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.
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 and 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.
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
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.
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 sort 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.
Matthew and Luke both relate the story of Mary’s virginal pregnancy. Matthew adds that after Joseph discovered her condition, he went ahead with the marriage but “knew her not until she had borne a son, and he called his name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). The notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary is not found in any of our New Testament documents, and her virginal conception of Jesus is found only in Matthew and Luke. It is never mentioned—by Paul, Mark, John, or any other New Testament writer. What’s more, it was not even an element in the earliest Christian creeds.
The first official mention of Mary’s perpetual virginity only appears in 374 CE, from a Christian theologian named Epiphanius.17 Until then most of our early Christian writings take for granted that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were the natural-born children of Joseph and Mary.18
By the late 4th century CE the church began to handle the problem of Mary’s sexual life with two alternative explanations. One is that “brothers” is not meant literally but is a general term referring to “cousins.” This became the standard explanation in the West.19 In the East, Greek-speaking Christians favored a different view—the brothers were sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. It was imagined that Joseph was much older than Mary, that he had been married with four sons and at least two daughters before he met Mary, and that his wife, the natural mother of these six children, had most likely died. That would mean that these other children, whether brothers or sisters, had no blood ties to Jesus or his mother.20
Another related problem developed over the next century or two in the West. If Jesus was a lifelong celibate and his mother a perpetual virgin, then surely Joseph, the reputed father, must also have been celibate—otherwise how could the sexual purity of the mother and son be associated with someone not celibate?
The solution became obvious—Joseph, husband of Mary, must have been a lifelong (“perpetual”) virgin as well. That way the Holy Family, Jesus included, could be fully and properly “holy” and removed from the corruptions of the flesh. Such a belief views sex dimly.
The idea took hold and had irresistible power. It became inconceivable for Christians, particularly in the West, to imagine Mary or Joseph as a normal sexual couple, or for that matter even living a “bodily” life at all. There were even serious discussions of whether any of the three of them—Jesus, Mary, or Joseph—shared normal bodily functions with the rest of humankind. Since the theologians knew it was important to emphasize that Jesus was “fully human” as well as “fully God,” it was generally agreed that they used the toilet, bathed, and experienced all normal bodily functions—but one gets the idea it was best not to think of such things. The same kind of extreme dualism of flesh and spirit, of earth and heaven, of “below” and “above,” was now projected onto the entire “family” of Jesus—which by any definition was no longer a normal family.
That is one reason the Talpiot tombs are so important. If they are related to the historical Jesus, as a Jew in his own culture and time, they jolt us back to reality. They help us recover not just Jesus, but his mother, his brothers, and perhaps his wife and child, as real human beings who walked and breathed and lived and died—as we all do. There is something incredibly sobering about ossuaries, bones, and tombs, reminding us that this world, with its realities of death and the decay of the body, is our shared human experience.
Over the past five years we have been in many Jerusalem tombs of this period trying to learn firsthand about Jewish burial. We have never failed to enter a tomb without a sobering and moving sense of the shared humanity that the tomb so tangibly represents. The day we first entered the Talpiot Jesus tomb together in December 2005 it was hard to say much at all. After all our research discussions, we were suddenly speechless. We gazed at the piles of holy books that the rabbis had buried inside and it was eerily still and quiet. We could hear the voices of the film crew outside, but for a few moments we felt joined to this family that we had studied so intensely in a way we had not imagined. It was one of those moments in life, seldom duplicated and never forgotten.
Paul, as we have noted, mentions visiting James the brother of Jesus in his letter to the Galatians (Galatians 1–2). Although Paul stresses the independence of his personal “revelation of Jesus Christ” from those who were apostles before him, his acknowledgment that James had become the leader of the movement following the death of Jesus is clear. Although Peter is remembered as the titular leader of the apostles, our earliest New Testament sources tell a somewhat different story. Paul refers to the three “pillars” of the church, naming James, Peter (whom he calls by his Aramaic name, Cephas), and John—but James is always listed first (Galatians 2:9). The book of Acts, written by the author of the gospel of Luke, underscores James’s leadership. It is James the brother of Jesus who presides over the first council of the church, held around 50 CE in Jerusalem. Peter is of course present, and is invited to speak, but James presides and at the end of their meeting declares his decision—to which the body of “apostles and elders assembled agree” (Acts 15:19). Several years later, when Paul returns to Jerusalem, under criticism from some in the movement that he was abandoning his Jewish observance of the Torah, it is before “James and all the elders” that Paul appears to defend himself and it is James again who pronounces his decision, to which Paul agrees (Acts 21:17–26). There is even a book of the New Testament that may have been written by James and another by Jesus’ brother Judas.
