{"id":603,"date":"2012-06-13T12:41:58","date_gmt":"2012-06-13T16:41:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jenniferthomas.ca\/?p=603"},"modified":"2020-12-10T07:30:54","modified_gmt":"2020-12-10T12:30:54","slug":"excavating-james-the-james-ossuary-and-the-talpiot-tomb","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jenniferthomas.ca\/?p=603","title":{"rendered":"RS17: Excavating James: The James Ossuary and the Talpiot Tomb"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"PageLines-<\/a>

The James Ossuary.\u00a0 Photo by Paradiso (English Wikipedia, via Wikipedia Commons). The James ossuary was on display at the Royal Ontario Museum from Nov. 15, 2002 to Jan. 5, 2003.<\/p><\/div>\n

In honour of today’s press release today from the Biblical Archaeology Review, with its hot-off-the-press link to Hershel Shanks’ article about the James Ossuary — “‘Brother of Jesus’ Inscription is Authentic!” (note: the Biblical Archaeology Society subsequently removed this article from its website) — I’m posting a term paper I wrote for an Historical Jesus course as a graduate student in theological studies.<\/p>\n

I call the essay “Excavating James.”\u00a0 I’ve posted it here as I wrote it in December 2007, several years before an Israeli court found antiquities collector Oded Golan and antiquities dealer Robert Deutsch not guilty of forgery charges after a five year trial.* In my view, the defendants in this forgery trial ably demonstrated how scientific research can be used with dignity, appropriateness, and courage to push back against the vested interests of entrenched dogmatic beliefs.<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

I should also note that my Masters degree in Art Conservation (Artifact stream) offered me insights into the chemistry raised in this paper.<\/p>\n

_________________<\/p>\n

EXCAVATING JAMES:
\nBREAKING THROUGH OLD ASSUMPTIONS<\/p>\n

by Jennifer Thomas
\nDecember 14, 2007<\/p>\n

In October 2002, an unprovenanced chalk ossuary with probable origins in first century Jerusalem made international headlines when a press conference highlighted the possible significance of the box\u2019s Aramaic inscription: \u201cYa\u2019aquov bar Yosef akhui diYeshua,\u201d translated as \u201cJacob, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus\u201d (Shanks and Witherington 22).\u00a0 The ossuary, commonly known as the James Ossuary, ignited a firestorm of controversy which has not yet subsided.\u00a0 The scholarly debate over the inscription\u2019s authenticity has been complicated by several factors, including its acquisition by Tel Aviv collector Oded Golan; the puzzling evidence of its having been cleaned more than once (Krumbein, \u201cFindings: Ossuary\u201d par. 2); its history of repair by Royal Ontario Museum conservators after it sustained damage during shipping (Shanks and Witherington 36-40); its focus in the forgery charges brought by Israeli police against Golan; its examination by Israeli police and by independent geomicrobiologist Wolfgang Krumbein, hired by Golan\u2019s defence attorney; and its recent inclusion by filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici and paleobiologist Charles Pellegrino among the Talpiot Tomb ossuaries in their 2007 book, The Jesus Family Tomb<\/em>.\u00a0 Some of the data presented by Jacobovici and Pellegrino is intriguing and worthy of more study.\u00a0 If further research can confirm the tentative scientifically established link between the James Ossuary and the Talpiot Tomb, then biblical scholars may be forced to reexamine some of their assumptions about the historical Jesus.\u00a0 In particular, the frequently ignored Epistle of James, when read against the background of the Talpiot Tomb and its ossuaries, in the manner of Crossan and Reed, may prove to have greater value as an exegetical tool for understanding Jesus than has previously been envisioned.<\/p>\n

When John Crossan and Jonathan Reed revised their book Excavating Jesus<\/em> to place the James Ossuary in the number one spot of their top ten archaeological discoveries related to Jesus, they probably never imagined that less than five years later a Toronto filmmaker would start knocking on doors in a Jerusalem suburb and asking residents if they had a tomb in their basement.\u00a0 The tomb in question was the Tomb of Ten Ossuaries, found accidentally in East Talpiot in 1980 while contractors were levelling ground for new construction.\u00a0 The Department of Antiquities (later called the Israel Antiquities Authority, or IAA) was contacted, and IAA archaeologists were dispatched to perform salvage archeology.\u00a0 The team physically entered the tomb, mapped the antechamber and the lower chamber with its six niches or kokhim<\/em>, noted that almost a metre of terra rossa<\/em> covered the floor of the lower chamber, and removed all the contents, including the red soil.\u00a0 The tomb\u2019s ossuaries \u2013 at least, the nine that were later fully catalogued of the ten that were documented on-site \u2013 were taken to an IAA warehouse.\u00a0 The tomb itself was generally believed to have been filled with concrete in 1980 during construction of a condominium complex.\u00a0 Certainly this is Crossan and Reed\u2019s stated belief (19).\u00a0 As we shall, however, rumours of the tomb\u2019s demise were greatly exaggerated.<\/p>\n

