jamesbrotherjesusexc


		0 items	CHECKOUT>>

FEATURED SHOPS

CATALOG SHOPPING

BROWSE ALL PRODUCTS or

The Brother of Jesus
Hershel Shanks, Ben Witherington III
Retail Price: ~~$24.95~~
CBD Price: $9.99
( In Stock )

IS IT THE JESUS? Establishing the authenticity of the James ossuary inscription is relatively easy. There is really little question about it now. Determining whether the three people named in the inscription�James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus�are the three people in that relation referred to in the New Testament is more difficult. Scholars will be debating the matter for years.

The fact is that all three of these names were quite common among Jews in the first century G.E. We know this not only from literary sources (even though our earliest manuscripts of these texts are from later dates�for example, the Gospels and Josephus), but also from hundreds of surviving inscriptions from what scholars call the late Second Temple period. To find an inscription mentioning Jesus is not unusual�except this Jesus wouldn�t be the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth.

To determine whether the inscription on the James ossuary is authentic, we draw on paleography (the shape and form of the letters), linguistics (contemporary Aramaic usage), geological analysis (the chemical content of the patina), and even psychology (a forger would have tried to get money; neither buyer nor seller knew what the ossuary was worth).

To determine whether the three people mentioned in the ossuary inscription are the figures from the New Testament, we must turn to another pair of disciplines: statistics (the frequency of the names James, Joseph, and Jesus) and burial customs among first-century Jews.

A MATTER OF NAMES

But before we consider the statistical findings, we should clarify which names we are speaking about. We have been referring to them in English as James, Joseph, and Jesus. In Aramaic, however, there is no J sound; the same is true of Hebrew. This is our first hint that the names are different in Aramaic.

The three names in Aramaic (and Hebrew) are Ya �akov, Yosef and Yeshua. Ya�akov requires the most detailed explanation. Its usual translation in English is Jacob, the name of the biblical patriarch. But sometimes it appears differently, translated as James. How did Jacob become James? When the Bible was translated into Latin, Ya�akov became Iacobus (or Jacobus in the Germanic spelling). From lacobus to English Jacob is easy. In the New Testament, Jesus� brother is called lacobus in Greek��EU��I�-�iota, alpha, kappa, omega, beta, omicron, sigma. But when this name was translated into Latin the b sound was replaced by an m sound. This often happens; both the b sound and m sound are bilabials, formed by pursing the lips. With the b sound we blow a puff of air out between the lips; not so with the m sound. That is the only difference. (The transformation of bilabials is common, though no one seems to know exactly why.) Thus lacobus in Greek became Iacomus in Latin, and from there the leap to James was short.

But why didn�t the patriarch Jacob in Genesis also become James? It�s simply arbitrary. For the patriarch Jacob, the church retained the Semitic form. For the brother of Jesus, the Hellenized form was adopted.

Another variation results from the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic are written almost. entirely without vowels. Over time, certain consonants came to be used as vowels (called matres lectionis). Sometimes names appeared with vowels and sometimes not. For example, in the early books of the Bible, like the books of Samuel and Kings, David is spelled without vowels: DVD). In Chronicles, however, a letter is added to represent the second vowel in the name. Throughout the Bible Ya�akov is written without the final vowel. In some inscriptions, however, the name appears with this vowel.

Many Hebrew and Aramaic names appear in several forms� Jacob, Jake, and Kobie (Kobe, Coby), for example, are the same name, as are Joseph, Joe, and Yossi (the last two are nicknames). In ancient times, many of the variants were not nicknames, however, but alternative forms. Thus Yosef could appear as Yehosef. Yeshua, or Jesus, has even more variants. It may be Yeshua, as it is on the James ossuary, or Yeshu or Yehoshua. The latter is the name of Moses� successor; when it refers to him, we translate it Joshua. But when it appears at the turn of the era, at the time of Jesus of Nazareth, we translate it Jesus. But the names are really the same.

Taking into consideration all the variants, we can determine how popular a particular name was at the turn of the era. We have a considerable body of inscriptions, and we know how frequently a given name appears in these. According to one study of the Gospels, inscriptions, and other ancient texts, the most popular name in Jesus� time was Simon/Simeon. Joseph was second and Jesus/Joshua sixth. Eleventh was James/Jacob.1 The percentage of times these names appear in the archaeological record has been calculated by Israeli scholar Rachel Hachlili.² She finds that James appears in 2 percent of inscriptions; Joseph, the most popular of the three names in our ossuary, occurs in 14 percent; while Jesus appears in 9 percent.

