his BAR article, Andre from, so there will always be nagging while forged patina cracks off. "This Lemaire (2002) referred to the "newly doubts. Extraordinary finds need extraor- appears to be what happened with the revealed ossuary" which he would only dinary evidence to support them" (Van ossuary," he concludes (Lupia 2002). say was "now in a private collection in Biema 2002). Israel." A sidebar stated that on a recent Not only the box's provenance was Provenance visit to Jerusalem, "Lemaire happened lost but also, reportedly, its contents The reason for questioning the patina is to meet a certain collector by chance; which might have helped establish its that additional evidence raises doubts the collector mentioned that he had provenance. "Unfortunately," stated about the ossuary's authenticity. To some objects he wanted Lemaire to Andre Lemaire (2002), "as is almost begin with, there is die matter of its see." One of the objects was the James always the case with ossuaries that come provenance, which concerns the origin ossuary (Feldman 2002). from the antiquities market rather than or derivation of an artifact. Experts in The owner had pleaded with from a legal excavation, it was emp- the fields of objets d'artand other rarities reporters not to reveal his name or tied." I lamented this reported state of use the term to refer to a work's being address, but he was apparently uncov- affairs to a reporter (Ryan 2002), traceable to a particular source. For ered by the Israeli Antiquities Authority. observing that the bones could have example, records may show that an arti- He is Oded Golan, a Tel Aviv engi- been examined by forensic anthropolo- fact came from a certain archaeological neer, entrepreneur, and collector. Golan gists to potentially determine cause of dig, was subsequently owned by a explained that he had not wished to be death. James was reportedly thrown

2 0 March/Apr,i 2003 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER from the top of the Temple and stoned enough 1953) shows that the name been on the box at the time of burial, and beaten to death (Hurley 2002), so might be engraved on the decorated but the majority of this inscription is on his skeletal remains might show evi- side if there were space for it; otherwise top of the scratches" (Eylon 2002). dence of such trauma. it might be cut on the top, an end, or The inscription's off-center place- As it turns out, Lemairc did not the back. Wherever placed, it "probably ment is even in an area of the back that mention—perhaps he did not know— faced outwards where it could be read" suffers the least damage. Commenting that Mr. Golan has a Tupperware con- (Altman 2002a). on what is termed biovermiculation— tainer of bone fragments he says were in In the case of the James ossuary, there that is, "limestone erosion and dissolu- the ossuary when he acquired it. One would have indeed been room on the tion caused by bacteria over time in the piece is as iarge as one-haif inch by three _.f „:,-;_- -n-4 MY-hido* nw irr rront, yet tne scrioc ciccicu iu cai »c the rorm XJt L'II i HI;, dliu *!•...... _ V4,«- »• I inches, and has raised questions about inscription on the back. (A possible rea- historian states: "The ossuary had plenty potential DNA evidence. Yet, according son for this will soon become evident.) except in and around the area of the to Time magazine, Golan inscription. This is not nor- will not allow the fragments mal" (Lupia 2002). Indeed, "to be displayed or analyzed" that is one of the first (Van Biema 2002). things I had observed in studying the James ossuary. Further Suspicions It suggested a forger might In addition to the question- have selected a relatively able provenance, the exterior smooth area of the back as a appearance of the ossuary place to carve the small, also raises suspicions. To neat characters. view the box, which was on Early on, the text of the display at the Royal Ontario inscription itself raised Museum, I recently traveled doubts among experts to Toronto with several familiar with Aramaic of my Center for Inquiry scripts. They observed that colleagues. They included The ossuary was featured in this elaborate temporary exhibit at the Royal the "James, son of Joseph" Ontario Museum in Toronto. Kevin Christopher, who has portion was in a nccmiiigly degrees in classics and lin- formal script while the guistics, with whom I had been studying Furthermore, the box's decorations— "brother of Jesus" phrase was in a more the case (see acknowledgments). We the carved "frame" Lemaire referred to cursive style. This suggested "at least die were able to get a good look at the box, which outlines all four sides, plus the cir- possibility of a second hand," according and what we observed raised eyebrows. cular designs—are badly worn, whereas to one expert (McCarter 2002). Another First of all, I was surprised to see the inscription seems almost pristine. states, "The second part of the inscrip- that the ossuary was far from being That is, the decorations are blurred, par- tion bears die hallmarks of a fraudulent "unadorned" as Lemaire (2002, 27) tially effaced, and (like much of the sur- later addition and is questionable