Amos Kloner, of the original IAA team, did not publish the group\u2019s findings until 1996.\u00a0 Apparently, few scholars knew before then that six of the nine Talpiot ossuaries in the IAA\u2019s possession\u00a0 were inscribed with names familiar to readers of the Gospels (an unusually high inscription rate, when compared to other ossuaries catalogued by the IAA (Shanks and Witherington 12)).\u00a0 In 1996, a BBC film crew came across the cluster of inscribed ossuaries, and created a brief media stir with their story (Jacobovici and Pellegrino 23).\u00a0 It is important, however, to separate media sensation from the fact of the tomb\u2019s authenticity.\u00a0 Crossan and Reed quote from a 1996 article in which Joe Zias, then curator of the IAA, said, \u201c[the list of names from the ossuaries] came from a very good, undisturbed, archaeological context.\u00a0 It was found by archaeologists, read by them, interpreted by them . . . a very, very good text\u201d (19).\u00a0 The descriptions of the ten Talpiot Tomb ossuaries (nine in the possession of the IAA and one missing) are shown in Table 1.<\/p>\n

Summary of Talpiot Tomb ossuary inscriptions<\/strong> (c) JAT 2007:\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

What are we to do with this list of family names that includes a Mary, a Jude (son of Jesus), a Matthew, a Jesus (son of Joseph), a Joseph, and a second Mary?\u00a0 Researchers tells us that Mary was a common name for daughters in the Second Temple period (Pfann 8).\u00a0 Shanks and Witherington, citing Rachel Hachlili, report that from the 1st century BCE to the 1st century CE, Joseph was second in popularity only to Simon, Judah was third, Jesus was sixth, Matthew was eighth, and Jacob\/James was thirteenth among 18 Jewish male names that appear frequently in the archaeological record (56).\u00a0 In themselves, the inscriptions on the Talpiot ossuaries are not remarkable if they are viewed\u00a0 independently of each other.\u00a0 But they are not independent.\u00a0 They are a group, and must be examined as a group. They were found together.\u00a0 They were found in a South Jerusalem family tomb that, because of its size, location, and quality of workmanship, could only have been built by someone of means.<\/p>\n

Pellegrino says in his book that Jacobovici took the list of six names to Andrey Feuerverger, a University of Toronto statistician (111-114).\u00a0 Feuerverger calculated a conservative \u201cP factor\u201d (probability factor) \u201cof 600 to one in favor of the tomb belonging to the family of Jesus of Nazareth\u201d (114).\u00a0 Another way to put this is to say \u201cone in 600 families (on the conservative side) would have that particular combination of names purely by chance, based on the distribution of individual names in the population\u201d (Mims, \u201cSpecial Report\u201d 1, quoting \fTABLE 1: SUMMARY OF INSCRIPTION DATA FROM TEN OSSUARIES FOUND IN TALPIOT TOMB).<\/p>\n

In an interview with Christopher Mims published by Scientific American in March 2007, Feuerverger says, \u201cI did permit the number one in 600 to be used in the film.\u00a0 I\u2019m prepared to stand behind that but on the understanding that these numbers were calculated based on the assumptions that I was asked to use . . . I\u2019m not a biblical scholar\u201d (\u201cQ&A\u201d 2).\u00a0 One of the assumptions is that the family could afford an ossuarial burial.<\/p>\n

The P factor would rise if it could be established, as Jacobovici and Pellegrino assert, that the James Ossuary is the missing tenth ossuary from the Talpiot Tomb.\u00a0 This may not be as far-fetched as it seems.\u00a0 Pellegrino worked with Bob Genna, director of the Suffolk County Crime Lab in New York, to investigate the possibility of using \u201cpatina fingerprinting\u201d to scientifically establish provenance.\u00a0 Pellegrino says this:<\/p>\n

My idea about patina fingerprinting rests on the fact that each soil type and rock matrix possesses its own private spectrum of magnesium, titanium, and other trace elements.<\/p>\n

In theory, the patina inside a tomb or on the surfaces of its artifacts should develop its own chemically distinct signature, depending on a constellation of variable conditions, including the minerals and bacterial populations present at any specific location and the quantities of water moving through that specific \u201cconstellation.\u201d<\/p>\n

If such a chemical \u201cfingerprint\u201d existed, scanning patina samples on a quantum level with an electron microprobe would reveal a chemical spectrum that could be matched to a specific tomb and to any objects that come from it. (176)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

His proposal is gutsy but by no means ludicrous or impossible from the perspective of analytical chemistry and related fields.\u00a0 At the least, it deserves further consideration.\u00a0 Publication in a peer-reviewed journal would assist others in assessing its feasibility.\u00a0 At the moment, though, we have Pellegrino\u2019s anecdotal findings, some of which are published in the form of four spectra in the colour plate section of the book.\u00a0 He and Genna took patina samples from the following sources: the Jesus, Mariamne, and Matthew ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb, the tomb itself, the James ossuary, and a number of provenanced ossuaries from tombs known to have similar conditions to the Talpiot tomb.\u00a0 His proposed method relied entirely on the availability of patina samples from the walls of the Tomb of Ten Ossuaries.\u00a0 Had the tomb been filled with concrete, as some had been led to believe, it would have been impossible to retrieve an uncontaminated sample.\u00a0 Fortunately \u2013 and for this we must thank renegade explorer Jacobovici and his associates, who wouldn\u2019t take no for an answer \u2013 the tomb was \u201crediscovered\u201d in 2005.\u00a0 It lay beneath a concrete and steel slab on a terrace between two condominium buildings.\u00a0 A tenant who had lived in one of the buildings since the beginning told Jacobovici\u2019s team that archaeologists had left the tomb open, but tenants had built the slab on top to keep children out (150).\u00a0 In addition, religious authorities had turned the tomb into a genizah<\/em>, or burial chamber for damaged holy texts, before it was sealed (153).\u00a0 The tomb was now carpeted with fragments of holy books.\u00a0 There was concern that the presence of the decomposing texts might have significantly altered the chemical composition of the tomb\u2019s patina over the previous 25 years; however, this was not borne out by the microprobe studies (180).<\/p>\n