Imagine a bowl with thousands of little balls bearing the names of each person living at the time. If we pick out one ball, in 2 percent of the cases it will read James, in 14 percent of the cases it will say Joseph, and in 9 percent of the cases it will say Jesus.

Our pick will display one of these three names in 25 percent of all cases (2 percent + 14 percent + 9 percent = 25 percent).

Instead of just one ball, however, let�s pull out three balls with names on them. What are the chances that all three names� James, Joseph, Jesus�will be on these three balls? The answer is surprising. The chance that all three names will appear is only 1/4 of 1 percent (0.02 the mathematical equivalent of 2 percent x 0.14 x 0.09 = 0.00252). This is called the product rule.

We also have a pretty good estimate of the size of the population of Jerusalem at this time, based on archaeological data. (Most estimates in the ancient literature are obviously exaggerated and unreliable. For example, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus says the Romans killed 1,100,000 Jews when they destroyed Jerusalem in 70 G.E.) At the turn of the era, the city covered 450 acres, the most since its founding as much as three thousand years earlier. Jerusalem was a large and prosperous city in the period between the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C.E. and the Roman destruction of 70 G.E. Excavations in the city over the past fifty years support this estimate of the size of the city at this time. No archaeologist has suggested that it was larger (although some say it was smaller).

Many scholars have studied the density of urban areas in ancient times�from Mesopotamia to Ostia, the harbor of Rome. According to their data, a population density of 160 to 200 people per acre is a reasonable estimate.³ This corresponds well with the population density of ancient cities that have survived into modern times. In the first half of the twentieth century, the population density of Damascus and Aleppo was about 160 people per acre. In 1918, the population density of the Old City of Jerusalem (within the walls) was about 200.

To estimate the first-century population of Jerusalem, the area of the Temple Mount (thirty-six acres) must be deducted because no one lived there. The area of the palaces and the citadels, on the other hand, were occupied by the king�s household, administration personnel, and the military. Taking into account all this data, Magen Broshi, former curator of the Shrine of the Book, where the Dead Sea Scrolls are housed in Jerusalem, estimates that the population of Jerusalem in Jesus� time was about 80,000, a figure that is widely accepted by other scholars.

Andr� Lemaire used Broshi�s findings to compute the frequency of the names James, Joseph, and Jesus. First, he halved the 80,000 population estimate to 40,000 because only approximately half the population would have been male. Then he doubled the 40,000 back to 80,000 to cover two generations of males, after narrowing the date of the ossuary to the last decades of the period between 20�15 B.C.E. and 70 G.E., when most ossuaries were used. In other words, this ossuary inscription can be dated on paleographical grounds to a period of close to two generations. This dating is based on the three semicursive letters in the ossuary inscription. Therefore, two generations of men form the population to which the probabilities should be applied.⁴

In short, Lemaire took a potential population of 80,000 men and applied 1/4 of 1 percent (2 percent x 14 percent x 9 percent) to this figure, which yields about 20 people who, at this time, were named James and had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus. Briefly during my sojourn into the world of statistics, I thought that this number should be divided by six, because there are six different combinations of the three names and only one would match the inscription. But this is wrong, as statistics experts have confirmed. The product computation includes the order in which the names appear. The chances that the names would appear in any order is six times the original number (that is, 6 x 20).

The power of these statistical conclusions is revealed when we compare the inscriptions on two other ossuaries. One of these, published by Professor E. L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University in 1931 (but purchased by the Palestine Archaeological Museum in 1926), is twice inscribed�once simply Yeshu (Jesus) and then Yeshua bar Yehosef �Jesus son of Joseph.� The single inscription on the other ossuary, published in 1981, is so clumsily scratched that paleographers cannot be sure what it says, but the best guess is Yeshua bar Yehosef �Jesus son of Joseph.� No one seriously suggests that either of these inscriptions refers to Jesus of Nazareth�and with good reason. Quite aside from the theological doctrine that Jesus arose on the third day, statistically the chances of this being Jesus of Nazareth are very slim. On the same assumptions we made above, over a thousand men in Jerusalem at this time were named Jesus and had fathers named Joseph (0.09 x 0.14 x 80,000 = 1008).