to say reported. He stated that " I he only dec- face) pitted. Yet the lettering is entirely the least" (Altman 2002b). But die per- oration is a line forming a frame about distinct and blessed with sharp edges, as ceived dichotomy in styles may simply 0.5 inch (1.2 cm) from the outer edges," if it were of recent vintage. My colleagues signal that the forger was an inexpert but he is mistaken. Significantly, on die and I were all struck with that observa- copyist or that the effect results from the side opposite die inscribed side are circu- tion. So was an Israeli engineering profes- vagaries of stone carving. lar designs, badly worn but unmistak- sor. Dr. Daniel Eylon, of the University Taken together, the various clues ably present. of Dayton, who noted that "sharp edges suggest a scenario in which a forger pur- Now, ossuaries arc usually decorated do not last 2,000 years." chased a genuine ossuary that—lacking on only one side (Royal 2002), pre- Dr. Eylon applied a technique that is feet, elaborate ornament, and inscrip- sumably the one intended to face out employed in determining whether dam- tion—cost little. He then obtained an during storage. If a name was added age to an airplane pan occurred prior to Aramaic rendition of the desired word- (possibly with an identifying phrase), it an accident or after it. ing, carved it into what seemed a good was apparently carved after purchase by Examining photographs of the spot on the blank back, and perhaps someone such as a family member inscription for scratches accrued over added patination followed by "clean- (Figueras 1983. 18). A look at a num- time, he stated: 'The inscription would ing" to help mitigate against the fresh ber of ossuaries (Figueras 1983; Good- be underneath these scratches if it had look of the carving.

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER March/April 2003 21 Forgers frequently select genuine old References artifacts upon which to inflict their Adams, Paul. 2002. Ossuary's owner emerges to Nickell, Joe. 1990. Pen, Ink and Evidence: tell his story. The Glebe and Mail (Toronto). A Study of Writing and Writing Materials handiwork. Examples that I have per- November 7. for the Penman, Collector, and Document sonally investigated and helped expose Altman. Rochelle I. 2002a. Final report on the Detective, reprinted New Castle, Delaware: include such inscribed works as two James ossuary. Online at http://web.isradin- Oak Knoll Press, 2000. . 19%. Detecting Forgery. Lexington. Ky: Daniel Boone muskets, the diary of Jack sider.com..., November 6. . 2002b. Quoted in Wilford 2002. University Press of Kentucky. 45-48.96,99-102. the Ripper, a carte de visile photo of Eylon, Daniel. 2002. Quoted in Wilford 2002. Rosenfeld, Ammon, and Shimon Hani. 2002. Robert E. Lee, a dictionary with flyleaf Feldman, Steven. 2002. The right man for t h e Letter to editor of Biblical Archaeology notes by Charles Dickens, and many inscription. Review, September 17 (reproduced in Sidebar to Lemaire (2002) signed "S.F.," 30. Lemaire 2002). more (Nickell 1990; 1996). (Feldman is managing editor of BAR) Royal Ontario Museum. 2002. James ossuary Mounting evidence has begun to Figueras, Pan. 1983. Decorated Jewish Ossuaries. display text, exhibit of November 15— Leiden: E. J. Brill. December 29. suggest that the James ossuary may be Goodenough, Erwin R. 1953. Jewish Symbols in Ryan. Terri Jo. 2002. Baylor religion professors yet another such production. the Greco-Roman Period vol. 3. New York: anxious to check out "James" bone box. Pantheon Books. Tribune-Herald (Waco. Texas), November 4. Hurley, Amanda Kolson. 2002. The last days Scrivener. Leslie. 2002. Expert skeptical about Acknowledgments of James. Sidebar to Lemaire (2002) signed ossuary. Toronto Star (www.thcstar.com), "A. KH.." 32. (Hurlcv is an assistant editor November 25. Those making the December 5, 2002, trip to of BAR) Shuman, Ellis. 2002. "Brother of Jesus" bone-box view the ossuary were—in addition to Kevin Jones, Mark, cd. 1990. F a k e ? " The Art of Deception. plot thickens. Online at http://web.isr.iel Christopher (who drove, assisted with Berkeley: The University of California Press, insidcr.com..., November 5. research, and offered valuable observa- 258-261. Sox, David. 1987. Unmasking the Forger: The tions)—Benjamin Radford. (Catherine I a u k Karin. 2002. Ancient burial box isn't for Dossena Deception. London: Unwin Hyman. Bourdonnay, and Norm Allen. Also, Paul sale, owner says. Buffalo News, November 8. 8-9, 11.37.47,90. Kurtz provided encouragement, Barry Karr Lemaire, Andre. 2002. Burial box of James the Van Biema. David. 2002. The brother of Jesus? brother of Jesus. Biblical Archaeology Review, Time magazine. Online at www.timc.com/ financial authorization, Tim Binga research 28:6 (November/December), 24-33, 70; assistance, and Ranjit Sandhu word process- time/magazine/printout/..., October 27. sidebar 28. Wilford. John Noble, 2002. Experts question ing, while other CFI staff helped in Lupia, John. 2002. Quoted in Altman 2002a. authenticity ol bone box o f 'brother of Jesus.' McCarter, P Kyle. 2002. Quoted in Wilford 2002. many additional ways. New York limes, December 3.