When Pellegrino and Genna used an electron microscope to examine a patina sample from the James ossuary, provided by the Israel Geological Study, they saw \u201chundreds of tiny fiber fragments\u201d on the sample (184).\u00a0 They concluded that \u201csomeone in modern times had given the James ossuary a hard scrubbing with a piece of cloth . . . .(184)\u201d\u00a0 They directed the electron microprobe to the fibres themselves, and got large chlorine and phosphorus peaks.\u00a0 \u201cThis was consistent with the phosphate-spiked detergents that were in common use during the 1970s and early 1980s\u201d (184).\u00a0 Someone had apparently cleaned the James ossuary with a cloth soaked in a chlorine- and phosphate- based detergent.<\/p>\n

Probes of the James ossuary patina clearly revealed the same detergent contaminants.\u00a0 When these modern contaminants were factored out, the remaining spectrum was identical to those obtained from the Talpiot tomb walls and from the Jesus, Mariamne, and Matthew ossuaries (185).\u00a0 Further, five probes taken of a James patina sample provided by the Royal Ontario Museum were also identical, \u201cright down to contamination by cloth fibers and phosphate-based detergent\u201d (185).<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the electron microprobe studies of samples taken from unrelated Israeli ossuaries yielded spectra that were significantly different from each other and from the Talpiot cluster, even when patina samples were visually indistinguishable from the Talpiot patina under light microscopy.\u00a0 Pellegrino says, \u201cIn conclusion, it seemed that, compared to other patina samples from ossuaries found in the Jerusalem environment, the Talpiot tomb ossuaries exhibited a patina fingerprint or profile that matched the James ossuary and no other\u201d (188).<\/p>\n

If we were to rely solely on Pellegrino\u2019s admittedly novel technique to \u201crehabilitate\u201d the James ossuary\u2019s historical significance, we would not have much.\u00a0 However, because the box and samples from the box have been studied so many times since 2002 by specialists from different disciplines, including epigraphers, geochemists, archaeologists, art conservators, and even a geomicrobiologist, we have considerable scientific data at our disposal.<\/p>\n

In June 2003, the IAA issued a public statement declaring the inscription on the James ossuary a modern-day forgery.\u00a0 Two of the 14 Israeli scholars who were invited to prepare an authenticity report were Avner Ayalon of the Geological Survey of Israel and Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University\u2019s Department of Archaeology (Fitzmyer 3).\u00a0 These two, together with Miryam Bar-Matthews, also of the Geological Survey, examined the James ossuary, and published their findings in the Journal of Archaeological Science (Ayalon et al).\u00a0 They, too, chose a method never before used to assess the authenticity of archaeological artifacts.\u00a0 They took patina samples from various parts of the inscription, from other surface areas of the James ossuary, and from the surface patina and letters patina of unrelated Jerusalem ossuaries; ground the samples; used a mass spectrometer to analyse the oxygen isotopic composition (\u03b418O values) of each sample; then compared the results to well-dated secondary calcite (speleotherms) deposited in Jerusalem area caves during the last 3,000 years.\u00a0 Since only one James letter sample (of seven) fell within the same range as the other types of samples, Ayalon et al concluded the patina of the inscription could not have been formed \u201cin the natural conditions that prevailed in the Judean Mountains during the last 3000 years, [indicating] that the patina covering the letters was artificially prepared, most probably with hot water, and deposited onto the underlying letters\u201d (1188).<\/p>\n

There are several problems with this paper, two of which are noted here.\u00a0 First, although Ayalon et al acknowledge that the inscription had been observed in a previous study to be freshly cleaned, they do not discuss how the residue of earlier cleaning might affect \u03b418O values.\u00a0 This is a significant lapse.\u00a0 Second, they apparently base the suitability of their \u03b418O method on the assumption that the patina on the rest of the James ossuary was pure calcite formed in a typical Judean cave environment, that is, in an enclosed or semi-enclosed atmosphere absent of soil.\u00a0 Krumbein\u2019s report, however, conclusively demonstrates that the patina is not pure calcite, and that the presence of apatite, whewellite, weddelite, and quartz in the patina, along with biopitting and plant traces, suggests that \u201cthe cave in which the James ossuary was placed, either collapsed centuries earlier, or alluvial deposits penetrated the chamber together with water and buried the ossuary, either completely or partially<\/em> . . .[rendering] \u03b418O isotopic tests irrelevant\u201d (under \u201cFindings: Ossuary\u201d; italics added).<\/p>\n

When Krumbein examined the ossuary, along with two other disputed artifacts, in Jerusalem in 2005, the Talpiot tomb, with its verified accumulation of terra rossa<\/em>, had not yet entered the picture as the possible original resting place for the unprovenanced James ossuary.\u00a0 Nonetheless, his thorough examination and reported findings are fully in agreement with the documented conditions in which ten ossuaries were originally found in 1980.<\/p>\n