In both instances, though, we are dealing with probabilities, not actual cases. That is, the actual number of people in Jerusalem named James who were sons of Josephs and brothers of Jesuses may have been 15 or 25. We can compute the level of confidence (that is, what percentage of the time we will pull these three names in this order out of the bowl) within a certain range. Imagine an infinite number of bowls with the 80,000 names in them. In 68.27 percent of the cases (1 sigma), the bowl will contain the names of between 15.5 and 24.5 people, each of whom is James, the son of Joseph and brother of Jesus. In 95.45 percent of the cases (2 sigmas), the bowl will contain the names of between 11 and 29 people who qualify.

More crucial, however, is the validity of the assumptions involved in the computation. For example, it might be argued that the database we use is not large enough to conclude, definitively, that 2 percent of the men in first-century Jerusalem were named James, 14 percent Joseph, and 9 percent Jesus. As Professor John Painter, a leading James scholar from Australia, put it to me: �I don�t think the database of names from that era is big enough to give a proper sample. It�s possible, but I don�t think the evidence is probable.�

Moreover, it can be argued that the pool of men postulated by Lemaire was not large enough, since it was improperly confined to Jerusalem: evidence from other ossuary inscriptions shows that Jews from Latin-speaking lands were sometimes brought to Jerusalem for burial. So, too, were Jews who spoke Greek and Palmyrene. So even though Lemaire claims to have come to a conservative estimate�he assumed 200 people per acre in his computation�he may have erroneously limited his database to Jerusalem. Were not there many villages within a twenty- or twenty-five-mile radius of Jerusalem that might be taken into account?

Yet other factors might significantly reduce the chances that as many as 20 people would qualify as James, the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. For example, since ossilegium�gathering the bones of the dead into a box�was a Jewish custom, we should exclude from the pool all non-Jewish Jerusalemites. We can also exclude all children and adolescents. We know that whoever was interred in the James ossuary was an adult because the box is adult sized. Ossuaries for children and adolescents are smaller.

Additionally, we should exclude the people who were too poor to buy an ossuary or who weren�t prominent enough to have friends and patrons who would contribute to such a purchase. To further complicate the discussion, it may be argued that almost everybody could afford an ossuary because, as we explain later in this chapter, an ossuary could be bought for as little as the day�s wages of a skilled artisan. But how reliable is the evidence for this? And anyway, the rejoinder might go, it is not the cost of the ossuary but the cost of the burial cave that matters. No one would be buried in an ossuary unless the ossuary could be placed in a family cave�and these were expensive indeed.

Another factor: only a small percentage of ossuaries was inscribed. In the standard catalogue of ossuaries, the figure is about 26 percent. But actually it is probably not more than 20 percent because the catalogue does not include the thousands of plain Ossuaries�without decoration or inscription�that have been discovered. The fact that such a small number of ossuaries is inscribed suggests that inscriptions were added only by families that were literate. If we assume that only 20 percent of the population could read, this would drastically reduce our pool.

Actually, a professor of statistics at Tel Aviv University has made these calculations using extremely sophisticated techniques. Camil Fuchs considered the birth rates, death rates, family size, and population growth rate and assumed that no brothers would bear the same name. He also assumed that 5 percent of the Jerusalem population was non-Jewish, 50 percent of the population was rich enough to afford an ossuary, and 20 percent of the population could read, and that not all of these factors were independent of one another. Naturally, there will be debates as to whether these assumptions are valid (Could poor people afford ossuaries? Did nonliterate people nevertheless pay for ossuaries to be inscribed?); besides, the percentages are not always based on reliable statistics. For example, how do we know that 5 percent of the Jerusalem population at this time was not Jewish? Fuchs would answer that he studied all the available evidence and made a conservative estimate (just as Lemaire did when he assumed that Jerusalem was inhabited by 200 people per acre).

Some of Fuchs�s estimates are even more conservative than Lemaire�s. Lemaire took into account only the final two generations before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 G.E., based on the shape of several letters in the inscription. Fuchs included the period from 6 to 70 G.E. and, alternatively, from 20 B.C.E. to 70 G.E. Fuchs cites more than one estimate of the population of Jerusalem; 80,000 is the higher. Similarly with his estimate of the literacy rate of 20 percent. (However, he derives the frequency of each of the three names from the percentages of their appearances on ossuary inscriptions rather than their appearances in inscriptions from all sources. He thus assumes that the population of those who would be interred in ossuaries differed from the entire Jewish population of Jerusalem.)

