James' Ossuary: Empty Box, Empty Facts
[Or: How Sloppy Scholarship Distorts History & Makes a Mockery of Truth]

/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy / 27 Oct 2002 /
/ Forum > Biblical Archaeology Society Message Board > Town Hall > Current Events > The Primary Source! /
.
       And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said to them:
       "Hear now, you rebels! Must we fetch you water from out of this rock?" -- Numbers 20:10 / PV
.
 And so after spending many years and agonies in the seemingly pointless effort to break out of the ideological boxes (so carefully constructed by countless generations of scribes and pharisees) that obscure the Word, fetter the soul, and weigh down the mind with endless heavy chains, it now falls to me to think my way back into a box. And what a small and unimpressive box it is! But if this stone box were not as unassuming and anonymous as the hundreds of other bone-boxes just like it, it is quite likely that the message scratched into it so long ago would not have survived its mysterious and astonishing twenty-centuries-long journey through time. Having thus survived the cruel fortunes of the generations solely by virtue of ignorance and unknowing, this curious artifact has now burst forth into the faithless global village as if springing directly from the hand of Providence:
.
 "The James ossuary may be the most important find in the history of New Testament archaeology.
It has implications not just for scholarship, but for the world's understanding of the Bible."
-- Hershel Shanks (Biblical Archaeology Review editor)
.
 And so the world has been lately much amazed by the recent discovery in Jerusalem of a certain ancient stone box used to hold the bones of corpses removed (for various reasons) from their not-so-final resting places (ie. in tombs or graves). What makes this so-called "ossuary" the earliest archaeological evidence for the historical Jesus is the Aramaic inscription scratched into one slab of the 20 inch limestone box. Historically, the bone-box itself dates from the mid-first century, and is thus consistent with the dating, style, and contents of the inscription itself, which identifies the previous owner of the missing bones (which doubtless once resided within the box for some few years at least) by way of name and rank.
.
 Thus it is not the bone-box, but the Aramaic inscription itself that constitutes the chief evidence for the historical reality of Christ, his brother, and his father. In the Biblical Archaeology Review online article entitled "Evidence Of Jesus Written In Stone: Ossuary Of Jesus' Brother Backs Up Biblical Accounts" - available at the following url: http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbbar2806f1.html - this inscription is rendered into English thusly:

 Hence all the hype about the "Burial-Box of James (the brother of Jesus)", which has all the fundies fairly foaming at the mouth in their unbridled glee at this surprising and startling confirmation of the sacred scriptures! Well, it's only to be expected that pious emotions should seize the day, and short-circuit the brain in the process. The ignorant can be forgiven for jumping to wild conclusions that have no basis in reality, but one would think that the Biblical Archaeology Society could, at the very least, maintain a sober contact with the facts.
.
 And yet the BAR article referred to above claims that the name "James" was a common name: "... the inscription very likely refers to the Biblical James, brother of Jesus (see, for example, Matthew 13:55-56 and Galatians 1:18-19). Although all three names were common in ancient times ...". The impression thus gained from the article is that the bone-box actually proclaims the names 'Jesus' and 'James'! Therefore the most urgent question facing believers is this: Were they common names among the Aramaic-speaking believers in Jerusalem in mid-first century? That is the question that all the hype and over-zealous fundies are overlooking. And they're overlooking it because the answer is 'no'. And the answer is 'no' because every respectable bible-scholar knows darn well that 'James' is NOT Aramaic, and is, in fact, nowhere to be found among the Greek scriptures!

 Thus the inscription literally reads, according to skepsis (Oct24): "Ya'acov bar Yoseph ... [illegible] ...shuah", which is assumed to be "Ya'acov bar Yoseph achui d'Yehoshua". Which we may say properly translates as "yakov bar yoseph, brother of yeshua"; which can then be further rendered into acceptable English as "Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Joshua" ... Which is THEN changed into the English version offered to the public by epigrapher Andre Lemaire and BAR. But look at how they say it: "An inscription has been found on an ancient bone box, called an ossuary, that reads 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.'" Now this bold statement clearly suggests a simple and direct literal conversion from Aramaic to English, a one-step process that conveniently overlooks the fact that the James/Jesus rendition is more than thrice removed from what the ossuary itself literally proclaims.
.