It is by no means certain, based on the scientific evidence, that the inscription on the James ossuary is a modern forgery (for a current example of the ongoing debate, see the BAR 33.6 article).\u00a0 The box itself, however, seems genuine (Ayalon et al 1185).\u00a0 Are there other explanations for the \u201cJacob, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus\u201d inscription?\u00a0 Of course.\u00a0 It is possible the inscription is a well-meaning ancient addition to a plain box.\u00a0 It is also possible the latter part of the inscription (\u201cbrother of Jesus\u201d) was added recently to an authentic \u201cJames, son of Joseph\u201d inscription, as some have argued (for example, Chadwick as cited by Shanks and Witherington 42).\u00a0 The inscription might even be an ancient forgery.\u00a0 On the other hand, the entire inscription could be authentic.\u00a0 The question for historical Jesus researchers is this: If the ossuary and its inscription are authentic, what does it say about Jesus?\u00a0 Can we stretch the question further to ask what it might mean if the James ossuary is the missing tenth Talpiot bone box?\u00a0 Crossan and Reed have said, with regard to the James ossuary, that \u201clike [the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Codices], the ossuary is now here and its presence demands discussion. . . . It is one single artifact that brings together archaeology and exegesis.\u00a0 It is also one single artifact that emphasizes how such objects are of value only when embedded among all those other discoveries that give it full context and final meaning\u201d (28).\u00a0 I would argue that the Talpiot tomb findings create important archeological, scientific, and exegetical context, and that the James ossuary should be examined further in light of that context.<\/p>\n

We can say with some measure of confidence that in the period during which ossuarial burial was practised in Jerusalem (usually given as 20 BCE to 70 CE (Shanks and Witherington 69)) a family who counted among their members a Mary, a Jude, a Matthew, a Jesus, a Joseph, another Mary, and possibly a James, had enough wealth and prestige to build a spacious tomb in the bedrock of a hill just south of the old city.\u00a0 Different languages were used on the ossuary inscriptions: Hebrew and Aramaic, but also Greek, with one name (Maria) a Latin version of its Aramaic counterpart.\u00a0 From this evidence, it could be argued the family was familiar with and possibly part of the wider Greco-Roman culture of 1st century Palestine.\u00a0 The family also had a penchant for widely popular names, and possibly followed a custom of naming children after close relatives.<\/p>\n

We know from exegetical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth had a brother named Jacob or James.\u00a0 The Gospels of Matthew and Mark both name Jesus as the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3), though Jesus\u2019 two sisters are not named in these passages.\u00a0 Matthew and Mark also refer to a Mary who is mother of James and Joseph (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40).\u00a0 Although it is not clear which Mary is being referred to in these latter verses, she could be Mary the mother of Jesus, in which case James and Joseph would again be named brothers of Jesus.\u00a0 So we have two independent Synoptic sources, Matthew and Mark, that specifically name James.\u00a0 The Gospel of Thomas, which is considered an independent source by some (Crossan and Reed 9), refers to James the Just in Saying 12.\u00a0 Further, James appears a number of times in Acts and the writings of Paul.\u00a0 Paul lists James among those who have seen the risen Christ (1 Cor 15:7), and when Paul is writing his letter to Galatians, he describes James as one of the \u201cpillars\u201d of the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:9).\u00a0 The much-overlooked Epistle of James purports to be written by \u201cJames, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ\u201d (Jas 1:1).\u00a0 We also have extra-canonical sources that name James, two of which report on his death in Jerusalem a few years before the destruction of the city in 70 CE (Gillman 621).\u00a0 Josephus reports that James was stoned in 62 CE on the orders of high priest Ananus (Ant 20:200).\u00a0 Hegesippus, writing ca. 180 and quoted by Eusebius in the 4th century, gives a dramatic account of James\u2019s martyrdom in 67 CE (?) at the hands of the scribes and Pharisees.\u00a0 Also from Hegesippus through Eusebius, we learn that \u201cJames became the first bishop of Jerusalem in part because he was the brother of Jesus\u201d (Shanks and Witherington 96).<\/p>\n

One begins to wonder why a man from the small peasant town of Nazareth in rural Galilee, where families \u201chad an interest in keeping the head count low\u201d (Hanson and Oakman 58) and the total population was probably less than 400 people (Reed 131), had such a large number of presumably adult siblings when childhood death rates were so high, and why one\u00a0 sibling \u2013 James \u2013 had such a position of honour and authority in Jerusalem.\u00a0 Archaeological excavations in Nazareth have brought to light no public structures and no public inscriptions from the Early Roman Period, which attests to \u201cthe level of illiteracy and lack of elite sponsors\u201d there (Reed 131).\u00a0 Juxtaposed against this archaeological evidence, we have not one but two men from the same generation of the same family who rose, in the midst of an honour-shame culture, from the humblest of origins to positions of great moral authority.\u00a0 Both men knew Jerusalem and died there.\u00a0 Both had friends there. Both surely possessed impressive oratorical skills, otherwise they would have been ignored.\u00a0 Surely these two men started out with more than the knowledge of how to press Nazareth\u2019s grapes into wine (see evidence for a vineyard and wine pressing vat: Reed 132).\u00a0 Something does not fit with a popular understanding of the historical Jesus as an illiterate Galilean peasant carpenter wisdom sage (for example Crossan and Reed; Mack).\u00a0 We might understand Jesus by himself in this way.\u00a0 But by all accounts, Jesus had a family.\u00a0 We must try to place Jesus more solidly within his large family, and within a culture that lived and breathed for status.<\/p>\n