Fuchs concludes, with a confidence level of 95 percent, that no more than four individuals (3.63 to be exact) would have the required name configuration. At a confidence level of 70 percent, no more than two individuals (1.71 to be exact) would bear the required name configuration. For Lemaire there were probably 20 men who were James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. For Fuchs the number is much lower�between 2 and 4. Even taking these numbers at face value, however, we do not end up with a high probability that we have found the ossuary of the New Testament James. Using Lemaire�s figure of 20, there is only one chance in 20 that we have the right James�that�s a 5 percent chance. On Fuchs�s calculation, the chances are much better, but still only between 25 and 50 percent.

In short, statistics alone won�t do it. Yet the statistical analysis in a general way does seem to be bringing us closer to James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth.

THE BROTHER�S NAME But the most important factor has not been mentioned yet�the very unusual mention of the deceased�s brother on the James ossuary.

The customary formula in ossuary inscriptions is to name the deceased and the father of the deceased. Of the hundreds of ossuary inscriptions that are known to us, in only one other case is the brother of the deceased named.5 Lemaire suggests only two reasons the brother might be named in an ossuary inscription: (1) the brother was responsible for the burial of the deceased; or (2) the brother was a prominent person with whom the deceased would desire to be identified, a kind of eternal connection. The first suggestion could not apply in this case. Jesus of Nazareth could not be responsible for James�s burial because he had been crucified thirty years earlier.

The second explanation, however, is pertinent. By the time of James�s death, Jesus was indeed prominent; he was the inspiration for a burgeoning religious movement. Moreover, James himself was deeply involved in the movement, as head of the Jerusalem church. The second-century Christian writer Hegesippus calls James the first bishop of Jerusalem. So the appearance of brother Jesus in this ossuary inscription is consistent with what we know about James from history.⁶

It is this factor that persuades me of the likelihood that this ossuary belonged to James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth. The evidence is not so clear that it would stand up in court in a criminal case; we have not proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. But I do think it would be enough to sustain an award in a civil suit, where the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. That is, this box is more likely the ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus of Nazareth, than not.

In my opinion, therefore, it is likely that this inscription does mention the James and Joseph and Jesus of the New Testament. In that case, it is the first and only archaeological attestation of all three of these New Testament personages. Which means, of course, that it is the first and only appearance in the archaeological record of Jesus of Nazareth.

For Father Fitzmyer, on the other hand, the ossuary�s link to the New Testament remains only a possibility, not a probability. �James of Jerusalem is never said in the New Testament to have had a father named Joseph,� Fitzrnyer tells us.⁷ Luke 3.23 says very specifically that �Jesus, when he began his ministry, was almost thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph my italics. � The Greek word adelphos, translated �brother� when Paul calls James �the brother of the Lord� (Galatians 1.19), can also mean �kinsman� or �relative.� Hence, James could simply have been a relative of Jesus, not a brother. In later Catholic tradition, the nature of their relationship was specified as that of cousin. If James was only a cousin of Jesus, his father would not be Joseph and the James ossuary inscription could not refer to this New Testament James.

Amos Kloner, a Jerusalem scholar who specializes in late Second Temple period burial customs, is also skeptical. He points out that most ossuaries with inscriptions are found in groups, sometimes as many as twenty in one cave complex. Very few have been found singly in small caves, a reflection of the fact that most cave tombs, especially those with inscriptions, are family tombs. Did James have a family in Jerusalem? Possibly, but of course, we don�t know where his ossuary was found. Perhaps it was in a large cave complex. But there is no archaeological indication of this. Kloner raises another point inscriptions were used after many generations had been buried in the cave, to identify the members of the various generations. Even if James�s family settled in Jerusalem, there was not enough time between Jesus� crucifixion and James�s death thirty years later to require identifying inscriptions, Kloner maintains. Perhaps, though, the early Christian community had a tradition of burying its members, presumably in a cave of its own. If the second part (�brother of Jesus�) of the James inscription was indeed added at a later time, this fits nicely with Kloner�s proposition that inscriptions were featured in multi-generational burials, whether family or Christian.