 Now all of this may seem to many to be nothing more than a mean-spirited quibbling over meaningless distinctions. Mere linguistic hair-splitting, as it were. After all, James or Jacob, what's the big honkin difference? Jacob=James, just as Joshua=Jesus, so why make an issue of it? skepsis points out that it is misleading to suggest that the bone-box bears the names James and Jesus, when the transition from Aramaic to modern English technically involves MANY linguistic changes and movements; but actually it is more than merely misleading. It is, in fact, an almost willful distortion of historical realities generated by hastily reducing complexity to simplicity. Thus the BAR's version of the inscription hides the fact that it is an erroneous rendition of an interpretation of a translation that passes through many centuries by way of many languages.
.
 So the thing is that we have no choice but to make an issue of it; owing chiefly to the plain fact that the bulk of the archaeological evidence linking it to the Greek scriptures consists of just these three particular Aramaic names rudely carved into that particular limestone bone-box. For that reason alone it becomes paramount to handle these names with extreme care and caution so as to avoid all historical distortion that will *necessarily* mislead and misinform the ignorant masses; as BAR and Lemaire have done (to my great sorrow) with their hasty, careless, and sensationalistic article.
.
 Thus we have good reason to be critical of BAR's seemingly simple and ironclad translation of the inscription found upon the misnamed "James ossuary". According to my sources, the name 'James' is a Middle English term, coming from the Middle French by way of the Vulgar Latin 'Jacomus', which is an alteration of the Late Latin 'Jacobus', which in turn has its deepest roots in the Hebrew name 'Jacob'. Now the curious thing is that the BAR article makes no mention of any of this. So correct me if I'm wrong anywhere in my reasoning, but I was given to understand that Aramaic is a language that is much closer to Hebrew than to Latin. If that is so, then the most correct English translation of the inscription should read somewhat as follows: "Jacob bar Joseph, brother of Joshua"
.
 In other words, the BAR version of the inscription is not so much a direct and literal rendition, but more of a paraphrase of a translation of an interpretation of another translation! It is, as it were, several times removed from the language of the original text. Therefore the BAR article not only adds confusion and misinformation to the already out of control public reaction, but also does not seem to be aware of how unscholarly and unscientific is this needlessly Latinized translation that caters to the biases and prejudices of ignorant Christians who are in no position to know any better. Will the Biblical Archaeology Society overlook this slipshod scholarship? Will they let it quietly go by without comment? Or will they continue to perpetuate illusions that have no basis in historical realities?

 Having now set before the reader all the relevant facts as best as I could ascertain them, and bearing in mind that the bone-box is quite likely to be an authentic artifact, we may therefore safely conclude that there is a "good chance" that the inscription does indeed point in the direction of the Lord Jesus. Assuming this to be the case, what (we may ask) is its significance and meaning for early church history, and for New Testament studies?
.
 Well, as to the early history of the bone-box, it is most likely that we will never have any reliable information of a specific nature, and so the historian is necessarily compelled to remain silent. But since a total blank is rather disturbing to believers, it is perhaps forgivable to speculate briefly about the early stages of our box's unknowable history. So let us begin at some point between 60-70CE. The strong-willed leader of the Jerusalem believers has been dead in his tomb for a year or two, but now there is trouble in the city, and so the elders anxiously decide to ensure the safety of their saint's mortal remains by having them transferred to a brand new ossuary and removed from the Holy City. The order was given, the saintly bones were deposited within, and the box was hidden away to avoid the coming destruction that would signal the arrival of the apocalypse and the resurrection of the dead, after which would come the judgment of the world and the restoration of justice and peace.
.
 We may take it, then, that Jacob and the Jerusalem church believed in full bodily resurrection; of which the previous Resurrection of Joshua was both proof and promise. But wait! Now a problem. Since the bones are no longer in the Holy City, how will God find them to restore the pillar? The answer was to mark the bone-box with the saint's name, so that the spirit will be naturally drawn to it when the time comes. The name was hastily and crudely engraved into the soft limestone, but some point later on it was decided to add the qualifier 'brother of yeshua' just to be doubly sure that the Lord would come quickly and attend to Jacob. When the times comes, yes.
.
 But after the first century, the imminent destruction of the world no longer seemed to be so imminent anymore; and so these apocalyptic hopes and fears slowly and grudgingly gave way to more pressing and current concerns. For the Aramaic believers, the growing hostility of the ever more aggressive Greek-speaking believers signaled the beginning of the end of the original Jerusalem assembly; for they would not be told by these arrogant upstarts what they should and should not believe! For them, this new claim that Joshua was God incarnate retained a strong odor of blasphemy, if not outright heresy. For them, the living saint was a more significant influence upon the actual practice and content of their faith, than the dearly departed sibling. Jacob had been their steadfast leader for some thirty years through all the turmoil and upheavals. In all that time he resolved to await the end of the world in the Holy City, and to be found by God at prayer in the Temple when the Wrath descends in sudden fury to destroy the world.