In texts and traditions outside the New Testament, ranging from the 2nd through the 4th centuries, no one disputes that it was James who was left in charge of the movement Jesus had begun, governing things from the mother church in Jerusalem.21
Clement of Alexandria, who wrote in the late 2nd century CE, confirms this succession of James. At one point he wrote: “Peter and James and John after the Ascension of the Savior did not struggle for glory, because they had previously been given honor by the Savior, but chose James the Just as Overseer of Jerusalem.”22 In a subsequent passage Clement elaborated: “After the resurrection the Lord [Jesus] gave the tradition of knowledge to James the Just and John and Peter, these gave it to the other Apostles, and the other Apostles to the Seventy.”23 This passage preserves for us the tiered structure of the leadership that Jesus left behind: James the Just as Successor; John and Peter as his advisers; the rest of the twelve; then the Seventy, who were called “Elders.”
Eusebius, the early 4th century CE Christian historian, commented on this passage: “James whom men of old had surnamed ‘Just’ for his excellence of virtue, is recorded to have been the first elected to the throne of the Oversight of the church in Jerusalem.”24 The Greek term thronos refers to a “seat” or “chair” of authority and is the same term used for a king or ruler.
Eusebius also preserves the testimony of Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian of the early second century CE, who he says is from the “generation after the Apostles”: “The succession of the church passed to James the brother of the Lord, together with the Apostles. He was called the ‘Just’ by all men from the Lord’s time until ours, since many are called James, but he was holy from his mother’s womb.”25 The Greek word that Hegesippus used here, diadexomai (“to succeed”), is regularly used for the passing of inherited leadership, as when Philip, king of Macedonia, passes on his rule to Alexander the Great.26
An archaeological discovery has added to and reinforced these texts on the importance of James. In a chance find made in 1945 in Upper Egypt, the Coptic Gospel of Thomas was discovered along with eleven other Coptic texts that we now call the Nag Hammadi library. Five of these texts we mentioned in the previous chapter as giving a new and important role to Mary Magdalene. Although The Gospel of Thomas dates to the third century, scholars have shown that it preserves, despite later theological embellishments, an original Aramaic document that comes to us from the early days of the Jerusalem church.27 It provides a rare glimpse into what scholars have called “Jewish Christianity,” that is, the earliest followers of Jesus led by James the brother of Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas is not a narrative of the life of Jesus but rather a listing of 114 of his “sayings” or teachings. Saying 12 reads as follows: “The disciples said to Jesus, ‘We know you will leave us. Who is going to be our leader then?’ Jesus said to them, ‘No matter where you go you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.’ ”
Here we have an unambiguous statement from Jesus that he is handing over the leadership and spiritual direction of his movement to James his brother. The Gospel of Thomas in its present form dates from a later period when disputes of succession and authority had become quite heated. The phrase “no matter where you go” implies that the authority and leadership of James are not restricted to the Jerusalem church or even to the land of Israel. According to this text James the brother of Jesus had been put in charge over all of Jesus’ followers. The phrase “for whose sake heaven and earth came into being” reflects a Jewish notion that the world exists and is sustained because of the extraordinary virtues of a handful of righteous or “just” individuals.28 James acquired the designation “James the Just” both to distinguish him from others of that name and to honor him for his preeminent position. The Gospel of Thomas provides us with our clearest evidence that James succeeded Jesus as leader of the movement.
