James Ossuary Research Articles

The Geochemistry of Intrusive Sediment Sampled from the 1<sup>st</sup> Century CE Inscribed Ossuaries of James and the Talpiot Tomb, Jerusalem

In 2002 an ossuary of unknown provenance was revealed to the public during a press conference; it is inscribed “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus”. Because its inscription seems to refer to a member of the Jesus of Nazareth’s family, it is natural to wonder what relationship this ossuary could have to the Talpiot tomb. Discovered in 1980 during construction operations in SE Jerusalem, the tomb contained several ossuaries inscribed with names from the Jesus family. In pursuit of physical evidence regarding such a relationship, we investigated the geochemistry of the James ossuary’s sediment which accumulated through millennia in its interior. For comparison, we similarly investigated samples of material from ossuaries taken from the Talpiot tomb, and also from a wide sample of ossuaries from other tombs in the Jerusalem area. Our purpose was to answer, if possible, two questions. First, is the chemistry of the inorganic materials (soils) which were flushed into the Talpiot tomb and ossuaries therein distinct from other ossuaries removed from tombs in the Jerusalem area? Second, presuming such a distinction exists, does the geochemistry of the materials from the James ossuary resemble either grouping? While we recognize the controversies surrounding both the origin and inscription of the James ossuary and the interpretation of the Talpiot tomb inscriptions, this geochemical evidence is worth investigation and discussion on its own merits. Employing chemical (ICP, SEM and Pb isotope) analyses we have found, based on chemical data alone, that the ossuary of James is far more similar to ossuaries removed from the Talpiot tomb than it is to any other group of ossuaries we sampled.

The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Wesleyanism, and Pentecostalism

New Testament scholar-theologian Ben Witherington III is one of the most prolific Wesleyan authors of our time. Since 1995, he has been Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary. He has written or co-authored commentaries on every New Testament book except Luke, which is presently in preparation with co-author Amy-Jill Levine of Vanderbilt University. In addition, Witherington has published popular or academic treatises on Christology, eschatology, ethics, finances, gender, holy work and leisure, the James Ossuary, the Lord's Supper, the Apostle Paul, sacred poetry, several volumes on the Old Testament, worship, and ‘novel claims’ in The Da Vinci Code. He has appeared in numerous media and educational venues, and as a keynote speaker for the Evangelical Theological Society.Witherington is thus well qualified to diagnose The Problem with Evangelical Theology as its failure to attend vigorously to Holy Scripture. He proceeds as a prophetic insider to evangelicalism, Wesleyanism, and in a new section on Pentecostalism. He constructively criticizes Dispensational and Reformed Theology, contending that theological errors and eccentricities result whenever evangelicals neglect careful exegesis. Dubious divisions often ensue where evangelicals emphasize peculiarities that distinguish rather than unify them with other orthodox sisters and brothers in Christ.Witherington has much to commend in his new edition. He interweaves an illustrious career of technical exegesis with humorous and serious exhortations to scholars and laypeople alike. He probes Romans regarding the biblical Adam's influence on human sinfulness and its implications for Christian living. He argues for a corporate approach to ‘election’ where God arbitrarily excludes no one from God's People. He exegetes Genesis 1–3 and related New Testament passages to reverse gender disparities that persist under the well-intentioned label of ‘Complementarianism’.Witherington transitions from the Reformed Tradition to ‘Rapture’ eschatology, then to Wesleyan prevenient grace and entire sanctification. Finally, he furrows a via media between declarations that miracles ceased after the apostolic age versus assertions that all genuine Christians speak in tongues. The former devalues many of the spiritual gifts that God intends for blessing the church. The latter overlooks key biblical passages such as those that call believers to ‘test’ supernatural experiences.Witherington advances the call to be ‘always reforming’ that has characterized Protestant Christianity from its inception (ix). He contends together with Wesley and the Reformers for the Bible's primacy to this task. For Witherington, the pegs of exegesis should perpetually ground the tent of evangelical theology instead of the other way around. Regrettably, multiple corners of the evangelical fold permit idiosyncrasies to commandeer conscientious exegesis as their principal or driving authority in theology.Evangelicals who differ with Witherington's Wesleyan-Pentecostal stance will naturally object to some of his accusations. Witherington is perhaps less likely to replace as to adjust the lenses of those who see their convictions as faithfully interpreting the Bible. At the same time, a clearer and fuller apprehension of relevant issues is primed to emerge when other evangelicals utilize Witherington's critiques to filter gold from dross by taking his substantive attacks seriously and offering critique where applicable in return. Richard Heitzenrater in Wesley and the People Called Methodists (2013; 53–4) similarly credited John Wesley's theological maturity to a long-term ability to thrive during controversy, and to turn criticism into occasions for sharpening proclamation.One possible quibble with Witherington from a Wesleyan perspective concerns methodology. Wesleyans might appeal to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, or to Wesleyan Honouring Conference, or to the Eerdmans Two Horizons commentary as encouraging exegetes and theologians to dialogue. Must instruction and correction flow in only one direction from exegesis to theology? Listening to voices from the historic communion of saints (cf. 259), the Apostles' Creed, reason, experience, the sciences, and other academic disciplines fruitfully challenge otherwise robust exegesis.Ensuring that biblical exegesis is primary in evangelical theology need not inhibit other resources to enrich or direct. One could further enquire into what is maximally productive for adjudicating competing exegetical conclusions. To what extent can Bible readers effectively remove or exchange their theological spectacles in order to increase their acuity to biblical teachings and themes? As evangelicals consider these questions, Witherington provides an ever-timely reminder to test our assumptions with the Bible, so that evangelicals may ‘go on to perfection’ (in the words of John Wesley's 1766 Plain Account of Christian Perfection) to better reform and articulate our cherished theologies.