.
 Jacob was there when the hellenistic-jewish believers were expelled by the outraged citizens for their endlessly offensive criticism of the city's religious practices, and for their blasphemous attacks upon the Temple itself. This was more than a matter of civic pride. These blasphemers had crossed the line once too often, and could no longer be tolerated. They were forcibly evicted from the city; some headed north to Galilee and Syria, others south-west to Egypt. And Jacob was more than a little relieved to see them go. He did not care to disturb the city or the citizens in any way. He was a peace-loving man who knew that it did not really matter anyway since the end was coming soon, and all things would be remade according the will of God. He thus had little interest in the fate and fortunes of the expelled Greek-believers and the little communities which they had tentatively established in Antioch and Alexandria
during the 40s of the first century.
.
 A decade later, however, Jacob would regain his interest in the scattered daughter churches, and then begin to assert his authority (by right of blood) over the Hellenistic churches. But that move (beginning shortly before mid-century) met with surprising resistance from one particularly enterprising prophet of Christ, Paulos of Damascus, who had no uncertain ideas of his own as to who would determine the fate of the fledgling churches that he had built up slowly and painfully, in foreign lands, with not so much as an ounce of assistance and encouragement from those wretched 'pillars'!
.
 A decade after that pivotal controversy, Jacob himself finally fell to the violence that was everyday mounting in scope and intensity, threatening even to engulf the Holy City herself. Soon the remaining believers must themselves exit Jerusalem, or share the fate that would shortly overtake her. But there was no future in the vain hope that the end of the world would come 'any day now', and the death of Jacob symbolizes the necessary dissolution of the historically pointless faith of the Aramaic believers. The future of the Faith belonged to those who were thrust into the belly of the Empire against their will, but yet very much according to the will of Providence.
.
 And so in due course (ie. a century or more later), the new keeper of Jacob's bones (which are by now once again returned to Jerusalem) is gently persuaded to award certain prominent believers with a choice relic of the saint. And in this way the bone-box was gradually emptied of all of its much-revered contents. One by one the bones are scattered to the winds, to the four corners of the earth, forever lost to history. After that the ossuary remained in quiet storage (not moving around too much, I should think) until finally all knowledge of it was forgotten until . . .
.
 As to the timing of this discovery ... It may be significant, or not. It may be relevant in a specific way, or in a more general way (eg. as part of the "signs of the times"). Or the timing may be nothing more than the natural results of seemingly random events. For example, someone inquiring into the value of some recent acquisitions may generate sufficient curiosity upon the discovery of the primitive markings to enlist a specialist to decipher the meaning of them, thus setting in motion the events leading up to the great discovery, and the current issue of BAR. Of course, there is plenty of room in this scenario for unseen forces to play a role (major or minor) in the specific direction and timing of these events, and these forces may be acting either intentionally or unintentionally, or both.
.
 Now Annie (my favorite fundy preacher by far) thinks that Providence did indeed take a hand in the unveiling (which idea I very much agree with), but she seems to be of the opinion that the meaning of this historical revelation is mainly that God is expressing His approval and confirmation of her mind-numbing exegesis of the epistle of James (which project she just happens to be currently engaged in). But I'll have to dissent from that notion on the basis that Providence could not possibly be so trivial and simple-minded. It is a curious coincidence to be sure, and it may even be relevant to Annie's cheerful preachings in a more indirect way, but to take it as confirmation of the absolute correctness of the scribal mode of biblical understanding strikes me as both grossly unrealistic, and exceedingly unlikely from a biblical perspective (ie. since the fundy vision of NT history is a great stench unto the Lord)!
.
 As to the relevance of the inscription to students of the New Testament ... Well, thanks to the hype and the prevailing public misconceptions (which BAR supports and encourages), Fundies are having a field day with this artifact. Some, for example, are now supposing (wrongly) that the box constitutes undeniable evidence that the NT Book of James was written by Jesus' brother. In fact, however, the box "proves" nothing of the sort, since the most valid primary evidence concerning the author of Jm must necessarily come from the so-called universal epistle itself. What the bone-box does strongly suggest is that 'Joshua' (ie. the Anointed One) had a father named Joseph, and a brother called 'Jacob', such that not even the Cats can continue to deny it without thereby revealing themselves to be liars and hypocrites. But the meaning of the empty box is precisely this: that Joshua's brother Jacob is NOT to be confused with the author of the misnamed epistle of James!