Other scholars have argued that if the ossuary inscription really refers to the New Testament Jesus, he would be identified as Jesus of Nazareth, or James would be called �the brother of the Lord,� as he is in Galatians. Interestingly, however, a number of distinguished scholars have made what amounts to the opposite argument. There is a passage in Josephus that describes the trial and stoning of James; James is identified, in passing, as �the brother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah.� The fact that James is called �the brother of Jesus,� as in the James ossuary inscription, rather than �the brother of the Lord� indicates that the passage is an authentic historical reference to Jesus. So say leading scholars Father John P. Meier of Notre Dame University, Paul Winter, and Emil Sch�rer.⁸

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LINK TO JESUS This reference in Josephus raises another point: How can I say that the James ossuary may be the first and only appearance of Jesus of Nazareth in the archaeological record? As a matter of fact, Jesus of Nazareth is referred to not only by Josephus, but also by the Roman writers Suetonius and Tacitus. And of course Jesus is the central figure in the Gospels and the letters of Paul. The letters attributed to Paul were written in the mid�first century (not all of Paul�s letters are by Paul, however). The so-called synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke (they contain many parallels), were all written between about 70 and 100 C.E. The date of the Gospel of John is more debatable, but some scholars date it to about 100 G.E. There can be no serious question about Jesus� existence. He certainly walked this earth. We need no archaeological evidence to tell us this or even to confirm it.

But these are literary references, not part of the archaeological record. And no copies of the literary references date as early as the first century, like the James ossuary. Our earliest copy of Josephus dates to the eleventh century. Our earliest copies of the Gospels go back only to the fourth or fifth century A small fragment of John, known as the Rylands Papyrus, dates as far back as about 125 G.E., still almost a century after Jesus� death.

It has been suggested that we might identify the person interred in the James ossuary from an analysis of the bones. However, this ossuary, like almost all ossuaries that surface on the antiquities market, was empty when it was acquired. Nevertheless, it did contain some small bone chips, the largest about a half inch wide and three inches long and resembling a small honeycomb on the inner side. The owner of the ossuary paid no attention to these bone chips until his ossuary became famous. Then he collected them in a Tupperware container, where they remain today. Whether they could tell us much is doubtful. We cannot even be sure that they are the bones of the James interred in the ossuary; ossuaries often held the bones of more than one person. But a carbon-14 test, which can be performed on anything organic, could at least reveal the age of the bones. DNA tests also could be performed on the bone chips. But this would tell us very little; after all, we don�t have a sample of the DNA of Jesus� family. Moreover, given the sensitivities in Israel with regard to ancient Jewish bones�they are regularly reburied when they are discovered in archaeological excavations, to comply with Israeli laws�it is unlikely that any tests will ever be carried out.

BURIAL AMONG JERUSALEM JEWS

How does this ossuary fit into the life and customs of Jerusalem Jews at the turn of the era?

In the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., Jerusalem Jews buried their dead in caves carved out of soft limestone. Mostly these were family caves, used for generations. So many have been discovered throughout Jerusalem that we can confidently describe a typical example.

On entering a burial cave, one steps down into what archaeologists call a standing pit, where one can stand erect. Here mourners would have come to commemorate the dead. A tomb may have several rooms, or adjacent caves, carved out of the rock. In the entrance rooms and adjoining chambers are long, hollowed-out niches or recesses called loculi (singular, loculus; the Hebrew is kokh, plural kokhim). These loculi are dug about six feet deep into the rock and about a foot and half wide and high, often with a slightly arched top.

Initially a corpse was placed in a loculus, which was then closed up with a blocking stone. After about a year, when the flesh had desiccated and fallen away, the loculus was opened and the bones of the deceased were collected in a box, usually of limestone, called an ossuary We know almost exactly when the practice of ossilegium began: the earliest oil lamps found in caves with ossuaries can be dated quite securely to 20�15 B.C.E. The practice came to an end when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple in 70 G.E. The overwhelming number of ossuaries were used within twenty miles or so of Jerusalem. Occasionally they are found in other areas, like the Galilee, where Jerusalem Jews fled after the Roman destruction. (Galilee ossuaries were made out of clay, not stone, however.) A few ossuaries from smaller, isolated communities, date as late as the end of the third century. Yet the overwhelming concentration of ossuaries is in Jerusalem spanning a ninety-year period. As one scholar has observed, �The practice developed suddenly, and just as suddenly stopped.� ⁹

Why ossilegium developed�and died out�is largely unknown. Many people, even scholars, think it strange that it was a Jewish custom; after all, rabbinic texts regard human bones as unclean and defiling; Jews were supposedly forbidden to touch the bones of the dead. Yet the practice of secondary burial in ossuaries was sanctioned by the rabbis. A late first-century sage is quoted in a later rabbinic text as saying to his son, �My son, bury me first in a grave. In the course of time, collect my bones and put them in an ossuary; but do not gather them with your own hands.� ¹⁰

