The James Ossuary
Above: The James ossuary was on display at
the Royal Ontario Museum from November 15, 2002 to January
5, 2003.
The James Ossuary is a sepulchral urn for containing
bones, which was found in Israel in 2002 and was claimed to
have been the ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus. Its
provenance is now in serious doubt, and it is considered a
modern forgery. Its discovery was followed in January 2003
by another contentious archaeological 'find' soon connected
with Oded Golan, the so-called 'Jehoash Inscription'
(see below).
Above: Close-up of the inscription. Carved in Aramaic.
'Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua.' English translation:
'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.' The James ossuary
was on display at the Royal Ontario Museum from November 15,
2002 to January 5, 2003.
On October 21, 2002, a press conference hosted by the
Discovery Channel and the Biblical Archaeology Society,
anticipating a report in the Society's Biblical
Archaeology Review (November 2002), presented a small
chalk ossuary that bore an inscription Yaakov bar Yoseph
Achui de Yeshua ('James son of Joseph, Brother of
Jesus'). If authentic, it would have been the earliest
archaeological proof that Jesus existed beyond the
manuscript tradition.
Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology
Review, announced that it belonged to an anonymous
Israeli antiquities collector. Identity of the owner was
published in the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz: a
well-known collector of antiquities, Oded Golan, an engineer
living in Tel Aviv, stated that he had bought the ossuary
from an Arab antiquities dealer in the Old City of Jerusalem
decades before, but had been unaware of the significance of
the inscription.
The chalky limestone ossuary itself had been dated 1st
century by Geological Survey of Israel (GSI) and Andr�
Lemaire of Sorbonne University in Paris. Lemaire considered
that it was 'very possible' that the ossuary had belonged to
the biblical James. GSI had determined that the chalk of the
ossuary was typical of Jerusalem ossuaries. A number of
experts, including Kyle McCarter and Fr. Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
believed that the writing could be dated to the period
between 20 BC and AD 70, and an examination performed by the
Geological Survey of Israel found that the ossuary did not
appear to be a fake: 'No sign of the use of a modern tool or
instrument was found,' the conclusion read in part. 'No
evidence that might detract from the authenticity of the
patina and the inscription was found.'
The ossuary was going to be exhibited in Royal Ontario
Museum (ROM) with permission of Israeli Antiquities
Authority (IAA), and there was talk of various documentary
deals. When the ossuary arrived in Toronto in the morning of
October 31, 2002, the ROM personnel on hand were horrified
to see that the ossuary was packed in a cardboard box
(whereas the standard for shipping antiquities is typically
within a foam-lined metal or wooden crate). The next day
they proceeded to 'unwrap' the ossuary, only to find the few
layers of bubble-wrap which surrounded the ossuary were thin
enough to show the cracks which ran through the once-solid
stone, the largest of which went right through the famed
inscription. When the museum conservators proceeded to
repair the damage, they discovered a carved rosette
decoration on the site opposite the inscription.
Critical voices were soon heard. Robert Eisenman of
California State University at Long Beach, a scholar
specializing in biblical James, declared the discovery 'too
perfect'.
When the Toronto exhibition of the James Ossuary began,
Oded Golan flew to Ontario to participate. Lemaire defended
his conclusion in a related session of the Society of
Biblical Literature. Shanks belittled his critics and
defended Oded Golan.
However, on June 18, 2003, the Israeli Antiquities
Authority published a report concluding that the inscription
is a modern forgery based on their analysis of the patina.
Specifically, it appears that the inscription was added
recently and made to look old by addition of a chalk
solution.
The Jehoash Inscription
In January 2003, another artifact, dubbed the Jehoash
Inscription, appeared in Israel. It was rumoured to have
surfaced in the construction site or in the Muslim cemetery
near the Temple Mount of Jerusalem. It supposedly described
repairs made to the temple in Jerusalem by Jehoash, son of
King Ahaziah of Judah, and corresponded to the account in
2 Kings 12. Once again, the owner was an anonymous
antiquities dealer, this time in Hebron. GSI initially
backed up this claim too.