.
 Thus the significance of Jacob's bone-box for bible-students (and believers) is that it supports our contention that the brother of Jesus is NOT the same man as the author of James. Look at it this way: If the Righteous One was unhistorically motivated to write a letter some few months or years before his bloody demise, then we should be able to make some few reasonable assumptions about how he would proceed to that end. Firstly, the old man would surely write the letter in the language of his own thinking and speaking, namely, Aramaic; and *then* have it translated into the common tongue.
.
 Secondly, he would identify himself according to the most popular convention then practiced. That is, he would use the most standard means commonly used in the Holy City during his generation. Why? Because Jacob was not a radical. Thus: name -> Jacob bar (ie. 'son of') Joseph, followed immediately by his most popular status, distinction, or rank -> brother of Joshua. Thirdly, he would write about topics and issues that were of the utmost concern to the poor believers before and during those dark and violent years of the Jewish Wars (cf. Josephus for details) leading up to the eventual destruction of the Holy City and its Temple in 70CE; for his chief concern was always for the faithful Aramaic believers (ie. the mother-church around him in Jerusalem). And fourthly, he would write in a way entirely consistent with his previous thinking, his own knowledge and personality, and his own manner of preaching. That is, he would NOT write after the manner of, for example, a second-century Hellenistic-Jewish believer who was both a scholar and a prophet, and so able in Greek letters that he could coin new Greek words of his own that no one had ever heard before.
.
 Yet when we turn to the epistle (widely attributed to the Lord's brother) with many such like eager expectations, lo and behold, *ALL* of these things are ENTIRELY absent! How can this be? Here, instead of using his well-known name and rank to clearly establish his apostolic authority, he immediately proclaims his identity as one 'Jacob the slave'! What the hell is that supposed to be? Just ask the scribes and pharisees to explain this gross discrepancy, and watch the blankness engulf them. And do these same scribes and pharisees really think that this pious and stubborn and quietly aggressive saint, who tried for many years to impose his authority, ideas, beliefs, and convictions upon all the expelled daughter-churches, who established and maintained his authority over the Aramaic believers chiefly by virtue of sharing the same father with Joshua, would then turn around and announce before God and man forevermore that he was but a slave of his own brother?
.
 Yes, my friends, their ignorance of historical realities is so wide and so great that they can indeed affirm all these things with the utmost conviction, and still suppose it to be entirely *plausible*! And yet it ought to be obvious that the author of the Book of Jacob (ie. Jm) is a very scholarly sort of prophet (ie. slave=prophet according to biblical traditions) bearing the popular name 'Jacob', which just happens to *also* be the name of the Lord's brother, along with a great many other men besides.
.
 In other words, Jacob's bone-box constitutes tangible historical evidence that *this* inspired prophet, the author of Jm, is NOT to be confused with the brother of Jesus, but rather must be considered as an altogether different and unique person, a Greek-speaking (and Greek-writing) believer from the post-apostolic generations (ie. the Book of Jacob did NOT come out of the Holy City, neither before nor after the destruction of the Temple in 70CE). And while this knowledge is of most exceptional importance as to the matter of dating the NT books (and NT history in general), I rather suppose that it will be simply ignored by Christians as they attend to far more important matters; such as the inevitable hermeneutical squabblings between the scribes and pharisees as they debate such absurd and irrelevant questions as the perpetual virginity of Joseph and Mary. Thus are believers deprived of the truth of things just when they need it the most!

P.S. In biblical history (and NT study) timing is everything!

/ Re: James' Ossuary: Empty Box, Empty Facts / 31 Oct 2002 / Forum > Biblical Archaeology Society Message Board /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
.
> On Oct 28 Z (zooooomer@charter-ga.com) replied: <big snip>
> FAITH should not be deemed inconsequential nor irrelevant on this issue.
.
 tx say: The main problem, rather, is to restrain the over-zealous enthusiasm of undisciplined faith
from interfering with a sober assessment of historical probabilities.
.
> Let us hope for further factors to surface to eithor rectify or substantiate this quandary.
.
 Hey, I didn't order no quandary, Z. Send it back!