The James Ossuary - a Forensic Inquiry

Examining the antiquity of artifacts to determine their authenticity requires multidisciplinary expertise The final verdict can influence an object s value and can impact our historical knowledge of the period in question and of the historical figures of that time There are many methods of testing authenticity and they build upon modern scientific know how and instruments This paper presents some of the scientific tests that are routinely applied in forensic labs that can be used to confirm or challenge findings obtained through the accepted methods of examining archeological artifacts Specifically this paper discusses authenticity testing in the context of a disputed inscription found on a Second Temple ossuary Jewish burial bone box The inscription on the ossuary possibly alludes to the brother of Jesus and is therefore highly significant to Christian believers

The Authenticity of the James Ossuary

An archaeometric analysis of the James Ossuary inscription “James Son of Joseph Brother of Jesus” strengthens the contention that the ossuary and its engravings are authentic. The beige patina can be observed on the surface of the ossuary, continuing gradationally into the engraved inscription. Fine long striations made by the friction of falling roof rocks continuously crosscut the letters. Many dissolution pits are superimposed on several of the letters of the inscription. In addition to calcite and quartz, the patina contains the following minerals: apatite, whewellite and weddelite (calcium oxalate). These minerals result from the biogenic activity of microorganisms that require a long period of time to form a bio-patina. Moreover, the heterogeneous existence of wind-blown microfossils (nannofossils and foraminifers) and quartz within the patina of the ossuary, including the lettering zone, reinforces the authenticity of the inscription.

Determining the Authenticity of Artifacts by Oxygen Isotope Analysis

A technique used to determine the authenticity of artifacts that compares the oxygen isotopic composition of speleothems to the carbonate included within the patina of unprovenanced artifacts is of questionable value. The unprovenanced Jehoash Inscription Tablet and James Ossuary are of potentially immense historical and cultural importance. Nevertheless, they both were rejected by workers based on the oxygen isotope technique which provided the major foundational evidence of forgery in the longest running archaeological trial in Israel. Nevertheless, both these artifacts were determined not to be forged. The initial incongruence between the oxygen isotopes of the speleothems of the Soreq cave (Israel) purported to represent the unique composition of Jerusalem rainfall, and the patina on the artifacts, can be readily explained by the accretion of materials and geo-biochemical processes expected in normal patina formation in the Jerusalem region. The patina formation involves sporadic events in disequilibrium kinetic processes that are opposed to the equilibrium formation of speleothems in a sealed cave. Moreover, 23 of 56 patina samples (41%) on well-documented ancient artifacts from Israel yielded oxygen isotope values greater or lower than the expected speleothem values of -4 δ18O ‰ [PDB] to -6 δ18O ‰ [PDB]. Thus, the speleothem-patina correlation is invalid and the applied oxygen isotopes technique for determining the authenticity of patinas on artifacts is not a useful tool in the authentication of artifacts.

Resurrecting the Brother of Jesus. The James Ossuary Controversy and the Quest for Religious Relics – Edited by Ryan Byrne and Bernadette McNary‐Zak

Journal of Religious HistoryVolume 35, Issue 3 p. 424-426 Resurrecting the Brother of Jesus. The James Ossuary Controversy and the Quest for Religious Relics – Edited by Ryan Byrne and Bernadette McNary-Zak ROBERT CROTTY, ROBERT CROTTY University of South AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author ROBERT CROTTY, ROBERT CROTTY University of South AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 17 August 2011 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9809.2010.01039.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume35, Issue3September 2011Pages 424-426 RelatedInformation

Authenticity examination of the inscription on the ossuary attributed to James, brother of Jesus

Abstract A First Century CE ossuary belonging to a private collector, bearing engraved Aramaic inscription “Ya'akov bar Yosef achui de Yeshua” (James son of Joseph his brother of Jesus), has been attributed to James, Jesus' brother, first head of the Jerusalem church. The ossuary was reportedly found around Jerusalem. Previous examination suggested that the ossuary and the inscription were genuine. Our research focuses on the authenticity of the patina that covers the inscription (“letters patina”), based on its petrography and oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O). We compared the δ18O values of the letters patina from the James Ossuary, with the patina sampled from the uninscribed surfaces of the same item (“surface patina”), and with surface and letters patinas from legally excavated ossuaries from Jerusalem. In addition, the results were compared with δ18O values of carbonates formed naturally from groundwater in the Judean Mountains. Our results show that the petrography and the δ18O values of the letters patina of the James Ossuary differ significantly from the other patinas. The oxygen isotopic composition of the letters patina could not have formed under natural temperature and water oxygen isotope composition that prevailed in Judea during the last 3000 years. The patina was most likely artificially formed from powdered chalk immersed in hot water. These observations clearly call into question the authenticity of the inscription on “James Ossuary”.