In 2 Corinthians, Paul engages in a lengthy appeal for monetary contributions to the Jerusalem church (\u201cthe collection\u201d) (2 Cor 8:1 – 9:15).\u00a0 In the course of his letter, he says, \u201cFor you know the generous act [or the grace] of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich\u201d (2 Cor 8:9).\u00a0 In the Greek, Paul uses \u1f10\u03c0\u03c4\u03ce\u03c7\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cthe well-to-do man became poor.\u201d\u00a0 This verse is usually interpreted as being metaphorical, more akin to the christological construction in Philippians 2:6-8 (footnotes in Coogan NT 302).\u00a0 But maybe Paul isn\u2019t being metaphorical at all.\u00a0 Maybe he means exactly what he says: that Jesus intentionally gave up his wealth to do God\u2019s work.\u00a0 Paul, by his own admission, visited Jerusalem and saw James the Lord\u2019s brother (Gal 1:18-19).\u00a0 If Paul had not known anything about Jesus\u2019 family before this visit, he certainly did afterwards.\u00a0 Did Paul learn that Jesus had come from a privileged family with strong ties to Jerusalem?\u00a0 How would such knowledge have affected Paul\u2019s understanding of his own divinely appointed mission, the mission he describes in Galatians 1:15-17?\u00a0 Would it have been to Paul\u2019s advantage or disadvantage that the man who spoke so clearly to the non-elite about the spiritual woes of being rich (eg. Lk 6:24) might himself have originated in a family of wealth and status?<\/p>\n

A modern analogy might be of help in understanding the historical Jesus not as a man who came from the bottom up, but as man who had the courage to intentionally step off the upper part of the pyramid, and live as a person among persons.\u00a0 Imagine, for the sake of argument, that one of the many descendants of American oligarch Joseph Kennedy suddenly had a profound religious experience, and saw for the first time how much suffering had been caused by his family\u2019s commitment to certain values.\u00a0 What if this descendent renounced his family\u2019s elitist way of life, moved to Canada, got a regular job, and used his spare time to study scripture?\u00a0 His family probably wouldn\u2019t like him very much.\u00a0 They might even lie to their friends about where he had gone, rather than face the embarrassment of being \u201cdisowned\u201d by him on spiritual grounds.\u00a0 Of course, such lies would become harder to maintain if he became known in his own right as a brilliant spiritual teacher up there in the boonies, a teacher of social and gender equality and . . . what\u2019s that? . . . miraculous healings from God?\u00a0 For this we gave him an education?\u00a0 The shame, the shame.<\/p>\n

Eventually, of course, word would get up to Canada that the guy working over there on that construction site is a Kennedy \u2013 one of those<\/em> Kennedys.\u00a0 And suddenly the people who had ignored him the day before would invite him over to dinner to talk about his favourite subject, God.\u00a0 Even the local bishop might not be immune to the cachet of this gentleman\u2019s esteemed lineage.\u00a0 Doors have a way of opening for those who come from \u201cthe right sort of people.\u201d<\/p>\n

Two thousand years ago, Jesus went through a lot of different doors.\u00a0 Many of those doors were owned by priests, Pharisees, scribes, and other elites who wouldn\u2019t have been caught dead talking to a Galilean peasant on the street, let alone seek him out for questioning in public places (Mt 22:15-46; Mk 11:27-33; Lk 20:1-8) or invite him to dinner (Lk 14:1-24).\u00a0 However, it is quite believable that they would talk to a man who had \u201cascribed honour\u201d on the basis of his descent (Hanson and Oakman 26-31), even if they didn\u2019t agree with his theology.\u00a0 Much has been made of the evidence that Jesus ate with \u201csinners\u201d and \u201ctax collectors\u201d and other outcasts.\u00a0 But it is just important that Jesus was known to dine with the elite.\u00a0 One could say that, in his ministry, Jesus swung both ways.\u00a0 This may be what made Jesus unique and loved by so many.<\/p>\n

Whatever else can be said of Jesus, no one can dispute his commitment to God.\u00a0 He was a man of deep faith.\u00a0 He strove to communicate to the people around him the depth of God\u2019s love for them.\u00a0 To this end, it was probably important to Jesus that he have the chance to speak in person to as many people as possible.\u00a0 He was not one to retire to life in an ascetic religious community like the one at Qumran.\u00a0 He was walking and talking (and dining) right up until his arrest.\u00a0 So, from a purely practical point of view, it would have been shrewd of Jesus to avoid talking about his family lineage, whatever its exact nature.\u00a0 The last time a devout Jewish family claiming priestly legitimacy had gathered political support from the Jewish rank and file, a rebellion had erupted that swept the Seleucid rulers from the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel. The Maccabean revolt, which proved the power of priestly Jewish bloodlines, would not have been forgotten by Palestine\u2019s new Roman rulers.\u00a0 Here was a clear case of discretion being the better part of valour.<\/p>\n

Many who would argue with the thesis presented here might wonder why an educated man from a privileged family would not have written down some of his own teachings.\u00a0 Surely such a man would be literate!\u00a0 Where are the letters of Jesus?\u00a0 Why did he not put something down on papyrus, and hand it to a trusted friend or family member?<\/p>\n

