The "James, brother of Jesus" Ossuary

[rumplesnitz]

I propose that the "James, brother of Jesus" ossuary, which is so controversial just now, is both an actual artifact and also a fake artifact.

I believe it is an ancient ossuary, and perhaps some of the inscription is genuine and contemporary to the ossuary's initial use.  Then at some point in the more recent past, but still hundreds of years ago, someone embellished the inscription to make it a prop in some kind of scheme - perhaps as some sort of Hellenistic tourist-trap bait, or as a relic in a play for prestige-building for some remote abbey or another, or as an icon to prop up some European throne.

[Michael]

I propose that the "James, brother of Jesus" ossuary, which is so controversial just now, is both an actual artifact and also a fake artifact.

I believe it is an ancient ossuary, and perhaps some of the inscription is genuine and contemporary to the ossuary's initial use.  Then at some point in the more recent past, but still hundreds of years ago, someone embellished the inscription to make it a prop in some kind of scheme - perhaps as some sort of Hellenistic tourist-trap bait, or as a relic in a play for prestige-building for some remote abbey or another, or as an icon to prop up some European throne.

I don't think so. The ossuary most likely came from the Tomb Of Jesus as the 10th and missing Ossuary. The antiques dealers know this, but can't say anything because it was aquired illegally, and the owner wants to keep the box. If that is  indeed the case, then the box was buried until the 1980's.

[archaeologist]

great, we have two posts with nothing to go on but personal opinions.  i am unsure how to categorize the ossuary as there has been too much conflicting testimony which has clouded the issue.

so here are some questions:

1. does it matter if it is a fact ornot?
2. who cares if it is a fake or not, it doesn't change the message of the Bible nor undermine it?
3. is this controversy just a political invention to appease the muslims?
4. i doubt it is from the Jesus Tomb and who would be able to prove it  even if it was?
5. Tabor and Jacobovici took big hits to their credibility onthat fiasco, why would anyone want to associate themselves withthat tomb now?

try to provide some sort of support for your positions.

[rumplesnitz]

Michael,

What I wrote is in total agreement with what you have written - I also, from what I have been able to read in published sources, think the James Ossuary came from the 'Jesus Family Tomb'.  I believe the tomb was invented some time probably during/after the 12th century in order to help establish the myth that the Throne of England is descended from Jesus.  That myth of course is pure poppycock, as Jesus certainly had no offspring, no wife, and needed no tomb.

[rumplesnitz]

great, we have two posts with nothing to go on but personal opinions.  i am unsure how to categorize the ossuary as there has been too much conflicting testimony which has clouded the issue.

so here are some questions:

1. does it matter if it is a fact or not?
2. who cares if it is a fake or not, it doesn't change the message of the Bible nor undermine it?
3. is this controversy just a political invention to appease the Muslims?
4. i doubt it is from the Jesus Tomb and who would be able to prove it  even if it was?
5. Tabor and Jacobovici took big hits to their credibility on that fiasco, why would anyone want to associate themselves with that tomb now?

try to provide some sort of support for your positions.

--------------------------------------------

"archaeologist" -

Since the whole field of Archeology is awash in various person's 'opinions', I don't particularly feel like mine or yours is of more or less value than other people's as long as we (and they) have studied up some on the subject.  Of course the insights of genuine scholars and especially working professional Archaeologists would have a great deal more weight to them. 