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On Oct29 Daniel (d.j.lim@eng.hull.ac.uk) replied: Tell me, textman, what does this ossuary prove other
> than the fact that there was a man called James (or Jacob, if you like) who had a father called Joseph,
> and had a brother (whether by familial ties or by institutional ties) called Jesus?
.
 textman answers: Have it your way then, Daniel. History doesn't "prove" anything either, now does it? ... But it is highly suggestive and informative, and operates (in varying degrees) according to the evidence; which in this case is a very valuable Aramaic inscription on a bone-box. But if you can see no value in it (suggestive or otherwise), then do not ask me to deliver up proofs for you on a silver platter.
.
> As for your "fundy squabbling", I presume you mean the debates that fundamentalists engage in. With regards
> to Joseph and Mary being perpetual virgins, well, I'd ask what would make more sense. Either way, it's trying
> to look at the issue the wrong way. Deal with the claims that this carpenter from Nazereth made about Himself
> first. If those make sense, then everything else falls into place.
.
 Just like that, huh? Just fall back on first principles, eh? Well, that's been tried many times before, but always those
first principles have a slippery way of squirming out of even the most iron-clad ideological structures. Check it out.
.
> We are not called to hinge our salvation on Mary and Joseph, but on Jesus.
> Keep your focus, and may you find the Truth you seek.
.
 Wuttdaya mean "may"? You trying to insult me or something? There's no 'may' about it. Like I EVER lose my focus. As if!
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On Oct27 ann (akh@aeroinc.net) didst spake unto us: MY MY MY textman! Haven't you been a busy little beaver!
.
 tx sayeth: Hi ann. Is that a "serious" question?
.
> I'll bet you loved being called that.
.
 You'd lose that bet. :(
.
> It's a good thing that I keep a dictionary at my desk, I unfortunately fall into that 'ignorant masses' catagory.
.
 Could've fooled me! :D
.
> Some of your words I couldn't even find. I guess those that compiled the dictonary also fall into that
> ignorant masses catagory too.
.
 Well, my dear, it could just be that your own beloved dictionary MAY be somewhat flawed, or out of date, or *what*
*ever*, since not all dictionaries are created equal; as every competent student of the scriptures OUGHT to know!
.
> Please be more forgiving of my ignorance,
.
 Please believe me when I say that my efforts to forgive fundies have long since reached unto super-human levels!
.
> but what is a "FUNDY"
.
 A 'fundy' is a fun way of saying 'fundamentalist'. And the plural of 'fundy' is 'fundies', of course.
.
> and what is "hermeneutical".
.
 It is a thing like unto 'hermeneutics'; which word certainly ought to be available in the better quality dictionaries.
I tend to define it as the art of interpretation; specifically, biblical interpretation.
.
> Well, maybe I don't want to know.
.
 Oh great; NOW you tell me! :(
.
> I wonder what it's like to be so ...privileged...
.
Poor dear! You'll never know. No king or president or military hero or rock star or philosopher or scientist or poet or politician or billionaire or saint or sinner or CEO can ever know the sheer thrill and joy of being a prophet. It is just something too darn alien for the mundane minds of this world to comprehend. If you want to gain even the smallest inkling of what it's like for me, the first thing you must do is to throw off all the ideological shackles that enslave the mind, and the second thing is to rid yourself of this chronic case of constipation of the imagination.
.
If you can manage to do all that, then you are blessed indeed! 
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On Oct28 Charity (charityggd@hotmail.com) wrote: Hermeneutics is "the study of the methodological
> principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)". Hermeneutical, is "of or relating to" hermeneutics.
.
 textman say: Just so.
.
> Fundy - sorry, can't figure that one out.
.
 You're not trying hard enough, Charity. Cat is to Catholics, as Fundy is to ...
.
> Is it a cultural thing?
.
 ha!
.
> Textman - where are you from?
.
 Canada. Land of the northern prophets. The almost-great white north.
Specifically western Canada, Alberta, city of Edmonton (murder capital of Canada) ... boo 
.
> Ann - I'm not saying I agree with what Textman said -
.
 And just why don't you say that?
.
> I just thought you might want the definition of hermeneutics. Have you ever noticed that
> Jesus, who was the absolute master of teaching techniques, never used "big words"?
.
 They weren't invented yet! :) 

P.S. *Cyber-Prophet* ... The gift that just keeps on giving.
.
P.P.S. Happy Halloween, Mr Bones!

textman
*