The customary explanation for the Jewish use of ossuaries is based on two theological doctrines: eventual resurrection of the dead and the need to expiate sin. The deceased, with his or her bones collected in an ossuary, would be ready for physical resurrection. Expiation from sin was associated with the painful decomposition of the flesh, after which the bones remained in a supposedly pure state. Since belief in the physical resurrection of the dead is known to be a tenet of the Pharisees (a famous rabbinic text states, �Anyone who does not believe in the resurrection of the dead does not have a place in the world to come�), it is speculated that ossilegium was primarily a Pharasaic custom. Christianity shared the belief in resurrection of the dead with Pharasaic Judaism (see Acts 23.6�8), so it seems quite likely that James�s bones would have been collected in an ossuary by his followers, if not by his family. (Ben Witherington will talk more about this in part 2.)

Some have questioned whether Jewish Christians would have practiced ossilegium. The answer is almost certainly yes. At this time, Jerusalem Christians considered themselves Jews. It would be more accurate, in fact, to call them Christian Jews rather than Jewish Christians. James would have initially required all converts to the movement to be Jews; that was the doctrine of the Jerusalem church. Paul, however, wanted to preach to Gentiles in the Greek world. As we will see in chapter 9, a compromise was ultimately reached through James�s leadership whereby Gentiles could be accepted into the community provided that they refrained from fornication and desisted from eating blood or meat that had been sacrificed to idols or animals that had been strangled. In other words, they did not have to observe the Jewish dietary laws (kashrut), and they did not have to undergo circumcision. But the Jerusalem contingent of Christians continued to regard themselves as Jews. And it is likely that one of the last things they abandoned would have been burial customs.

A more prosaic explanation for Jerusalem ossilegium is simply that as more space was needed in Jerusalem caves for subsequent burials, the bones of people previously buried in these family caves had to be removed. Rather than simply heaping them up in a charnel pile (as was done in the First Temple period), people respectfully placed their ancestors� bones in a special box designed for this purpose.

Another secular reason may lie behind the popularity of ossilegium among Jerusalem�s Jews. �The relatively sudden use of ossuaries may have more to do with the development of the stone-carving industry than with theological beliefs,� says Steven Fine.� This industry is often associated with the gigantic project of Herod the Great in rebuilding the Temple and associated structures and enlarging the Temple Mount. When Herod�s grandiose project was completed, a great many stonecutters were put out of work. Shortly thereafter, ossuaries as well as stone tables and vessels became popular.

Perhaps all these factors contributed to the growth of ossilegium. In any event, it would have been routine for James�s bones to be collected in an ossuary a year after his death.

As previously noted, often the bones of more than one person were placed in an ossuary. Ossuaries come in various sizes, some of them so small they were obviously intended for children. Others, slightly larger, were for adolescents. Those for adults vary in size from 16 to 25 inches long. The James ossuary is about 22 inches long at the top, tapering down to 20 inches long at the bottom, a common feature of ossuaries. Minimally, the ossuary must be long enough for the longest bones, the femurs (thigh-bones), of the deceased. Most ossuaries are about a foot wide and a foot high.

Sometimes ossuaries have four small, low feet, but just as often they do not. (The James ossuary does not.) Ossuary lids come in three shapes�flat, as in the case of the James ossuary, arched (vaulted), or gabled. The lid either rests on the long rims (sides) of the ossuary or on small ledges cut into the rim; the James ossuary�s lid rests on such ledges.

The vast majority of ossuaries are plain and uninscribed. It is easy to be misled by a too-casual look at the standard catalogue of ossuaries by L. Y. Rahmani (A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel, 1994), which lists 897 ossuaries, 233 of them�roughly 25 percent�inscribed. But the catalogue does not include plain undecorated and uninscribed ossuaries�which is the bulk of them. There must be thousands. Walk into any antiquities shop in the Old City, and you�ll see several plain ossuaries for sale. A reporter researching a story on the James ossuary saw �four unadorned ossuaries gathering dust in a shop on the Via Dolorosa, stuffed with bric-a-brac and a garden hose.� The owner of the James ossuary has more than thirty ossuaries in his collection. Plain ones are not highly prized, however, because people tend not to want a bone box in their living room.