1. Yes it matters if it is a fake or not (its simple existence makes it a 'fact', so I've taken the liberty of answering the question I think you meant to ask), just as it matters with all artifacts.  We interpret the past based on the evidence we find.  The more fake artifacts we accept, the more incorrect assumptions we make about history.  The interesting thing about this artifact however is the tantalizing possibility that it could be an ancient fake - part of the 'Jesus Family Tomb'.  Properly acknowledgment would give it status as a real artifact, but not one of actual historical significance except as documenting the existence of ancient tourist traps.  It also matters because here in the present it could show a group of men (who probably are or will become very central to the question of whether unprovenanced artifacts should be recognized) to be either frauds, victims, or heroes - and their liberty and livelihoods (for those still among the living) could be lost.  Should they be held in our hearts and minds as deceivers or martyrs?  Of course it would make a great museum attraction if it was genuinely the ossuary of the Apostle James, but only a curiosity as a relic of an ancient snow-job.  Does it matter religiously?  Of course.  Almost all religion is simply superstition.  In so many places around the globe religion, even 'Christian' variants of it, is dogmatically held as important above all else including life itself.  Entire churches, communities, and even armies have been built around religious artifacts throughout history.  If this were to be declared the actual ossuary of one of the Apostles there is no telling what kind of cult following it could develop.  Also  if the 'Jesus Family Tomb' was declared legitimate we'd be right back to the dawn of a New British Empire since the King of England would be proven to be the direct descendant of Jesus and all of Christianity would need to get in line behind him again.

2. Lots of people care if it is a real artifact or not, and if they are properly interpreting its place in history.  See above.  One thing that it could clear up is the facts about the Body of Jesus.  Proving the ossuary to be the burial box of the Apostle James, and linking it to the "Jesus Family Tomb" would be a major testimony to the fact or fiction of the authenticity of the other ossuaries there which include an ossuary for Jesus Himself and one for His son.  Now of course I believe Jesus lived in an actual physical body of flesh and blood, died on a cross, was physically resurrected, took His body with Him as he left, and certainly never married or produced genetic offspring.  Lots of others don't believe one or the other or more of those items, they have different ideas, and again whole cultures have been built around variances in those details.  I don't think 'who's in the box' changes The Plan of Salvation in the end - but it could result in huge cultural wars as belief systems shown to be fraudulent die off and power struggles erupt as masses of 'faith refugees' come pouring in to the churches that remain viable.  So while it may not affect 'the message of the Bible' overall - it could certainly affect the lives of the people who claim allegiance to it.

3.  None of this involves appeasing Muslims.  Controversy was bound to erupt, and will again, over any artifact which lends credibility to the Word of God, and/or anything that might cause Judaism to accept the reality of Jesus as the Christ.  Can you blame the IAA for being a little skiddish?  They consider the entire nation's credibility, identity, and heritage to be at risk.  Personally I think that having Jesus added into Judaism would only make them stronger, but I realize that asking that of them is a lot like asking the Southern Baptist Convention to accept the 'Book of Mormon' - it ain't gonna happen.

4.  If you've read much on this subject you'd know that there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the 'Jesus Family Tomb' is where the 'James Ossuary' came from, and just what kind of science could provide more evidence.  It's actually pretty much a decided fact.  Real or fake the ossuary almost certainly was 'collected' after the laws prohibiting plundering went into effect.  I kind of think the Tomb was probably locally known for many years (probably as "that fake Jesus Family Tomb those crazy monks dreamed up back in the 1400's").  Perhaps the ossuary was removed prior to the anti-plundering laws, and just not really valued because everyone pretty much knew what it was.  Time passed, lots of new people moved in, hardly anyone remembered the tomb or the ossuary, and suddenly - viola!  Like Columbus discovering America (the Natives knew it was there all along), a new pair of eyes see it and break the news of a major find - and all heck breaks loose.

5.  Those guys made a sensationalized film on a controversial subject with a premise pretty much known to be false to educated persons not enslaved to some dogma.  They lost face because they tried to recycle an old scam.  Had they exposed it for what it is - an ancient prop in an ancient con-game - they could have had a very nice documentary.

