ROUGH DRAFT--NOT FOR CITATION
To Appear in
Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology
The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Significance of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family.
Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III.
Harper. San Francisco, 2003.
207 pages. $24.95 paperback.
On October 21, 2002, Hershel Shanks, the Jewish editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, announced what he described as “the first and only archaeological attestation of Jesus of Nazareth.” His discovery was an ossuary, a 20 inch long limestone box, provocatively inscribed “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”
In itself, the discovery of an ossuary is unremarkable. First century Judean Jews created many ossuaries. (The bones of one’s deceased ancestors were stored in ossuaries.) However, this particular ossuary is special. It may have once contained the bones of the brother of Jesus of Nazareth.
If authentic, this ossuary is, as John Dominic Crossan notes, “the closest we come archaeologically to Jesus.” The stakes are high enough—and the story compelling enough—that the initial unveiling of the ossuary was reported in Newsweek, Time, and The Washington Post and that the scholars who announced the discovery were interviewed by Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, and Jim Lehrer. The Discovery Channel developed a full length documentary on the ossuary.
The stir was equally profound among scholars. The Society of Biblical Literature, the world’s largest association of Biblical scholars, dedicated a special session of its November meeting to discussion of the ossuary. (The ossuary was seriously damaged in transport to this meeting, but expert restoration by the Royal Ontario Museum made the damage invisible to the untrained eye.)
The hype has died down, but scholarly debate continues. This volume narrates the events and highlights the issues at stake. Although this volume is emphatically one-sided, the essentials of the narrative, even as told here, are fascinating.
This ossuary doesn’t appear to be just another medieval relic. The “James” ossuary has a high claim to authenticity. Scientific analysis has confirmed that the limestone was mined from the Jerusalem area in the mid-first century and that the patina on the ossuary is consistent with that age and origin. Paleographers have agreed that the calligraphy and vocabulary are also consistent with first century practices.
The only significant challenge to the ossuary’s authenticity is the plausible suggestion that the words “brother of Jesus” were written by a different hand than the earlier words “James, son of Joseph.” The script looks different even to the amateur eye, but chemical testing of the patina in the letters dates the full inscription to the first century.
Assuming the ossuary and its inscription are genuine, what does it mean? Maybe nothing. Jesus, James and Joseph were extremely common names in first century Judah. Estimates vary, but probably between 2 and 40 sets of men shared these names and relationships. The phrase “brother of Jesus” is, of course, the most important part of the text both historically and theologically.
Historically, listing a brother’s name on an ossuary was quite rare (but not unprecedented). A brother’s name would probably be included only if the brother was a prominent figure. The inclusion of Jesus’ name (as brother), therefore, increases the likelihood that the ossuary did belong to the brother of Jesus of Nazareth.
Theologically, however, the mention of Jesus’ brother has become a tool in the polemics of those hostile to the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Strictly speaking, however, the ossuary says nothing about Mary and such polemics are unjustified. (James could have been Joseph’s son from an earlier marriage.)
The story of the “James” ossuary is intriguing and potentially theologically provocative. Ultimately however, even if the ossuary and its inscription are authentic to the first century (and I suspect that they are) and do refer to James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth (and they may), they only “prove” that Jesus was a historical figure related to Joseph and James. Who would have doubted that anyway?
Addendum: Does the Israel Antiquities Authority have the last word?
Addendum
In a widely publicized statement in mid-June, the Israel Antiquities Authority declared the inscription on the James ossuary to be “forgeries” and “not authentic.” After observing that the inscription appeared to have cut through the ossuary’s oldest layers of patina, the Antiquities Authority concluded that the inscription was “written in modernity by someone attempting to reproduce ancient written characters.”
However, Shanks remained unconvinced by the Israelis’ official pronouncement, which he dismissed as “an exercise in archaeological politics.” Shanks and Edward Keall, head of the Near Eastern and Asian Civilizations Department of the Royal Ontario Museum, responded to the Authority’s findings in the July/August issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, asserting that “the ossuary and its inscription are genuinely ancient and not a modern forgery.”
Undoubtedly, the Antiquities Authority’s analysis has significantly enhanced the case against the ossuary’s authenticity, but the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite the increasingly strident rhetoric on both sides, firm conclusions are probably not warranted at this point. Dating artifacts—and particularly dating inscriptions—is not an exact science. The debate will continue.