The James ossuary is quite plain, with only a line tracing a frame about half an inch from the outer edges. However, when the box was carefully examined at the Royal Ontario Museum, two rosettes, each one within two compass-drawn concentric circles, were faintly visible on the back of the ossuary. One of these rosettes was more visible than the other. Some people even thought they could see another rosette on the right side of the ossuary (when facing the inscription). Some red paint and a six-pointed star were also faintly visible on the back of the ossuary within one of the rosettes. Many ossuaries are decorated with rosettes, which can have anywhere from three to twenty-four petals: Red washes were often applied over the surface of ossuaries.

Since the rosettes on the James ossuary are on the back, some people agree, this ossuary may have been purchased and used two thousand years ago and the inscription added later when it was reused for James. Some ossuaries were emptied and reused. This could have happened in this case. It is consistent with the fact that archaeologists have found several ossuaries that were repaired in ancient times. Sometimes pieces of an ossuary were glued or plastered back together; in two instances, ancient iron rivets hold the pieces together. Some of these repaired ossuaries are undecorated, so it was not only the fancy (that is, expensive) ones that were fixed.

Why are the rosettes on the back (and side) of the James ossuary so faint? The best hypothesis is that the inscribed side of the ossuary was face down for two millennia, while the other sides weathered.

That some ossuaries were repaired raises the question of the price of an ossuary. From two surviving price tags on ossuaries, we learn that one plain ossuary sold for one drachma or dinar and four obols. A drachma, the term in the Hellenistic period, and a dinar, the term in the Roman period, equals 3 1/2 grams of almost pure silver. An obol is one-sixth of a drachma or dinar. Another, elaborately decorated ossuary sold for only one drachma or dinar more. Rahmani suggests that the price on the second ossuary was only for the decoration; the ossuary itself would have cost extra. Still, this is quite inexpensive. An ancient list of ossuary artisans gives the amount each artisan has to his credit; these figures range from one obol to four drachmas or dinars. In short, the day�s wages of a skilled artisan could buy an ossuary. This has been confirmed experimentally, too. Amos Kloner took a block of limestone to a stonecutter and asked him to make an ossuary from it. He did so in four and a half hours.

Even relatively poor people, then, could have afforded ossuaries. Moreover, we cannot conclude that plain ossuaries were for poor people and fancy ones for rich people. In the same family tomb we may find elaborately carved ossuaries, ossuaries with simple rosettes, and plain undecorated ossuaries. In the famous Tombs of the Kings in Jerusalem, which belonged to the royal house of Adiabne, richly embellished sarcophagi lay adjacent to the much simpler sarcophagus of Queen Helena. �This evidence refutes the suggestion that a plain ossuary or coffin indicates parsimony or lack of care for the deceased,� as Rahmani states. Thus �the choice of cheaper types of ossuaries should not be regarded as a sign of comparative poverty.� ¹²

Several motifs reappear in ossuary decorations. Besides rosettes, we often find date palms and architectural elements� ashlar walls, doors, gates, and columns. Some architectural decorations seem to imitate a structure or building, perhaps relating to the Temple not far away or the entrance to the cave tomb in which the ossuary sat. They have no special meaning or significance as far as we know, however.

Most ossuary inscriptions are sloppily executed, often scratched with a nail that was discarded on the spot. We sometimes see a letter added above an irregularly shaped inscription because it had been omitted accidentally. By our count, only 15 of the 233 inscriptions in Rahmani�s catalogue were carved with great care, in formal script. Most, as Rahmani states, are �carelessly executed, clumsily spaced, and, often, contain spelling and other mistakes. This is true even in cases of renowned families, including those of high-priestly rank.�13 This sloppiness also characterizes the decorations; on about 40 ossuaries in the Rahmani catalogue, minor decorative details were left unfinished.

All this makes it very difficult to draw any conclusions from the faint decoration on the James ossuary, the mix of formal and cursive script in the inscription, or the degraded letters at the end. Was this a reused ossuary, decorated with rosettes on the front by the first user and turned around by the second user and inscribed on the clean side? Or was there only one user, who decided to place the inscription on the back? Was the family who bought the ossuary poor or rich, of high rank or low rank? Would the head of the Jerusalem church be buried in an unadorned ossuary like this one (stressing his humility and his spiritual qualities) or in an elaborate ossuary (reflecting his high station)? It doesn�t matter whether the Jesus movement at this time was wealthy and powerful or weak and poor: none of these factors makes it more or less likely that the inscription on the James ossuary refers to New Testament personages.

