100 Reasons to Believe New Testament History
86. The James Ossuary
In 2002 Aramaic linguist and scholar Andre Lamaire, announced the discovery of an ossuary dated to the first century, with the phrase, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”, inscribed on its side. Some have challenged the legitimacy of the James Ossuary, claiming that the words “James, son of Joseph” are legitimate but the ending, “brother of Jesus” are later forgery. Hershal Shanks, editor of the “Biblical Archaeological Review” summed up his rebuttal to this challenge with three major points (interview on CBC radio, “Tapestry”, Nov. 24th, 2002)
A. Critics must assume that the forger was stupid. The smart thing to do would be to purchase a blank ossuary and forge the entire inscription. This would have eliminated the possibility of people discovering the fraud on the grounds that the letter styles did not match up.
B. Critics admit that the Patina on the entire inscription is the same, though they are quick to point out that this is something that can be faked. The burden of proof, however, rests on the critic to cite an instance where such a forgery has fooled a geologic survey.
C. It must be assumed that this fraud was perpetrated to make money, yet this ossuary sat in complete obscurity for an incredibly long period of time. It was bought from a dealer for a couple of hundred dollars and sat in a private collection, unnoticed, until Andre Lemaire took notice of it. Though a consensus of opinion regarding the authenticity of the ossuary may never be reached, it is notable that the Royal Ontario Museum, which houses this intriguing artifact, has expressed their opinion that it is indeed genuine A. Other notable historians and scholars such as Paul Maier have also expressed their opinion that the ossuary is probably authentic B.
The James Ossuary and the “Hard Sayings” of Jesus
One of the sure marks of authenticity in the Gospels is the recorded sayings of Jesus which, at first blush, seem to say the exact opposite of what the early church was trying to communicate. For example, in Luke 18:18, we read of how a rich man approached Jesus and questioned him: “Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Note Christ’s response in v. 19: “Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God.” It is clear from other portions of Scripture that the apostles clearly believed that Jesus was God, yet they recorded this saying of Jesus which seems to contradict this belief. If the Gospels were purely contrived, one would certainly not expect to find such “hard sayings”. That they were left unamended and without clear explanation can only argue for the trustworthiness of the Gospel narrative. So what is the explanation for this “hard saying? If we study the text closely, we see that Jesus was not actually denying His divinity, only questioning the man as to whether or not he fully understood who Jesus really was (and is).
The same may be said about Matthew 27:46, where Jesus, in agony on the cross cries out to God, “My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?” Again, this seems to contradict the apostles’ insistence that Jesus and His Father were totally unified in love and purpose. However, if we investigate further, we see that Jesus was actually quoting psalm 22 – the crucifixion psalm – written a thousand years before his birth (see point 94). With His dying breaths Jesus was directing people to an Old Testament passage, which clearly spoke of the Messiah’s death by crucifixion.
Another “hard saying” of Jesus is found in Matthew 8:22 and Luke 9:60. Here a certain man tells Jesus that he would like to follow Him, but he must first bury his father. Jesus’ response to “Let the dead bury their dead” seems unreasonable and unnecessarily harsh. It seems to run counter to the portrait of Jesus painted in other portions of Scripture as loving and compassionate. What’s going on?
In the first century, burial of the dead was carried out in two distinct phases. Phase one was called “being gathered to the fathers”, when the body of the deceased was placed in a family burial cave. This was followed by a period of mourning which lasted about a year. Phase two involved the placing of the remains (just bones at this point) into an ossuary. This secondary burial, known as ossilegium, is probably what the Gospels are referring to.
According to rabbinic sources, the decomposition process was actually a purification of sorts, which atoned for the sins committed during the deceased person’s life C. The consummation of this process was the ritual secondary burial. Since Jesus clearly taught that atonement for our sins could only come about through God alone, His response could be seen as a correction to this improper practise. In other words, Jesus was telling His disciple that he had already honoured his father with a proper burial, and that he should waste no time waiting for the flesh to decay, which could not atone for sin. Instead, he was to go and preach the kingdom of God, and the only true means of atonement, and let the bones of his father’s dead ancestors worry about placing his bones in an ossuary.
If this interpretation of the Christ’s words is correct, then it would serve to cast some doubt on the authenticity of the James ossuary, since we know that James died an ardent follower of Jesus and a pillar in the young church D. In the first edition of this book I cited the James ossuary as one of my 100 reasons to trust the New Testament. Considering Christ’s apparent teaching in Matthew 8:22 and Luke 9:60, I am today not so sure. For those that cannot accept the ossuary as authentic, the “hard sayings” of Jesus recorded in the Gospels may serve as reason 86. For those that still believe the ossuary is genuine, you now have 101 reasons to believe the New Testament record!
86. The James Ossuary - Notes and references
A. “Ed Keall, the ROM's Senior Curator, Near Eastern & Asian Civilizations Department, was responsible for leading the James Ossuary exhibition team at the ROM from October 2002-January 2003. In response to the news coming from Israel, he says,"Until such time as the full report is available to me from the Israeli Antiquities Authority to evaluate the recent analysis, the opinion of the Israeli sponsored team is not a final verdict at all. It is only an interpretation of some analytical work that should be subjected to cross-examination. All of the available data should be presented at an international round-table conference, for all to see and hear what the various experts have to say. The ROM has always been open to questioning the ossuary's authenticity, but so far no definitive proof of forgery has yet been presented, in spite of the current claims being made." www.rom.on.ca/ossuary
B. “Accordingly, there is strong (though not absolutely conclusive) evidence that, yes, the ossuary and its inscription are not only authentic, but that the inscribed names are the New Testament personalities. Hershall Shanks, the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, who broke the story, is joined by a host of other authorities who support this conclusion in varying degrees. Personally, I give it a 7 on my handy 1 - to - 10 scale.” Dr. Paul L. Maier, vice president of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, Quote from “The Lutheran Witness”, January 2003, also see www.issuesetc.org
“To assess the box’s composition, Shanks sent it to the Geological survey of Israel. Survey scientists determined that it was made of a limestone quarried intensively from the Mount Scopus ridge (which includes the Bible’s Mount of Olives) in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. and that the cauliflower-shaped structure of its patina – a mineral sheen that develops with age – indicated that it had spent centuries in a cave. Citing the absence of any modern chemicals or telltale disruptions in the patina and any marks in the stone by modern tools, they confirmed its antiquity and ruled out forgery. Independent scholars have almost unanimously accepted their judgment.”
“Lemaire, one of whose specialties is Aramaic writing, contends that three characters written in cursive, a script developed only around AD 25, date the box to within 40 years of James death in AD 62. With the exception of his countryman Emile Puech of the cole Biblique et Archeologique Francaise in Jerusalem, other epigraphers, working from photographs, have agreed.” “Time” Magazine, Nov. 4, 2002, with reporting from Adrea Dorfman, Matt Rees, Matthew Kalman, and Tala Skari
C. See Archaeologist Randall Price, “The Stones Cry Out”, Harvest House Publishers, 1997, pp.42-43. Price cites as his sources:
• Bryon McCane, “Let the Dead Bury Their Own Dead”: Secondary Burial and Matthew 8:21-22”, Harvard Theological Review 83, 1990, pp. 31-43
• Eric Meyers, “Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth”, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971 and “Theological Implications of Ancient Jewish Burial Custom”, Jewish Quarterly Review 62, 1971-72, pp. 95-119
D. Galatians 2:9 Paul states, “And when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.”