Ultimately, no one can indisputably prove these artifacts are or are not connected to characters from the Bible.  Tons of scenarios are possible.  James may or may not have had an ossuary, as other apostles and/or members of Jesus's family may or may not have had.  They (the pillars of the early Church) may have had a central tomb that was embellished later, or a 'tomb' may have been built and their ossuaries rounded up and/or fabricated from scratch and/or from extant ossuaries in order to create the 'Jesus Family Tomb' for a variety of reasons.  I'd love to see some genuine artifacts that clearly demonstrate the veracity of New Testament writings, as the 'James Ossuary' seemed at first to be.  But to me this whole episode is a very good example of just exactly why folks should not go jumping to conclusions before the evidence has a chance to be examined and the story has a chance to be told.

[Michael]

Michael,

What I wrote is in total agreement with what you have written - I also, from what I have been able to read in published sources, think the James Ossuary came from the 'Jesus Family Tomb'.  I believe the tomb was invented some time probably during/after the 12th century in order to help establish the myth that the Throne of England is descended from Jesus.  That myth of course is pure poppycock, as Jesus certainly had no offspring, no wife, and needed no tomb.

It is my understanding that the tomb was sealed with a mud slide around the third or fourth century and has been sealed until recently.

[Admin1]

great, we have two posts with nothing to go on but personal opinions.  i am unsure how to categorize the ossuary as there has been too much conflicting testimony which has clouded the issue.

Since there is no general consensus, personal opinions are all we have

Agreeably, though, it is nice to see supporting info to back the opinions.

[archaeologist]

Also, as I've paid to be a member of this forum you can stick your snide remarks in a file cabinet and go pound sand.

your assumption and insult deny the credibility of your post. 

We interpret the past based on the evidence we find

i don't believe in interpretation.  it is highly subjective and changes with the wind and the agenda of the person observing the artifacts.  it isn't evidence nor proof and leads to false conclusions.

Proving the ossuary to be the burial box of the Apostle James, and linking it to the "Jesus Family Tomb" would be a major testimony to the fact or fiction of the authenticity of the other ossuaries there which include an ossuary for Jesus Himself and one for His son.

i would disagree for that kind of extrapolation would be presumption and make the identification based solely on association and not proof. Just because one ossuary is provento be a disciple of Jesus does it mean that the others are the principle people of the Bible.

for all we know that ossuary labeled 'son of jesus' could be the grandson of James and the women James's wife and mother.  assumption is never good for history or facts.

but it could result in huge cultural wars as belief systems shown to be fraudulent die off and power struggles erupt as masses of 'faith refugees' come pouring in to the churches that remain viable.

that is no different than what we face today as we can never escape the criteria of faith and that criteria is what critics of the Bible use to declare the Bible and christianity a fake.

we do not need artifacts and texts to prove the Bible true,we accept it as it is.  we do need christian archaeologists and reseachers if for nothing more than to keep the unbelieving ones honest and tomake sure the truthgets out.

If you've read much on this subject you'd know that there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the 'Jesus Family Tomb' is where the 'James Ossuary' came from, and just what kind of science could provide more evidence.

the last i heard was that the original archaeologist denied that it came fom there.  i could be wrong as it has been awhile since i last read anything.  also craig evans did a great article in BAS website which cleared up much of the matter.

But to me this whole episode is a very good example of just exactly why folks should not go jumping to conclusions before the evidence has a chance to be examined and the story has a chance to be told.

problem is it isn't 'just the people' who jump to conclusions.  the professionals do so as well as they let limited data, along with their agendas, unbelief or beliefs, etc., influence their conclusions .

if you saw the show then you saw Dr. C. pellegrino jump the gun.  it happens everywhere wich is why we cannot dismiss the Bible andits words nor reject the criteria of faith.  evidence isn't always the evidence one wants.

[rumplesnitz]

It is my understanding that the tomb was sealed with a mud slide around the third or fourth century and has been sealed until recently.

That's why I come here, to hear from folks who know some things!

I would add credibility to the tomb, but what of the missing box?

[rumplesnitz]

Since there is no general consensus, personal opinions are all we have

Agreeably, though, it is nice to see supporting info to back the opinions.