Another more recent discovery is the Syriac text known as The Ascents of James. This document is embedded in a later corpus known as the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, which reflects some of the earliest traditions related to the Jerusalem church under the leadership of James the Just.29 It records events in Jerusalem seven years following the death of Jesus, when James is clearly at the helm: “The church in Jerusalem that was established by our Lord was increasing in numbers being ruled uprightly and firmly by James who was made Overseer over it by our Lord.”30 The Latin version says much the same: “Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he bring from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord’s brother, or of whosoever may come after him” (4:35). The Second Apocalypse of James, one of the texts found with The Gospel of Thomas at Nag Hammadi, stresses the intimate bond between Jesus and James. In this text Jesus and James are said to have “nursed with the same milk” and Jesus kisses his brother James and says to him “Behold I shall reveal to you everything my beloved” (50:15–22). Here he seems almost a counterpart to Mary Magdalene. The Gospel of the Hebrews puts James at the Last Supper, thus implying he was one of the twelve. Although we don’t have the entire text, and it exists only in quotations by the 4th century Christian writer Jerome, this gospel was originally written in Hebrew.
Josephus, the Jewish historian, an outsider to Christianity, nonetheless reports the death of James at Passover in the year 62 CE. It is his text that allows us to date James’s death with some precision:
He [Annas] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them James the brother of Jesus (called Christ), and some others, on the accusation of breaking the law and delivered them to be stoned. And those inhabitants of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and who were strict in observance of the law were offended at this.31
We also have a more detailed account of the death of James than Josephus’ reference here to his stoning. Hegesippus reports that before James was stoned, he was pushed over the southeast wall of the Temple complex and fell into the Kidron Valley. Barely alive, he was then stoned and beaten to death with a club. Hegesippus says that James was buried in that area, not far from the Temple.32
There are several problems with the claim that the James ossuary came from the Talpiot Jesus tomb. First, if the James ossuary was in fact the tenth and missing ossuary from the tomb, even though it has disappeared, it was definitely catalogued by the authorities at the IAA, apparently measured, and given a registration number. Oded Golan says that he purchased the ossuary from an antiquities dealer in Jerusalem. It is difficult to construct any kind of hypothetical scenario in which the ossuary would have been removed from the IAA collection to end up on the market. Second, even though the dimensions of the missing ossuary and that of the James ossuary are close, the ossuary is described as “plain and broken” by Rahmani in his catalogue. Although in 2002 the James ossuary was broken while in transport to the Royal Ontario Museum and subsequently repaired, it was not broken when Golan acquired it. While not elaborately ornamented, it does have faint traces of the beginnings of rosette designs on the side opposite the inscription, so it is not “plain.” Rahmani, known for his keen eye and detailed descriptions, would not likely have missed this feature. Third, Golan has testified that he obtained the ossuary sometime before 1978, providing photographic evidence that seems to support his story, whereas the Talpiot tomb was not excavated until April 1980.33 Although it is possible that the ossuary had been looted from the tomb sometime previous to 1980, we don’t know whether the entrance to the tomb was visible to passersby before the construction blast that obliterated its outside front entrance or porch. Finally, since Hegesippus reports that the tomb of James was visible in the Kidron Valley, not far from the southwest corner of the Old City, how and when would James’s ossuary have been moved to the Talpiot tomb?
In contrast, new evidence has come to light that not only supports the case for the James ossuary originating in the Talpiot tomb, but addresses these major objections in an unanticipated way.
