The James Ossuary
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.