Inscriptions have been found on the long and the narrow sides of ossuaries. As Ben Witherington says in chapter 11, inscriptions on the ends of boxes were for identification purposes only, while inscriptions on the long side might have indicated a more honorific purpose. Yet we can draw no firm conclusions from the fact that the inscription on the James ossuary is on a long side. In general, little attention was paid to the placement of the inscriptions on ossuaries. Decorated sides are sometimes inscribed even when there is unadorned space available. Sometimes inscriptions are carved right through decorations; sometimes they are horizontal, sometimes vertical, and sometimes on a slant.

It may be tempting to draw inferences from the uncentered placement of the inscription on the James ossuary. Some have suggested that because the word Jesus is near the center, it was the only original part of the inscription; everything before it must be a modern forgery. All such speculation is useless.

Some things we can occasionally glean from ossuary inscriptions. The place of origin of the deceased may be reflected in the kind of script used, as indicated by a few Latin and Palmyrene examples. These demonstrate that even in this early period, Jews from elsewhere brought their deceased to be buried in Jerusalem. Whether this was the case with James, who spent his early life in Galilee, we cannot know.

The majority of ossuary inscriptions, however, are in what scholars call Jewish scripts�Hebrew and Aramaic. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference. But with the James ossuary inscription it is easy. It uses the Aramaic word for �son� (bar) instead of the Hebrew word (ben), and also the Aramaic form, instead of Hebrew, for �brother.�

The most common type of ossuary inscription gives the name of the deceased and of his father. But sometimes further identifications were added to enhance the prestige of the deceased or his descendants. Thus the rank of high priest was noted on one ossuary. On another, a woman is described as the daughter of a priest. One man is identified as an elder. A famous ossuary inscription refers to one Simon (Shimon) as the �builder of the sanctuary temple .� Nicanor is called he �who made the gates of the temple .� All this suggests that it would not have been unusual for those who buried James to have enhanced his prestige by noting that he was the brother of the well-known Jesus. Or, as Kyle McCarter has argued, the two words brother of Jesus might have been added by the family to clarify who this James was after several generations had passed.

Although the James ossuary inscription is not needed to prove the existence of Jesus, it does have a tactile, visual quality that bridges the millennia in a very different way from a literary text. This plain stone box somehow transports us back almost two thousand years�to a stone burial cave in ancient Jerusalem, where the friends or family of a man named James reverently laid his bones and honored him then or subsequently by taking the extraordinary step of identifying him with his presumably famous brother, Jesus.

Read sections of the book

Biblical Archaeological Society

Click here to visit the Biblical Archaeological Society Website

Articles

Read the Article from the Biblical Archaeological Society

"Meet the Authors"
Book Tour

Monday, April 28, 2003
Appears on/at: NEWSWEEK

Wednesday, April 30, 2003 07:30 PM
Appears on/at: WASHINGTON NATIONAL CATHEDRAL/Perry Auditorium Massachusetts & Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016

Thursday, May 01, 2003
Appears on/at: SOJOURNERS

Saturday, May 03, 2003
02:00 PM - 03:00 PM
Appears on/at: BARNES & NOBLE # 2704--IN STORE 2814 East Colonial Drive, Orlando, FL 32803

Sunday, May 11, 2003
09:00 PM Appears on/at: KDKA-AM/Amplify Pittsburgh, PA

Sunday, May 18, 2003
Appears on/at: CHARLOTTE OBSERVER

Sunday, May 18, 2003
09:30 AM
Appears on/at: WOODLANDS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 2200 Lake Woodlands Drive, The Woodlands, TX 77380

Sunday, May 18, 2003
06:00 PM
Appears on/at: LOVER'S LANE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9200 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX 75220-3901

Monday, May 19, 2003
12:00 PM
Appears on/at: LOVER'S LANE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 9200 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX 75220-3901

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 10:05 AM
Appears on/at: WBCL-FM

Sunday, May 25, 2003
Appears on/at: MYERS PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 1501 Queens Road, Charlotte, NC 28207

Tuesday, July 08, 2003
12:30 PM
Appears on/at: WAFG-FM

Dates and times are subject to change. Please contact venue to confirm details.

Customer Service: 1-800-CHRISTIAN (1-800-247-4784)

* 8 *