The 'find' also reignited the conflict between Muslim
authorities on the Temple Mount and the Israeli group of
Temple Mount Faithful, who declared that the find was a
divine sign that the al-Aqsa Mosque of the Temple Mount
should be demolished and the new temple built on it
immediately.
In the unfolding scandal already surrounding the 'James
Ossuary', criticism appeared again. Israeli historian Nadav
Na'aman, who had theorized that the books of the Kings could
be based on public inscriptions, opined that the possible
forger could have used his theory as a basis. Epigrapher
Joseph Naveh of the Hebrew University revealed to the IAA
and police that he had met the owners of the stone and had
recognized the inscription as a collection of Hebrew,
Aramaic and Moabite letters. Frank Cross of Harvard
University noted various errors in spelling and terminology.
Yuval Goren of Tel-Aviv University demonstrated how the
convincing fake could be produced by abrasive airbrushing.
The stone itself remained hidden.
Police investigation
Israeli magazine Maariv correspondent Boaz Gaon
reported that IIA Theft Unit had focused their attention of
the 'Jehoash Inscription' as being an expensive bait to
defraud a prominent collector in London. Israeli
investigators linked a phony business card and a phone
number to a Tel Aviv private eye who admitted that his
employee was Oded Golan, the 'collector' who owned the James
Ossuary. Oded denied that he was the owner of the stone and
claimed that the real owner was a Palestinian antiquities
dealer who lived in an area under Palestinian Authority and
must therefore remain nameless.
A March 19, 2003, article in Maariv told that
court had issued a search warrant for Golan's apartment,
office and rented warehouse. The search brought forth
incriminating documents and photographs of Golan beside the
Jehoash Inscription. Under interrogation, Golan promised to
reveal the locations of the stone in exchange for immunity
from prosecution but was refused.
Then police made a new search in storage space that Golan
had rented in Ramat Gan but had not disclosed to the police.
They found scores of dubious artifacts, forged ancient seals
and other inscriptions in various stages of production and
tools and documentation to help in the manufacture of the
forgeries. Under harsh questioning, Golan reputedly broke
down, confessed and promised to hand over the Jehoash
Inscription.
IAA commission
Limor Livnat, Israeli Minister of Culture, mandated the
work of a scientific commission to study the suspicious
finds. IAA begun a heavy investigation about the affair.
As for the James Ossuary, epigraphers of IAA concluded
that the inscription was modern. Chalk type of the ossuary
did match with the type of chalk in various other ancient
ossuaries. However, Yuval Goren and Avner Ayalon of GSI
identified three different coatings in the ossuary, the last
of which was artificial and covered only the inscription.
Letters had been cut through the patina and covered with artificial coating. Different
parts of the text in different styles had been copied from a
catalog of Jewish ossuaries and possible carved by the aid
of scanning software. Ossuary was authentic - albeit unusual
in shape - but the inscription was a fake.
As for the Jehoash Inscription, the commission concluded
that various mistakes in the spelling and the mixture of
different alphabets indicated that this was a modern
forgery. The stone was typical to western Cyprus and areas
further west. Patina over the chiseled letters was different
from that of the back of the stone and could easily be wiped
off the stone by hand.
In a press conference in Jerusalem on June 18, 2003 the
IAA commission declared that both inscriptions were modern
forgeries.
However,in an external expert report, dated September
2005, Professor Wolfgang E. Krumbein, a world-renowned
authority of the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg
Germany, threw new light on the controversy. His conclusions
contradict those of the IAA and indicate that the patina in
the inscription had been manipulated after the June 2003
declaration of the IAA. Quote,
'The grainy whitish patina with yellow and grey
particles embedded existing prior to 2005 and documented
by the IAA as „James Bond' material looks like Meyer
cement used around 1900-1920 at the Acropolis Monuments
in Athens and other places. Unfortunately these
materials are presently no longer existing on the
ossuary and have been totally eliminated for reasons
unknown. 5) The pictures further document recent (2005)
addition of a reddish sticky or powdery and also rock
staining material. In places also scratches and dark
(black) material was recently added. These materials do
not exist in photographic documents prior to 2005.'
