We live in an age of rediscovery of long-lost texts and ancient manuscripts that are adding immensely to our understanding of early Christianity. Along with archaeological discoveries of ancient Jerusalem, we have new sources with which to evaluate the evidence found in the Talpiot tombs, especially with regard to Mariamene Mara and her role in Jesus’ life and family.
Given the collective evidence, and particularly the unique tradition that the gospel of John adds to the core story of Mary Magdalene from Mark and Matthew, it seems plausible that the enigmatic figure of Mary Magdalene as first witness to Jesus’ resurrection can be seen alongside the tradition of “Mary of Bethany,” and the unnamed woman who anoints Jesus’ head as well as his feet and dries them with her hair. These acts of intimacy, as is the preparation of his body for burial, are appropriate only for a wife, mother, or a sister. The fact that Mary Magdalene’s first impulse, according to the gospel of John, on seeing Jesus resurrected was to touch him suggests further the intimate relationship between husband and wife. Taken together, these texts and the later 2nd century “gnostic” ones provide us with a broader context in which the evidence from the Talpiot tombs can be read in a new light. The archaeological evidence is clear—Jesus was married and had a son named Judah. To reject the finds of the Garden tomb on the grounds that he could not have been married is a traditional bias based on misguided criteria.
The position of Mary of Bethany in the gospel of John also offers a new interpretive possibility for the names in the Talpiot tomb. If the traditions about her and about Mary Magdalene are confused, as they seem to be in the New Testament gospels, then Mary Magdalene might well have had a sister named Martha. As mentioned earlier, some scholars have read the Mariamene Mara inscription as Mariam and Mara—referring to two women named Mary and Martha. We are convinced otherwise, namely that Mara is more likely a title of honor for Mariamene, but having these two sisters, “Mary and Martha,” buried together in a single ossuary, one the mother of Jesus’ son, the other her unmarried sister, makes for an even closer fit with the thesis that the Talpiot Jesus tomb is the family tomb of Jesus. Interestingly enough, DNA evidence supports either possibility, as we will see in the final chapter, since sisters share the same mitochondrial DNA profiles.
We now turn to a consideration of a seventh inscribed ossuary, besides the six recovered by the IAA in 1980—namely the one inscribed “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” There is compelling new evidence that it also originated in the Talpiot Jesus family tomb. If that is the case, the probabilities of this configuration of names being the tomb of Jesus evolve into a virtual certainty.
CHAPTER SIX
* * *
THE MYSTERY OF THE JAMES OSSUARY
On October 21, 2002, the dramatic headline flashed around the world—First Evidence of Jesus Written in Stone! Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, the flagship magazine of the nonprofit Biblical Archaeology Society, held a press conference packed with journalists at the Marriott hotel in Washington, D.C. He revealed that a limestone “bone box,” an ossuary, reliably dated to the 1st century CE, had recently surfaced in Israel in the hands of an unnamed private collector. It was inscribed in Aramaic, Ya’akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua. English translation: James son of Joseph brother of Jesus. Shanks announced that scientists at the prestigious Geological Survey of Israel had verified the authenticity of the ossuary, and world-renowned Sorbonne epigrapher André Lemaire—an expert in ancient scripts—had also authenticated the inscription. Based on these verifications, and the statistical improbabilities of these names and relationships referring to anyone else in that time, Shanks asserted that this ossuary had once held the bones of James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth. If correct, this would be the first and only archaeological artifact from the time of Jesus to mention his name.
37. The James ossuary with its inscription.
Major media throughout the world, including the New York Times and countless other newspapers, the major wire services, and all the major TV networks picked up the story. Shanks released photographs, passed out press releases, and the full story, including Lemaire’s analysis, and that of the geologists, was published in the November–December issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.1 Shanks and his coauthor, Professor Ben Witherington III, also published a book, The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story and Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus and His Family, to coincide with the press conference.
Simcha was present throughout these dramatic events as he had contracted with Shanks to produce a TV documentary on the James ossuary that aired on the Discovery Channel, in over seventy countries, the following Easter, 2003.2
Shanks then dropped another bombshell—the ossuary itself was being flown from Israel and would be on display at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, beginning November 15, 2002, just over a month away. The city and the date had been chosen to coincide with the annual professional meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature, the American Academy of Religion, and the American Schools of Oriental Research the weekend before Thanksgiving in Toronto. These meetings would bring together over ten thousand of the world’s biblical scholars, professors of religion, and biblical archaeologists.
The orchestration of all of these related publications and activities could not have been more effective. The James ossuary was already being hailed as perhaps the greatest archaeological discovery of all time.
Simcha and James almost crossed paths in Toronto that November. James was attending the annual meetings and had been invited by Shanks to join him and a group of about thirty professors for a private after-hours viewing of the exhibit. Simcha was there to document the gathering and get the first live reactions of the scholars. A who’s who of biblical scholars, experts in ancient inscriptions, and historians filled the exhibit hall that evening. Everyone present seemed genuinely moved by the ossuary itself and impressed with its authenticity, including the renowned epigraphers Frank Moore Cross, Jr., of Harvard, Joseph Fitzmyer of Catholic University of America, and P. Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins University. In addition to the viewing, there was a special plenary session with a panel discussion at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting that weekend. The only objection expressed on a panel that included André Lemaire and several leading historians and archaeologists was that giving such attention to an artifact that had been purchased on the antiquities market, and thus lacked any archaeological context that could serve to inform its interpretation, was less than ideal. This had also been the case for many of the Dead Sea Scrolls that first came to public view in 1947, because they were being offered for sale by Bedouin who claimed to have found them in caves on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. Sometimes valuable archaeological finds emerge from less than ideal circumstances. Because of this lack of context one has to always be cautious because a convincing forgery is always a possibility.3
By the time of the Toronto exhibit the name of the owner of the ossuary, Oded Golan, had been leaked. The IAA launched an investigation and by the summer of 2003, just a few months after Simcha’s Discovery TV documentary had been released, a team of Israeli experts issued a report that concluded that although the James ossuary itself was authentic, Golan had forged part of the ossuary inscription in order to increase its value. Golan and four other co-conspirators were indicted on forty-four charges of forgery and antiquities trafficking, not only involving the James ossuary, but another inscribed artifact that had appeared on the black market in January of that year.4 A criminal trial began in December 2004. On October 3, 2010, the prosecution and the defense concluded their cases. In the meantime charges were dropped against all but Golan. The ruling of the presiding judge is expected soon and based on some of his concluding remarks, some observers expect that the charges will be dismissed.5
Once the indictments were announced and the trial began in Jerusalem, a virtual bandwagon of opposition to the authenticity of the James ossuary inscription followed. This opposition included articles in the New Yorker a
nd Archaeology magazines, a segment on 60 Minutes, and stories in most major newspapers around the world, as well as countless blog and Internet posts. They concluded that Oded Golan was part of an extended forgery ring and that there was conclusive physical evidence that the James Ossuary inscription was a forgery.6 Since then two major books have been published, one popular, the other scholarly, purporting to document the scandal and weighing in on the side of forgery.7 The academic response on the whole has been harsh. One commentator put it this way: “the archaeological fact [is] that the inscription is a modern forgery.”8 The general public appears to have been convinced by this tsunami of criticism. Hershel Shanks, an experienced lawyer, and his coauthor, Ben Witherington, have stood their ground but reserved final judgment. They argue that a convincing case for forgery has not been made. The scientists at the Geological Survey of Israel have not retracted their initial judgment as to the authenticity of the inscription and the ancient patina covering the ossuary, based on their initial physical tests. A few scattered academics have agreed but the mainstream believes the ossuary inscription to be a forgery.9
Despite the widespread perception that the inscription was forged, so far not a single qualified epigrapher has rejected the ossuary inscription on paleographic grounds—that is, the style of the writing and its integrity. Expert epigraphers can usually spot forgeries by examining the form and style of the letters and comparing them with inscriptions of the period in question that are known to be authentic from the archaeological contexts in which they were found. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been authenticated in this way despite their surfacing on the black market.
38. A detailed drawing of the Aramaic inscription on the James ossuary.
The IAA case for forgery was partly circumstantial, but primarily based on physical tests conducted by Yuval Goren. He concluded that the letters of the inscription cut through the original patina of the ossuary—the natural growth of chemical deposits that builds up over time on stone—showing that the incisions were made later, in modern times.10 The indictment further charged that Golan had clumsily tried to apply a fake patina over the inscription, once he had carved it, applying a pastiche he created. The case of the prosecution suffered a tremendous blow when it was shown by experts that although the ossuary inscription had been cleaned by its owner, there was nonetheless original, authentic patina in the grooves of the letters—demonstrating that it could not have been added later. The chief witness for the prosecution on the patina authenticity admitted under oath that this was the case.11
Professor Camille Fuchs has examined the prevalence of names of deceased Jewish male individuals in Jerusalem in the 1st century CE. He determined that there was a very high probability that between the years 45 and 70 AD not more than one adult male Jew with the name James who had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus is likely to have lived in Jerusalem.12
A MISSING OSSUARY
Early in our investigation of the Talpiot tombs, we began to consider the possibility that the unprovenanced James ossuary might have come from the Garden tomb. It was speculation at first, a hypothesis that if proven would substantiate the mounting evidence linking the Garden tomb with Jesus of Nazareth. If the James ossuary did come from the Talpiot Jesus tomb, its tie to Jesus of Nazareth could hardly be questioned.
Joseph Gath’s initial report on the Garden tomb’s excavation clearly states that there were ten ossuaries in the tomb. Here are Gath’s own words:
During the archaeological dig at the site 10 ossuaries were found in the different niches. No primary burial was found in the niches and only one niche was found without ossuaries (Niche no. 4). On the floor of the main room there were remains of bones, including skulls and limb bones below the burial shelves.13
In 2005, when James first visited the IAA storage warehouse in Beth Shemesh outside Jerusalem to examine the Talpiot Jesus tomb ossuaries, he was accompanied by Shimon Gibson who, as mentioned earlier, had been the surveyor for the excavation in April 1980. They were both astounded when the curator explained that only nine of the ten ossuaries from this tomb were listed on his tally. He apologized, stating that they had searched for the tenth but had no idea what had happened to it, even though it had been given a cataloguing number in 1980. His precise words were “The tenth ossuary is missing.” Shimon rechecked the map he had drawn of the tomb at the time of the excavation—there was no doubt that the tomb had originally contained ten ossuaries.
James and Shimon began to search through the archive files of the IAA. There were clear photos of only nine ossuaries, but nothing in the records about a tenth. They checked the 1996 published report on the tomb prepared by Amos Kloner, who was Gath’s supervisor and had overseen the excavation. Kloner described each of the first nine ossuaries in detail along with the original photographs. At the end of his roster he listed the tenth, but with a one-word description and no photo: “10. IAA 80.509: 60 x 26 x 30 cm. Plain.” From this one line we knew that the ossuary had been given a catalogue number but no one seemed to have any idea what had happened to it. The curator explained that it should have been photographed as part of the routine registration process.
Later we noticed that the Rahmani catalogue of ossuaries in the Israeli state collection also included only nine (nos. 701–9), with the comment that the tenth was plain and broken and was not retained.14 James had noticed that the dimensions of the James ossuary were officially published as: 56.5 x 25 x 30.5—close but not exactly the same as the missing tenth ossuary. Simcha subsequently asked his associate Felix Goluber to measure the James ossuary under IAA supervision, using the standard template indicating where to take length, width, and height measurements. It was 56.5 x 25.7 x 29.5—a bit closer to the dimensions Kloner had published. Felix noted that the James ossuary was not rectangular in shape but trapezoid, so that its dimensions would vary slightly, depending on which side or end was measured.15 For us the “fit” was close enough that we did not think that the possibility that the James ossuary was the missing tenth from the Talpiot tomb should be dismissed. Obviously, there would need to be much more evidence.
Subsequently James met with Joe Zias in Jerusalem. Zias was the anthropologist at the IAA in 1980. James asked Joe what might have happened to the tenth ossuary. Joe explained that with millions of artifacts from thousands of excavations, things regularly go missing, but often they show up again. Joe was quite sure the missing tenth ossuary had nothing to do with the James ossuary and told James he thought his speculation in that regard was irresponsible and misleading.
A BROTHER NAMED JAMES
When the news of the James ossuary first was announced, the major challenge was to explain to the public that Jesus even had brothers and sisters, much less a brother as prominent as James, who history shows succeeded Jesus as head of the movement after his crucifixion. Even though two of our gospels, Mark and Matthew, list the brothers of Jesus by name, and Paul in his letters refers to meeting “James the Lord’s brother” and acknowledged his leadership of the Jerusalem church, James remains one of the least-known characters in the history of the early Christian movement (Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55; Galatians 1:19). The reasons for this are twofold; one is a matter of simple name confusion, the other of deeply ingrained theological dogma.
This name confusion is understandable. Although the name James—Jacob in Greek and Hebrew—is an uncommon male Jewish name in the time of Jesus (1.6 percent of all named males), there are two Jameses listed among the twelve apostles. One is James the fisherman, the brother of John and the son of Zebedee, while the other is James the son of Alphaeus (Mark 1:19; 3:17–18). There is also “James the Less,” or perhaps “James the Younger,” who may or may not be identified with either of the two Jameses in the list of the twelve (Mark 15:40). Jesus’ brother named James may or may not be identified with James the son of Alphaeus or James the Younger, so we have anywhere from two to four men named James who are prominent in the life of Jesus. There have been various proposals as to how to so
rt through these different figures, but scholars are not in agreement.16
Throughout Europe and in most countries where Christianity is the dominant religion, there are countless churches and cathedrals named for St. James. Some honor James the fisherman, others James the Younger, and a few, especially in the Armenian and Eastern traditions, James the brother of Jesus. Almost every city has a church dedicated to St. James, but most people would be hard-pressed to identify which James is the namesake.
The theological problem is a more difficult one. Sorting through the various men named James in the gospels is one thing, but asserting that Jesus had a natural brother, born of the same mother, is quite another. Some Christians consider this concept to be heresy. It strikes at the deeply felt emotions of millions of devout Christians who believe in the Blessed Virgin Mary—and for them this means perpetual virginity. According to this understanding, not only did Mary become pregnant without a man, by the Holy Spirit, but she also remained a chaste virgin the rest of her life. According to this belief, it would be impossible for Jesus to have had actual brothers (and sisters) no matter what the gospels report.
For the same reasons that the emerging Christian church desperately wanted to cast Jesus as a lifelong celibate, it became even more essential that his mother be one. She became the preeminent symbol of an ideal woman in the early Christian church: pure and holy, entirely dedicated to spiritual things. As we discussed previously, female sexuality was seen as much more threatening than male sexuality. Once one insists that “the blessed Virgin Mary” was “ever-virgin,” then there has to be some explanation for the fact that two of the gospels name four brothers as well as mentioning at least two unnamed sisters. The conflict arises when later forms of ascetic piety and assumptions about “holiness” are imposed on a culture for dogmatic or political reasons. In that process we lose the historical reality of Mary—or to use her Jewish name, Miriam—as a Jewish married woman with a family of at least six children.
The Jesus Discovery Page 15