Well, maybe he did.\u00a0 Maybe his words have been staring at us all along, hidden in plain sight in the canon as part of the Epistle of James.<\/p>\n

The Epistle of James has to be one of the least examined sources in the New Testament.\u00a0 Open up the back of books written by historical Jesus researchers and examine the \u201cAncient Sources Index.\u201d\u00a0 Under James, you will frequently find nothing.\u00a0 Nothing at all \u2013 this despite the fact that some of the most sophisticated theology of the New Testament is found in James, and despite the fact that it has obvious links to the Q source (Hartin; Johnson; Wachob).\u00a0 Some might lay the blame at the foot of Luther, who famously decried James as \u201can epistle of straw\u201d (Laws 622).\u00a0 It seems generally to be avoided in research because its Greek is deemed too elegant for the family of a Galilean artisan (but what of a highly ranked family?); there are only two brief references to Jesus (would Jesus himself brag?); and its discussion of faith and works does not refer specifically to \u201cworks of the law\u201d (Law 622) (is that the real message of this epistle?).\u00a0 On the basis of these arguments, some declare it pseudonymous.\u00a0 In terms of date, it has been placed in the second generation, or even in the 2nd century.\u00a0 However, there is much evidence to support an earlier, first generation date for the epistle of James.<\/p>\n

Luke Timothy Johnson has done considerable research in this regard.\u00a0 In his book Brother of Jesus, Friend of God<\/em>, he says:<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0With the exception of the evidence in Paul, Acts, and Josephus, the letter is the historically most certain evidence we have concerning James.\u00a0 Even if it is supposed that a composition by James of Jerusalem was later redacted by someone else, the present letter is almost certainly appropriated by early-second-century Christian writings [1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas].\u00a0 In fact, there are strong reasons for arguing that the extant letter was composed by James of Jerusalem, whom Paul designates as \u201cbrother of the Lord.\u201d\u00a0 What is more, the evidence provided by the letter fits comfortably within that provided by our other earliest and best sources (Paul, Acts, Josephus), whereas it fits only awkwardly if at all within the framework of the later and legendary sources that are used for most reconstructions [here Johnson refers to Witherington in Brother of Jesus<\/em>]. (2-3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If Johnson is correct in his conclusions, then the Epistle of James, or parts of that epistle, could well be another independent source for understanding the historical Jesus (though Johnson himself would no doubt be chagrined at seeing his work used to support a theory he does not subscribe to (Kirby 10)).<\/p>\n

The letter of James, far from being an epistle of straw, concerns itself with teaching the difference between earthly wisdom that does not come from above versus the wisdom that does come from above, and is \u201cfirst pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy\u201d (3:17).\u00a0 This is an extraordinary vision of God, one that is in stark contrast to the God who clearly plays favourites in various Old Testament and apocryphal texts.\u00a0 Another breathtaking vision of God is given in Chapter 1, where the author says, \u201cNo one, when tempted, should say, \u2018I am being tempted by God\u2019; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one.\u00a0 But one is tempted by one\u2019s own desire, being lured and enticed by it\u201d (1:13-14).\u00a0 He then goes on to say that \u201cevery generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change\u201d (1:17).\u00a0 Note the complete absence of eschatological promises or apocalyptic warnings.\u00a0 The author of these sections, whom I believe was Jesus, is telling readers to take responsibility for their own actions and not blame their bad choices on a God who has \u201ctempted them.\u201d\u00a0 He is also saying they should not fear change, because God\u2019s love never changes even when other things do.<\/p>\n

When we place this understanding against the epistle\u2019s opening statements \u2013 \u201cMy brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing\u201d (1:2-4) \u2013 we can perhaps understand why its message has been so long ignored: this is not a message about justification by works alone, nor is it a message about justification by faith alone.\u00a0 It is an altogether radically new message about asking for God\u2019s help in the here and now in the difficult spiritual task of transforming pain and suffering into maturity, wisdom, and love for one\u2019s neighbour and one\u2019s God, not to earn salvation, but simply because it\u2019s the right thing to do.<\/p>\n

No wonder they crucified the guy.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, it is possible to apply Crossan\u2019s and Reed\u2019s \u201cExcavating Jesus\u201d method\u00a0 (balancing archeology with exegesis) to the task of \u201cexcavating James.\u201d\u00a0 The excavated James can, in turn, shed greater light on the historical Jesus.\u00a0 Recent findings from the Talpiot tomb, the James ossuary, and the Epistle of James cannot be ignored.\u00a0 As a group, they demand discussion.\u00a0 As a group, they have a story to tell us about Jesus.\u00a0 And perhaps Jesus himself still has something to say.<\/p>\n

*\u00a0 September 2, 2015: I have two updates to report which are relevant to the material posted on this page:\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

