On the Day September 17 2002

The Contentious Ossuary of James

Khen Lim




Ossuary of James (Image source: en.wikipedia.org)

On this day, fourteen years ago, in 2002, one of Christian archaeology’s most anticipated news in years seemed ready to effervesce to the top of the heap. The Geological Survey of Israel in Jerusalem in their letter to Hershel Shanks of Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) tersely said, “No evidence that might detract from the authenticity of the patina and the inscription was found.” The letter referred to what we know as the Ossuary of James.

The word ossuary describes a container into which the bones of the dead are placed. In this particular unique case, it is a chest-like container made from limestone featuring an Aramaic inscription that reads, ‘Ya’akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua.’ Translated, it says, ‘James*, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.’ The excitement was understandable and palpable. Here was a distinct possibility that we’re looking at the apostle James, brother of Jesus Christ, Son of God.

(* Ya’akov is the Hebraic form of James)

The inscription (Image source: lexnews.fr)

The argument goes that by tradition, such inscriptions do not usually identify sibling relationships unless that sibling happens to be very well known. And of course, the Jesus we know was. It is fairly straightforward to imply that it is Jesus’ fame that helped to link to the person whose bones are in this ossuary. From records of antiquity concerning the frequency of occurrence of such names in Judea of that period, Professor Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University said that the probability of the inscription bearing this exact combination – Yosef the father, Ya’akov the son and Yeshua the brother – is actually small.¹ 

In other words, this could be the real deal.

The Geological Survey of Israel did confirm a few things to add to the excitement. Firstly, they confirmed that the limestone used to make the ossuary came from the right region. Secondly, whatever soil they could extract from in and around the ossuary was also consistent with that same region. The outer surface including some parts of the inscription had the same greyish patina, which is the formation of a thin film where the surface meets the air. They also noted that the patina had developed a cauliflower-like shape, which tells us reliably that the ossuary was kept in a cave environment for many centuries.

Furthermore, their investigations found no evidence that modern tools were used in the making of the ossuary or the creation of the inscriptions. Knowing that expert forgers are likened to use pigments to simulate old patinas, the Jewish agency said there was nothing of this sort. In other words, all that was now needed was a press conference to announce the greatest archaeological find the world has ever seen and something that would tie us to the reality of Jesus Christ.

However, there was one little problem. Apparently the inscription seemed to come from two separate and different hands and with that, the most obvious question arose whether the part ‘akhui diYeshua’ (brother of Yeshua) had been post-scripted by someone else in the first century or it was appended when a monument was built in dedication to James. Those were just some of several possibilities mooted.

Another thing, the style of writing seems to show up some variations in terms of lettering style and spelling that possibly indicated that they might have come from different time periods. Although contentious, this might be speculative because some experts contended that can happen during that historical period of between 20BC and 70AD in which Jews were buried in such fashion. Yet the discovery that the part ‘Ya’akov bar-Yosef’ appeared more deeply incised than the part ‘akhui diYeshua.’

The deeper the analysis, the more doubtful its authenticity became. By 2003, the whole ossuary was in trouble. On June 18 of the same year, a press conference was held by the Israel Antiquities Authority, declaring that the whole inscription – and not just the ‘brother of Yeshua’ part – was a complete sham. 

To add more shock to the claim, Israeli authorities arrested Oden Golan, an engineer and antiquities dealer in December along with three other Israelis and one Palestinian on forty-four charges of forgery, fraud and deception including forgery of the inscription featured on the Ossuary of James. A search of his workshop uncovered forging tools as well as some other incomplete forgeries. All of them had been operating a forgery ring for well over twenty years.

Preview of the Ossuary in Royal Ontario Museum on Nov 14 2002 (Image source: jamesossuarytrial.blogspot.com)

By then the Ossuary of James had become nothing but an abject farcical anti-climax. But even as the whole world turned away and moved on, the Biblical Archaeology Review meekly suggested that they had more tests coming that insisted the ossuary was authentic.

Useful References

1. Biblical Archaeology Society Press Release (June 13 2012). “Brother of Jesus” Proved Ancient and Authentic. Bible History Daily. Full article available in July/August 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review at https://web.archive.org/web/20140831042728/http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=38&Issue=4&ArticleID=2.

2. Myllykoski, Matti (October 2007). James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part II). Currents in Biblical Research Vol. 6 No. 1 11-98. Full text available in PDF format at http://cbi.sagepub.com/content/6/1/11.full.pdf+html.

3. Marcus, Amy Dockser (October 20 2008). Ancient Objects, Dubious Claims: Unholy Business by Nina Burleigh. The Wall Street Journal Eastern Edition. A17, p.1. Online text available at the Saskatoon Public Library at http://saskatoonlibrary.ca/eds/results/all?query-1=AND%2CAU%3A%22Marcus%5C%2C+Amy+Dockser%22&highlight=n&pagenumber=4.