Thank you sir.  I am here seeking supporting info.  I'm a layman and only know what I read...  I like to stir imagination and interest - but not bickering.

[falasha]

I am not very good at working this forum yet so I won't try to "quote".

Someone said the tomb was filled with a landslide in 3rd or 4th century? Did they test the fill dirt? Does anyone know if samples were taken of this dirt while excavating?

[rumplesnitz]

Thank you, Falasha, for that question!  Another good piece of information that needs to be answered.

I've been doing some deeper study on the whole subject and found some of my points to be moot.  At this point I think the tomb itself is simply an ancient mausoleum and the collection of names has been exaggerated by those who wish to make a big story where nothing exists.  The artifacts are genuine but most likely at least the James Ossuary has been embellished.  It appears the man who had all the ossuaries in front of him just didn't bother to photograph the one that just happened to disappear... and that ossuary just happened to be empty of bones but it did contain dirt INSIDE it that came from a different area.  I've not found any published info on whether the patina composition matches the 'Jesus Family Tomb' patina samples or not.  Overall I'm smelling a big, hairy, modern rat - and I think IAA might be justified in their suspicious attitude.  Someone has been whizzing on their boots and trying to tell them it's raining...

[falasha]

I think the James ossuary should be separated from the Talpiot tomb. Each should stand on it's own merit. The James ossuary does not have provenance and the Talpiot tomb was discovered and excavated by the IAA. Correct?

Also, didn't the original archaeologist say the stolen ossuary did not have an inscription?

[rumplesnitz]

Yes, ma'am, the 'original' excavator said that, according to what I've been able to find and read.  I don't know him and I am a nobody out in the sticks with no formal education beyond high school - which I was graduated from simply to get me on down the road - so I've no authority to question his word or cast aspersions upon him, but there are just too many convenient circumstances not to raise questions in a simple mind like mine.

How is it that one of ten ossuaries just didn't get photographed - the same article stated that the original excavator said four of the ten didn't have inscriptions so why is it that only one out of four wasn't photographed?  How is it that out of ten, one came up missing, and it just happened to be the one that just happened not to get photographed?  And why suddenly did one neat-o ossuary just happen to turn up at roughly the same time as this tomb's discovery?  Oh, and INSIDE it was dirt from an entirely different location (though no remains), which just happens to "prove" it came from a different location that Talpiyot.  But of course we astonishingly just happen to have a photograph of this ossuary displayed prominently in a person's living room, printed on paper made back in the seventies... although it has never been heard about until just recently.  The scholars who might have had contact with the ossuary over the years, who are steeped in the traditions of the region, never associated the inscription with anything significant although at some point someone apparently put some effort into cleaning the inscription 'in order to read it'.  Then to boot I have read where the location of the burial spot of James is historically recorded and was or maybe still is marked.  I'll go fetch around those links this evening after I get home.

Please note that my obvious sarcasm is not directed at you Falasha - rather at the persons expecting us to swallow their story of wide-eyed innocence in the midst of all this hype.  One way or another in my humble opinion the "James Ossuary" is a fake, whether from antiquity, recently, or both.

One thing I would like to see but have not yet found is a credible report comparing genuine patina samples - samples taken away from the inscription sites but on the exterior of the ossuaries - from the "James" and Talpiyot ossuaries, which would entail whatever sort of measurements and analysis necessary to demonstrate or refute the likelihood of close proximity in antiquity.  Does anyone know of such a report?

[falasha]

I believe the story is that the Talpiot ossuaries were excavated and placed in a staging area to be loaded and moved to the Holon warehouse. During the night, one ossuary went missing before they could be transported.

The only report I have heard on the patina isotope test of James ossuary was that it was "inconclusive". But I think the evidence shows that the James ossuary did not come from Talpiot tomb because there is someone that testified it was offered for sale in 1979.

So I think the James ossuary and Talpiot tomb should each be considered separately and on their individual merits.