(1) I’m posting a link to a 2015 documentary that premiered on March 16, 2015 on VisionTV.\u00a0 The documentary, produced by Simcha Jacobovici, and Felix Golubev is called <\/span>Biblical Conspiracies 6: The James Revelation<\/a>.\u00a0 In this documentary, Simcha adds to his previous work on possible links between the James ossuary and the Talpiot Tomb ossuaries.\u00a0 He now states that the James ossuary may be a missing eleventh ossuary from the Talpiot Tomb.\u00a0 (His original position was that the James ossuary was the missing tenth ossuary, which mysteriously disappeared in 1980 after the Department of Antiquities (now the IAA) excavated and catalogued the contents of the tomb.)\u00a0 His new position no doubt derives from evidence presented during Oded Golan’s forgery trial which proved that he (Golan) was already in possession of the James ossuary a few years before the Talpiot Tomb was discovered.\u00a0 It’s still possible, however, that the James ossuary was looted at an earlier time from the Talpiot Tomb, as IAA archaeologist Shimon Gibson believes the tomb may have been broken into more than once before its official discovery (Biblical Conspiracies 6, 31 minutes).
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, Simcha uses the 2015 documentary to revisit the previous analytical analysis of the chemical fingerprint of the James ossuary inscription patina in comparison to that of the Talpiot Tomb ossuary patinas.\u00a0 This work was originally led by Dr. Charles Pellegrino (paleo-biologist and forensic archaeologist).\u00a0 In the documentary, Simcha consults with geo-archeologist Dr. Aryeh Shimron, who takes samples not from the inscription patina of the James ossuary but from the underside and inside of the box itself (from beneath the surface patina), then compares these with samples taken from the nine remaining Talpiot Tomb ossuaries as well as samples from random chalk ossuaries.\u00a0 Analysis of the chemical signatures shows strong similarities between the James ossuary and the Talpiot Tomb ossuaries, though, as Oded Golan rightly points out in an April 4, 2015 New York Times interview with Isabel Kershner<\/a><\/span>, this isn’t conclusive proof that the James ossuary originally came from the Talpiot Tomb; the James bone box could have come from another burial cave in the same area and still show a similar chemical fingerprint.\u00a0 Samples would have to be taken from a large number of caves in East Talpiot to further refine the data.<\/p>\n

It should be noted that Simcha’s new theory and new analytical data have no bearing on the actual authenticity of the James ossuary and its inscription.\u00a0 Whether or not Simcha is right, the James ossuary remains an important and authentic piece of archaeological evidence that can be legitimately combined with other pieces of evidence in the search for the historical Jesus, as stated above.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/span> I’m posting a link to an article by Hershel Shanks which appears in the Sept.\/Oct. 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.\u00a0 The article, called “Predilections: Is the ‘Brother of Jesus’ Inscription a Forgery?”<\/a><\/span> reviews some of the recent debates surrounding the authenticity of the James Ossuary inscription and the forgery trial of Oded Golan.\u00a0 Mr. Shanks emphasizes that Mr. Golan did, indeed, own the James Ossuary before the Talpiot Tomb was found and excavated in a 1980 salvage operation.\u00a0 Mr. Shanks also comments on the recent analysis by Dr. Pieter van der Horst of the IAA committee’s own original report on the James ossuary.\u00a0 Says Shanks, “Van der Horst notes that the IAA ‘appointed almost exclusively committee members who had already expressed outspoken opinions to the effect that the inscription was a forgery.'”<\/p>\n

BIBLIOGRAPHY (as it originally appeared in the 2007 research paper)<\/p>\n

Ayalon, Avner and Miryam Bar-Matthews and Yuval Goren.\u00a0 \u201cAuthenticity Examination of the
\nInscription on the Ossuary Attributed to James, Brother of Jesus.\u201d\u00a0 Journal of Archaeological Science<\/em> 31 (2004): 1185-1189.<\/p>\n

Coogan. Michael D., Ed.\u00a0 The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with<\/em>
\n the Apocrypha<\/em>, College Edition.\u00a0 3rd Ed.\u00a0 Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001.<\/p>\n

Crossan, John Dominic and Jonathan L. Reed.\u00a0 Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind<\/em>
\n the Texts<\/em>.\u00a0 Rev. and Updated Ed.\u00a0 New York: HarperCollins and HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.<\/p>\n

\u201cDemythologizing the Talpiot Tomb: family unit, group No. 1.\u201d\u00a0 Filed under \u201cLost Tomb of
\nJesus.\u201d\u00a0 The View from Jerusalem<\/em>.\u00a0 May 17, 2007.\u00a0 University of the Holy Land.\u00a0 04 Dec. 2007 <http:\/\/www.uhl.ac\/blog\/\/?p=110>.<\/p>\n

Fitzmyer, Joseph A.\u00a0 \u201cUpdate\u2013Finds or Fakes?\u00a0 The James Ossuary and Its Implications.\u201d
\nExcerpted from Theology Digest<\/em> 52:4 (2005).\u00a0 Biblical Archaeology Society<\/em>.\u00a0 Undated.\u00a0 04 Dec. 2007 <http:\/\/www.biblicalarchaeology.org\/bswbOOossuary_fitzmyer.asp>.<\/p>\n

Gillman, Florence Morgan.\u00a0 \u201cJames, Brother of Jesus.\u201d The Anchor Bible Dictionary<\/em>.\u00a0 Vol. 3.
\nEd. David Noel Freedman.\u00a0 New York: Doubleday, 1992.\u00a0 620-621.<\/p>\n

Goren, Yuval.\u00a0 \u201cThe Jerusalem Syndrome in Archaeology: Jehoash to James.\u201d
\nThe Bible and Interpretation<\/em>.\u00a0 Jan. 2004.\u00a0 04 Dec. 2007 <http:\/\/www.bibleinterp.com\/articles\/Goren_Jerusalem_Syndrome.htm>.<\/p>\n