Recently a group of scientists headed by Amnon Rosenfeld of the Israel Geologic Society published a summary of their work on the authenticity of the patina inside the inscribed letters of the James ossuary. Rosenfeld was on the original team at the IGS that had authenticated the patina on the ossuary in 2002. They conclude:
The most important indication that the inscription “Ya’akov Son of Josef Brother of Jesus” is authentic is the beige patina that can be found inside the letters, accreting gradationally into the inscription. The patina can be observed on the surface of the ossuary continuing into the engraving . . . These minerals and the circular pitting within the thin layers of the beige to gray patina were found on the surface of the ossuary and, more importantly, within the letters of the inscription. They indicate biological activity and are the product of airborne and/or subaerial geo-bio activity that covers all surfaces of the ossuary . . . indicative of slow growth over many years.34
The team then turned to an evaluative analysis of the scientific tests done in 2006 on the comparative chemical composition of the patina accretions on ossuaries taken from various ancient tombs in the Jerusalem area. The premise of the tests was that ossuaries accumulate distinctive and measurable biochemical “signatures” based on the cave environments in which they have spent the past two millennia.35 Patina samples were taken from the James ossuary, three ossuaries from the Talpiot Jesus tomb (Jesus son of Joseph, Mariamene, and Matthew), and ossuaries from thirteen other burial caves in the area. By comparing these signatures one can determine whether the James ossuary had developed its patina in that particular “tomb” environment:
Among the examined 14 burial caves was also the Talpiot cave. Six Talpiot tomb wall and ceiling patinas were sampled December 14th, 2006 (op. cit.). The elemental spectra of the samples were examined by SEM-EDS in the Suffolk Crime Lab (NY). Each sample was analyzed (SEM-EDS) in at least 3 different locations. The differences between tombs were easily discerned by the elemental fingerprints. The quantitative variability of the elements (patina fingerprint) within an individual tomb (wall patina, ceiling patina, ossuary patina) were small, 5% or less.36
Even tombs that shared a similar rock formation in close proximity to one another nonetheless had their own distinctive chemical signatures. The results showed that the James ossuary shared the same chemical signature as the three other ossuaries from the Talpiot Jesus tomb that were tested as well as with the walls and ceiling of that tomb. In contrast, the James ossuary patina signature differed considerably from the chemical composition of ossuaries from the other thirteen burial caves.37
Rosenfeld and his colleagues suggest that based on these patina fingerprints the James ossuary was more likely a looted eleventh ossuary, rather than the missing tenth ossuary that had been catalogued by the IAA in 1980 and discarded or misplaced. They observed that the James ossuary was weathered intensively with massive pitting and striations. None of the other nine ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb show this kind of weathering. They concluded, on the basis of this weathering, that the James ossuary had been exposed to the elements for at least two hundred years. Since we know that the blocking stone was missing from the Garden tomb when it was examined in 1980, and the tomb itself was filled with the local terra rossa soil to a depth of two feet, covering the tops of the ossuaries in the niches, the James ossuary may have been nearer the exposed doorway of the tomb, where the fill was more shallow. When or how the James ossuary would have been taken from the Talpiot tomb we cannot determine. It might have been a number of years before the 1980 excavation of the tomb, or it could have been looted the first night when the front entryway of the tomb was blown open and exposed, before the IAA officials arrived to begin their work. If the ossuary was close to the entrance it may have been the only ossuary seen inside by looters since the others were covered with soil.
During the trial Oded Golan presented photos taken in 1976 in his parents’ apartment showing that he possessed the James ossuary with its full inscription at that time—well before the excavation of the Talpiot tomb in 1980. A photographic expert, a former head of the Department of Photography and Documentation at the FBI, found no possibility that the photos were made at a later time.
If the James ossuary inscription is authentic and if it has probably come from the Talpiot Jesus tomb, what about the report by Hegesippus that the tomb of James was visible in the Kidron Valley? We suggest that there well might have been some kind of monument to James in that area. We also must observe that Hegesippus spent his career in Rome. We can’t assume that he is reporting an eyewitness account. Today there are several monumental tombs in the Kidron Valley dating to the late Hellenistic period (200–100 BCE) that are variously identified as the “Tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” the “Tomb of Zechariah,” the “Pillar of Absalom,” and a tomb inscribed as that of a priestly family, which is sometimes identified as the “Tomb of James.” These sites have no historical connection to these figures. They are part of hagiographic traditions that Christians developed in the late Byzantine period down through the Crusades.
Even though we had initially suggested the possibility of the missing tenth ossuary being that of James, based on the similar dimensions and the patina fingerprints that seemed to place it in the Talpiot tomb, we must always adapt our views to new evidence.38 Shimon Gibson had suggested this theory of a missing eleventh ossuary to us back in 2006, when he recalled that the ten ossuaries inside the niches and removed to the Rockefeller Museum had been covered with soil. When the IAA archaeologists arrived on Friday morning, March 28, 1980, the first day of the excavation, they took photos and there is no evidence of any ossuaries having been dug out of the niches. But it is entirely possible, since patina tests show the James ossuary spent much of its history over the past two millennia in the Talpiot tomb environment, that this ossuary was near the door, less covered with soil, and thus easy to carry off. By whom or when we will likely never know. What we do know is that the mystery of the James ossuary is closer to being solved than ever before, and that whether it is the tenth or eleventh ossuary, it likely supports the Talpiot tomb’s links to Jesus, his family, and the early Christians who believed in his resurrection.