Nogmaals: het grafschrift van Jakobus, de broervan Jezus

This article surveys the past year’s debate over the James ossuary. It argues that the report of the Israel Antiquities Authority (with its unanimous verdict of non-authenticity of the inscription) is deeply flawed and sketches the background of it. Without claiming authenticity for the inscription, the author argues that as yet no compelling reason has been put forward to reject it as a fake.

The Aramaic Dialect of the James Ossuary Inscription

Abstract Discussion of the Aramaic used in the James Ossuary inscription has so far been limited to whether the Aramaic grammatical forms could be found in the first century. There is a little evidence that supports a positive answer. This essay asks a different question, in which Aramaic dialect are the inscription's Aramaic forms most common? That answer is that they are the standard forms in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, which was the Galilean dialect from the end of the second century onwards. The inscription is thus most likely later than the period claimed by its promoters.

Jesus and the Ossuaries: What Jewish Burial Practices Reveal about the Beginning of Christianity

Jesus and the Ossuaries: What Burial Practices Reveal about the Beginning of Christianity, by Craig A. Evans. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2003. Pp. 168. $19.95. The discussion about the alleged James ossuary continues, even though the case against its authenticity seems to be quite clear. Nevertheless, the question about the relevance of early ossuaries and their inscriptions for our understanding of first-century Christianity and its writings is still open. In his new book, Craig A. Evans examines exactly this issue. After a survey of scholarly sources and some terminological clarifications Evans summarizes the importance of this enterprise for biblical exegesis. Several passages of the NT mention tombs, speak about burial practices, or presuppose that their readers are acquainted with them (see, e.g., Matt 23:27, 29; Matt 8:22 par Luke 9:60; Mark 6:29; John 11; Matt 27:51-53). Chapter 1 is entitled Jewish Burial Practices in Late Antiquity. Evans starts with Mark 5, the story about the man with an unclean spirit living day and night among the tombs. He asks what kind of necropolis ancient readers of this text would have imagined. In this context he discusses briefly several well-known tombs from Israel in late antiquity. He points to the fact that Jews, unlike their pagan neighbors, did not practice cremation. Moreover, they buried their dead, later gathering the bones and placing them in containers set aside for this purpose. This practice is called ossilegium, or secondary burial. Traces of it possibly go back to very early times, as evidence from the OT seems to reveal (e.g., 2 Sam 21:13-14; Gen 25:8, 17; 2 Kgs 22:20). Evans writes: One of the interesting features of ossilegium is that it likely reflects the belief that the dead are still with the living and, perhaps, still able to be of some influence. In other words, the dead are not completely dead, but are diminished and weakened. . . . They mutter as shades (Isa 8:19; 29:4) and feel worms gnawing at them (Job 14:22; Isa 66:24). . . . The idea that some life still lingers in the bones of the deceased may help us understand better Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones (Ezek 37), bones that are still capable of returning to a full life. (p. 28) Quite surprisingly, ch. 2 turns to several inscriptions that do not have much to do with burial practices (e.g., the Temple Warning Inscription; Caesar's Edict against Grave Robbery; the Theodotos Synagogue Inscription; the Seat of Moses Inscription, the Pilate Inscription). Of course, these examples are quite interesting for our understanding of first-century history in general, even though they do not really touch on the main question of the book. In chs. 3 and 4 Evans tries to illuminate several NT themes (e.g., titles and rank, professions and trades, philosophical and religious themes) and names with the help of burial inscriptions. Evans here mainly lists examples and points to the critical editions of the texts. When, for example, he discusses the word scribe, he writes: On Ossuaries we have 'Yehuda the scribe' (CIJ no. 1308) and, from Jerusalem, 'Yehuda, son of Eleazar the scribe' (Klein 1920, no. 19) and 'Joseph, son of Hananya the scribe' (Sussman 1994, 228; Rahmani 1994a, no 893). …

Response to Paul Flesher, 'The Aramaic Dialect of the James Ossuary Inscription'

Abstract On the basis of the distribution of two linguistic features found within this inscription, Paul Flesher has argued that it is more likely that the James Ossuary inscription comes from the Galilee or southern Judea in later centuries (most likely the fourth or fifth century). The response discusses the methodological shortcomings of Flesher?s treatment of the linguistic evidence. It is argued that the language of the inscription fits into Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the second century CE onwards, possibly earlier.