Hanson, K.C. and Douglas E. Oakman.\u00a0 Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and<\/em>
\n Social Conflicts<\/em>.\u00a0 Incl. CD-ROM.\u00a0 Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.<\/p>\n

Hartin, Patrick J.\u00a0 James and the Q Sayings of Jesus<\/em>.\u00a0 Journal for the Study of the New
\nTestament Supplement Series 47.\u00a0 Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.<\/p>\n

Jacobovici, Simcha and Charles Pellegrino.\u00a0 The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery,<\/em>
\n the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History<\/em>.\u00a0 New York: HarperCollins and HarperSanFrancisco, 2007.<\/p>\n

Johnson, Luke Timothy.\u00a0 Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James<\/em>.
\nGrand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.<\/p>\n

Kirby, Peter.\u00a0 \u201cHistorical Jesus Theories.\u201d\u00a0 Early Christian Writings<\/em>.\u00a0 2001-2003.\u00a0 13 Oct. 2007
\n<http:\/\/www.earlychristianwritings.com\/theories.html>.<\/p>\n

Krumbein, Wolfgang E.\u00a0 \u201cExternal Expert Opinion on Three Stone Items.\u201d
\nBiblical Archaeology Society<\/em>. Sept. 2005.\u00a0 04 Dec. 2007 <http:\/\/www.biblicalarchaeology.org\/bswbOOossuary_Krumbeinreport.pdf>.<\/p>\n

Laws, Sophie.\u00a0 \u201cJames, Epistle of.\u201d\u00a0 The Anchor Bible Dictionary<\/em>.\u00a0 Vol. 3.\u00a0 Ed. David Noel
\nFreedman.\u00a0 New York: Doubleday, 1992.\u00a0 621-628.<\/p>\n

\u201cLeading Scholar Lambastes IAA Committee.\u201d\u00a0 Biblical Archaeology Review<\/em> 33.6 (2007): 16.<\/p>\n

Mack, Burton L.\u00a0 \u201cQ and a Cynic-Like Jesus.\u201d\u00a0 Whose Historical Jesus?<\/em>\u00a0 Ed. William E. Arnal
\nand Michel Desjardins.\u00a0 Studies in Christianity and Judaism 7.\u00a0 Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier UP, 1997.<\/p>\n

Mims, Christopher.\u00a0 \u201cQ&A With the Statistician Who Calculated the Odds That This Tomb
\nBelonged to Jesus.\u201d\u00a0 Scientific American<\/em>.\u00a0 March 2, 2007.\u00a0 12 Dec. 2007 <http:\/\/sciam.com\/article.cfm?articleID=13C42878-E7F2-99DF-3B6D16A9656A12FF>.<\/p>\n

Mims, Christopher.\u00a0 \u201cSpecial Report: Has James Cameron Found Jesus\u2019s Tomb or Is It Just
\na Statistical Error?\u201d\u00a0 Scientific American<\/em>.\u00a0 March 2, 2007.\u00a0 12 Dec. 2007 <http:\/\/sciam.com\/article.cfm?articleID=14A3C2E6-E7F2-99DF-37A9AEC98FB0702A>.<\/p>\n

Pfann, Stephen.\u00a0 \u201cHow Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?\u201d\u00a0 UHL Articles on \u201cThe Lost<\/em>
\n Tomb of Jesus\u201d Documentary<\/em>.\u00a0 University of the Holy Land.\u00a0 2007(?).\u00a0 11 Dec. 2007 <http:\/\/www.uhl.ac\/Lost_Tomb\/HowDoYouSolveMaria\/>.<\/p>\n

Reed, Jonathan L.\u00a0 Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence<\/em>.
\nHarrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000.<\/p>\n

Shanks, Hershel and Ben Witherington III.\u00a0 The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story &<\/em>
\n Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family<\/em>.\u00a0 New York: HarperCollins and HarperSanFrancisco, 2003.<\/p>\n

Wachob, Wesley Hiram.\u00a0 The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James<\/em>.\u00a0 Society for
\nNew Testament Studies Monograph Series 106.\u00a0 Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP, 2000.<\/p>\n

-4<\/span><\/a><\/div> <\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In honour of today’s press release today from the Biblical Archaeology Review, with its hot-off-the-press link to Hershel Shanks’ article about the James Ossuary — “‘Brother of Jesus’ Inscription is Authentic!” (note: the Biblical Archaeology Society subsequently removed this article from its website) — I’m posting a term paper I wrote for an Historical Jesus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":369,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,244,106,266,86,98,122,251,97,59,265],"tags":[294,293],"class_list":["post-603","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bible","category-favourite-posts","category-historical-jesus","category-james-ossuary","category-jerusalem-temple","category-jesus-family-of-origin","category-jesus-original-writings","category-letter-of-james","category-paul-versus-jesus","category-realspiritik","category-talpiot-tomb","tag-james-ossuary","tag-talpiot-tomb"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jenniferthomas.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/603","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jenniferthomas.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jenniferthomas.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jenniferthomas.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jenniferthomas.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=603"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/jenniferthomas.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/603\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2755,"href":"https:\/\/jenniferthomas.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/603\/revisions\/2755"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jenniferthomas.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/369"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jenniferthomas.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jenniferthomas.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jenniferthomas.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}