Professor Krumblein concludes that 'Our preliminary
investigations cannot prove the authenticity of the three
objects beyond any doubt. Doubtlessly the patina is
continuous in many places throughout surface and lettering
grooves in the case of ossuary and tablet. On the other hand
a proof of forgery is not given by the experts nominated by
the IAA.' See his full report at
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_krumbeinsummary.asp
Aftermath
Some people believe that the Israeli Antiquities
Authority has never offered any report explaining why it
concluded the ossuary is a forgery. Therefore, a number of
international experts refuse to agree that it is a forgery
until the IAA allows scholars to review its findings. For
example, Ed Keall, the Senior Curator at the Royal Ontario
Museum, Near Eastern & Asian Civilizations Department,
continues to argue for the ossuary's authenticity, '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.' [1]
Meanwhile Biblical Archaeology Review also
continued to defend the ossuary. In articles in the February
2005 issues, several experts in writing on stone argue that
the James Ossuary is authentic and should be examined by
specialists outside of Israel. Another article claims the
cleaning of the James Ossuary before it was examined may
have caused the problem with the patina.
Oded Golan claimed publicly to believe his findings were
genuine. Hershel Shanks declared that he did not believe the
evidence and launched a personal complaint against IAA
director Shuka Dorfman. Lemaire supported his original
assessment when Frank Cross regretted Shank's attitude.
Joe Nickell, an investigative columnist for the magazine
Skeptical Inquirer, very early on, pointed out several
suspicious facts about the ossuary that needed further
explanation.
http://www.livescience.com/history/reason_ossuary_050112.html
In particular, a provenance was utterly lacking. (Golan
said he cannot remember or no longer identify the dealer
from whom he purchased the ossuary.)
Ossuaries are usually decorated and inscribed on one side
only. There are rosettes on this ossuary on the opposite
side of the inscription and the rosettes are badly worn with
age, whereas the inscription has comparatively sharp edges.
Why did Andre Lemaire, the French paleographic expert who
collaborated with BAR, originally claim that the ossuary was
otherwise completely unadorned?
Obviously, religious-politico, academic, and economic
interests go 'hand in hand' with the truth about this
ossuary. Many institutions have much to lose and others to
gain from this bizarre discovery and 'Indiana Jones-like'
adventure.
If this 'archaeological' find is to be believed to be the
$1,000,000.00 insured ossuary of James' the brother of Jesus
Christ, why was it stored in a bathroom, sitting on a toilet
in the home of Golan?
http://www.archaeology.org/0309/abstracts/ossuary.html
The Royal Ontario Museum has this to say as its final
words in a statement about Oded Golan's arrest and the
validity of the so-called James Ossuary: 'There is always a
question of authenticity when objects do not come from a
controlled archaeological excavation, as is the case with
the James Ossuary.'
http://www.rom.on.ca/news/releases/public.php?mediakey=vhggdo3048
On December 29, 2004, the Israeli justice ministry
charged Golan, three other Israelis, and one Palestinian,
with running a forgery ring that had been operating for more
than 20 years. Golan was indicted in an Israeli court along
with his three co-conspirators: Robert Deutsch, an epigraphy
expert who has given lectures at Haifa University; collector
Shlomo Cohen; and antiquities dealer Faiz al-Amaleh. They
were accused of manufacturing numerous artifacts, including
an ivory pomegranate which had previously been generally
accepted as the only proven relic from the temple of King
Solomon. Golan denied the charges.
Main sources
- Neil Asher Silberman and Yuval Goren, 'Faking
Biblical History', Archeology magazine,
September/October 2003
-
Dr Jeffrey Chadwick, 'Indications that the 'brother of
Jesus' inscription is a forgery'
- Jonathon Gatehouse, 'Cashbox', 'Maclean's' magazine,
March 2005
External links
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary
|