BAIT AND SWITCH ON photographs and shrill charges of con- Fleck. J. 2002a. "UFO Search in Roswell Turns U p ROSWELL THE SMOKING GUN' spiracy. It promised solid new scientific Surprise." Albuquerque Journal November 5. . 2002b. "Aliens Must Have Packed Up. From page 18 evidence, but the Sci Fi Channel Left," Albuquerque Journal November 23. exploited the UNM archaeologists' care- Printy. T 2002. "Rudiak: Right, Wrong, or just ful work, to the University's embarrass- Ridiculous?" online at members.aol.com/ ends up about seventeen miles farther tprinty2/rudiak.html. northeast than in Moore's original calcu- ment. In the ongoing effort to solidify Randle. K. 1997. "Kevin Randle Responds to Radcliff lation. The small difference is within the and entrench the Roswell Myth, some on Schmitt," Nov. 3. 1997. www.ulomind.com/ cracks are beginning to show. area51 /lisi/1997/nov/a04-003.shtml. error of Moore's data. His point, after . 2002. "Re Last Night's Tragedy- all, was to show that the winds that day Fleming." June 17, 2002, online at www. did not preclude the balloon's arrival at References vi rtuallystrange.net/ufo/updatcs/2002/jun/rn the Roswell ranch. Had Moore's analysis 17-015.shtml. Cameron, G. 2002. "Oberg and Thomas Plan Rudiak, D. 2002a. Online at roswellproof. showed the balloon traveling south, say, Rudiak Attack," online at www.presidential homcstead.com/ to El Paso, now that would have elimi- ufo.com/rudiak_skeptics.htm. . 2002b. "The Phony Mogul Balloon nated Flight #4 as a candidate for the Doleman. W. 2002a. "Archeological Testing and Trajectory," online at roswcllproof.home- Remote Sensing Study Plan for Foster Ranch slcad.com/Fliglii4_TrajcLturv.luiiil. Roswell debris source. Impact Site." September 2002, UNM Office Safer, B.. C A Ziegler, and C.B. Moore. 1997. Rudiak's charges of Moore's "cooking of Contract Archeology. UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern the books" are much stronger evidence . 2002b. "UFOIogy chat with Dr. Bill Myth. Smithsonian Institution Press: ISBN: Doleman," Sci Fi Channel Online Chat 1560987510; (August). of Rudiak's incompetence than they are Transcript, October 30, www.scifi.com/ Sci Fi 2002. "The Roswell Crash: Startling New of Moore's alleged scientific malfeasance. transcripts/2002/bdoleman 10.30.html. Evidence," Sci Fi Channel, online at In the end, the Sci Fi Channel's . 2002c. Archaeology Channel. "Extra- www.scifi.com/roswellcrash/. terrestrial Archaeology? An Interview with Dr. Thomas, D. 1995. "The Roswell Incident and ballyhooed "Smoking Gun" turned out Bill Doleman." online at www.archaeology Project Mogul." SKEPTICU. INQUIRER. 19(4): to be just the same old stuff: more fuzzy channd.org/content/audio/dolcman.html 15-18. July/August.

2 2 March/April 2003 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER