Evaluating the Role of the James Ossuary in Historical Apologetics

Sandra and Maureen are taking a week off of blogging fun to attend a writers conference. They’ll be back to their usual schedule next week. In the meantime, please enjoy this guest post from Theology Mom and RTB’s Dean of Online Learning Krista Bontrager.

***

The James ossuary box made a big splash several years ago. Headlines around the world heralded its astounding inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of James.” Reputable scholars from around the world were commenting on its significance. Christians were cautious, but excited.

Then its owner, Oded Golan, was arrested for forgery and a cloud of suspicion descended on the artifact. I wrote a brief summary of these events last January on Take Two.

As the trial to determine the inscription’s validity plodded through the Israeli court system, most hope for the artifact’s use in Christian apologetics seemed lost. However, this past week, Golan and his supposed co-conspirator were found “not guilty.” I gave a detailed update about this decision on a recent episode of Science News Flash.

There is, however, one intractable problem that prevents the ossuary’s consideration as the discovery of the century. Despite Golan’s acquittal and repeated affirmations from qualified scholars concerning the inscription’s authenticity, we know little about the origin of the ossuary. Golan claims to have purchased the box from a dealer. But we know nothing about where it came from prior to that, how it was discovered, and what scholars were associated with the dig.

This is unfortunate. In the case of the “House of David” inscription discovered some years ago at Tel Dan, the artifact was unearthed by reputable archaeologists, as part of a conventional, documented dig site, with proper publication and peer-review. But for the James ossuary there is no established line of provenance. Thus, this intriguing treasure’s role in Christian apologetics will always be somewhat limited. That’s not to say that the James ossuary is altogether not useful. Now that the trial is over, Christian scholars can begin to consider how the James ossuary might be used as part of a larger body of evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

As the celebration of Jesus’ death and resurrection approaches, I am struck by the thought that the ossuary potentially offers written proof of Jesus’ resurrection (or, at least, written proof of the belief in Jesus’ resurrection). Here’s why. If Jesus died a humiliating death, but didn’t rise from the dead, why would James’ family want to inscribe his brother’s name on his burial box? In an honor-and-shame culture, the last thing someone would want to do is memorialize the name of a disgraced family member. And it doesn’t get much more shame-inducing than being a Jew hung on a cross for naked public display.

However, if Jesus did something especially noteworthy and extraordinary—like being resurrected—it would be entirely appropriate to include His name on His brother’s burial box.

Obviously, the trial’s outcome doesn’t authenticate the ossuary’s inscription. However, it does show that there wasn’t enough evidence to persuade the judge that Golan had engaged in forgery. But more than that, it frees up scholars to reengage the academic process of studying this artifact. My hope is that the ossuary will be vigorously researched through the standard peer-review process because previous work on the box already showed much promising progress.

Resources:

• Ben Witherington III and Herschel Shanks’ make their case for the authenticity of the James ossuary in their book, The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family.
• This free e-book by Herschel Shanks offers a great synopsis of the trial from beginning to end, James, Brother of Jesus: The Forgery Trial of the Century.

 

Two Days Late but Right on Time

***Sandra and Maureen are taking a week off of blogging fun to attend a writers conference. They’ll be back to their usual schedule next week. In the meantime, please enjoy this guest post by RTB staff member Michelle.***

Last week a friend texted me asking if I had received the gift she mailed. “Not yet” I replied, though, according to her, it should have already been delivered. Two days later the packaged arrived: a beat-up envelope stuffed with a card and a CD. The hand-written note read, “I’m not sure what you are going through right now, but the Holy Spirit whispered to me to send this to you.” The CD was a compilation of worship music.

The next morning, while my husband was discovering he had just lost his job and, with it, our housing, I was on the phone learning that my father was in the ICU with blood clots in his lungs.

As we drove to the hospital, stunned by the impact of what had just unfolded, I loaded the worship CD into the player and I texted my friend, “Your gift arrived—two days late, but right on time.”

The gift’s late arrival reminded me of happened when Jesus is told that the friend He loves is sick: “So when He heard that [Lazarus] was sick, [Jesus] then stayed two days longer in the place where He was.” When Jesus finally arrives, Martha and Mary react strongly, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.” If Jesus loved Lazarus and his sisters, as Scripture says, why would He not go to them immediately instead of allowing them to suffer? Jesus provides an answer in verses 11:14b–15, “Lazarus is dead, and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe…”

The universal truth that pain and suffering exists leads to the universal question: Why would a loving God allow it? We know pain will eventually be eradicated, so why not start there? In his book Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Hugh Ross states:

[T]he assumption [that an all loving God would allow evil] gains emotional force from the implication that evil and suffering are inescapable components of the one and only permanent reality….In an eternal scheme of things, could humanity’s current experience of evil and suffering be likened to a semester’s worth of trial and toil for a student who undergoes preparation for a worthwhile career? In that case suffering and encounters with evil may possibly carry some significance and value.

The answer is not a simple one. In the midst of pain, it can seem that God is two days late in hearing our cries. But our confidence is in this, though God has not revealed His entire plan, He has revealed that He has a plan, and ultimately, victory.

And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

Right on time.

–Michelle

Resources:

Why the Universe Is the Way It Is by Hugh Ross

 

Reconsidering the James Ossuary

Eight years ago, a small group of scholars shocked the world when they announced data that could potentially make unbelievers reconsider their skepticism about Jesus (see Biblical Archaeology Review, Nov/Dec 2002). A 2,000-year-old limestone box offered potentially the first direct evidence to Jesus: the James ossuary.

Photo: André Lemaire; Biblical Archaeology Review

Jesus’ burial followed the common practice of the day. First, the body would be wrapped and entombed for a time. Once the body decayed, usually after a year or so, the bones would be gathered and placed into a stone ossuary, or bone box, and then warehoused in a family tomb.

Prior to 2002, probably the most famous ossuary belonged to the high priest Caiaphas. He is mentioned several times in the Gospels, including in relation to Jesus’ death. Few scholars dispute that this ossuary housed the bones of the biblical Caiaphas.

Unfortunately, the James Ossuary hasn’t fared as well. By the fall of 2003, the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) cast doubt on the authenticity of the ossuary (see Biblical Archaeology Review, Nov/Dec 2003), proclaiming it to be a modern forgery. Then in late 2004, Oded Golan, the owner of the James ossuary, and three others were indicted for running a forgery ring. They denied all charges.

Golan and his co-conspirators weren’t the only ones on trial, however. A host of others were also symbolically in the dock. Some believe the IAA was politically motivated, wanting to make an example out of Golan and quash the lucrative antiquities industry, including artifacts sold to private collections and museums.

Others believe the IAA is a government-financed puppet of an extreme group of archaeological skeptics, called minimalists, who want to label virtually every find connected to the Bible as a “fraud.” Golan, for example, also had a connection to another revolutionary artifact: an ivory pomegranate that is believed to be the only surviving relic from Solomon’s temple. The inscription reads: “(Belonging) to the Temple (literally, house) of Yahweh, Holy to the Priests.”

Golan’s connection to the pomegranate provided ammunition for minimalists who wanted to cast doubt on other key artifacts. A guilty verdict against Golan would not only destroy the reputation of a prominent antiquities collector, it would also provide never-ending fodder to skeptics against the existence of Jesus and our knowledge of the biblical world in general.

After five years and a parade of witnesses, the trial over the alleged forgery of the James ossuary is finally over. The judge has now retired to consider his verdict. Here is a short summary of the case from the only reporter who was left standing by the end: “Judge Mulls Verdict in Jesus Forgery Trial.” We already have a pretty good idea about how the verdict is going to go, however. The IAA failed to prove its case. The judge even urged the IAA to drop the charges against Golan and the others.

No one disputed that this is a first century Jewish ossuary. No one even disputed the inscription, “James, the son of Joseph.” The crux of the debate revolved around whether the patina over the second half of the inscription (“…he is the brother of Jesus”) is authentic. If the patina covering this part of the inscription is authentic, then the inscription itself is, too. (A patina is a tarnish that forms over an object’s surface through age and exposure.)

One of the key experts recently summarized the critical moment in the case: “The Forgery Case Will Be Dropped.”

The entire forgery case revolved around the last part of the inscription, “achuyi d’Yeshua,” which syntactically is “brother (of him) of Yeshua.” The question was whether this was forged, and a fake “shake and bake” patina placed over it. I have some competence as a paleographer and contended the entire inscription was incised by one scribe. In 2002, I claimed that IF there was ancient patina in the second part of the inscription (achuyi d’Yeshua), the entire ossuary and all of the inscription was genuine. I was severely criticized by some “pro-forgery” scholars. I have stuck to my guns. For the last 6 years I have claimed the ossuary inscription is genuine. In the trial Yuval Goren admitted that microscopic analysis confirms ancient patina in “Yeshua.” That shattered the forgery claim and the entire case. On that basis, the judge has advised the IAA to drop the forgery case. The James ossuary inscription is genuine. [emphasis added]

No matter what the trial verdict is, it seems unclear whether the cloud of suspicion that hovers over perhaps one of the greatest biblical archaeological discoveries will ever dissipate. Will the media report the end of the trial as aggressively as it trumpeted the beginning? I doubt it.

Thankfully, there is other evidence for the historicity of Jesus which is on much more solid ground.

-Krista Bontrager
Blog: Old Earth Creation Homeschool
Facebook: Theology Mom

Resources:
If you’re a homeschool parent looking for an innovative science/Bible elective for your high school student, consider Reasons Institute’s new course on biblical archeology. The Reasons Institute team spent the last six months putting together this online course surveying the major artifacts related to biblical archaeology. To be a part of the first group of students, call or visit the Reasons Institute website to register. Course begins January 10, 2011!

 

Let Us Pray…and Ask Questions

“It’s time to Stump the Scholar!” Six little words that strike fear into the hearts of Hugh, Fuz, Ken, Jeff, and Dave at the end of each I Didn’t Know That! podcast. Although my trivia questions may perplex the scholars at times, I am always impressed by the way our team excels at offering answers to the truly difficult questions. From Jesus’ conception to the Nemesis Theory*, each week the scholars bravely grapple with our listeners’ outstanding science-faith questions in an effort to follow the command found in 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

In a recent episode, Jeff and Fuz were presented a question pertaining to the nature of prayer. Jennifer from Maryland was wondering why people “recruit” others to pray with them for specific requests. Jennifer went on to say, “My understanding from the Bible is that if you ask in the right way, then your prayer will be answered, even though it might not be the way that you envisioned it. It seems as though we feel compelled to ‘convince’ God with large numbers.” Although this question falls outside of their scientific disciplines, both scholars drew upon their personal experiences and understanding of prayer to formulate thoughtful answers to Jennifer’s query.

Fuz related that when he was a young man, his father taught him how to pray according to Islamic beliefs. Fuz describes this method of prayer as “a highly ritualistic, rote activity,” differing greatly from the Christian view of prayer. “Prayer, for a Christian,” he says, “is a relationship activity.” However, Fuz greatly stresses a strong view of God’s sovereignty when contemplating the concept of prayer. He explained that he does not believe prayer is “designed to convince God to do something that He wouldn’t otherwise do.” Rather, prayer is the means by which we communicate with our Creator, and ultimately become more aligned with His will.

Jeff cautioned that if we are not careful, we may fall into the practice of trying to control God through our prayers. He believes that at times “we try and manipulate God by praying the right way or praying with the right number of people.” Jeff recommends that when we pray we should be “coming before God not to get our requests [answered], but to get closer to God so that we know what He wants—[what] He is about.”

But what about praying for others? Both Fuz and Jeff agree that praying for others allows us to demonstrate our love and concern for those around us, and by extension, the love and concern God has for us. Praying for others is also a way of letting God know that we are trusting Him on their behalf. So while prayer in numbers may not be intended for persuasion, it holds great potential for deepening our relationships with our fellow man- and womankind, and with our Creator.

At this point, I would like to note that though Jeff and Fuz each have their own beliefs about prayer, they both acknowledge what a difficult concept prayer is to understand. They also realize that there are many other views of prayer and that not everyone will agree with their perspective. “And that’s okay,” Fuz says. He encourages everyone to continue to wrestle with their own beliefs on prayer.

This openness to questions and willingness to pursue truth is something I value most about Reasons To Believe. I feel it is important to acknowledge that unlike trivia questions, the big questions in life don’t often have clearly defined right and wrong answers. That is why communication with God through prayer and a lifelong quest for His truth don’t only apply to the RTB scholars, but to all followers of Christ.

–Beth

Resources:

Intrigued by this discussion on prayer? There’s plenty more where that came from! Check out the I Didn’t Know That! podcast for more science-faith Q&A.

To submit your questions for possible use in one of RTB’s podcasts, email them to ask@reasons.org.

Looking for a chance to ask your question to the scholars in person? Join us on RTB’s 2011 Alaska Cruise Conference and learn more about God and His creation while exploring the beauty of the Last Frontier.

*Visit the I Didn’t Know That! page this coming Tuesday, November 16, for a discussion on the Nemesis Theory.