|
|
|
Preliminary Discussion Concerning The So-Called Ossuary Of Jacob From A Tel Aviv Collection |
|
|
|||
|
|
THE SCHOLARLY SESSION AT THE SBL ANNUAL CONVENTION More scholars took part in the second meeting on the ossuary. 1800 people came to the Canadian ballroom of the Royal York Hotel to hear what specialists had to say. Among the speakers were Prof. A. Lemaire, who identified and first presented the inscription on the ossuary to the general audience; Prof. Steve Mason (York University) a well known scholar on Josephus; Prof. Eric Meyers of Duke University, a former president of the ASOR and excellent archaeologist; Prof. John Painter (the University of Canberra) who has written a book on the traditions concerning James. The editor of BAR was given the last word. It was something surprising that the main opponents, whose serious objections were widely distributed by the press and TV, i.e. Prof. Robert Eisenman, Rochelle I. Altman and Prof. Paul Flesher, had not been invited. I do not know if the first two were even in Toronto, but Prof. Flesher was, and his minutely detailed report on both sessions is available in the internet.(39) What new things the owner and the experts said at the two sessions Owner:
Oded Golan once again repeated the story of his collection and the origin of
the ossuary. He explained why he was unable to understand the inscription and
its significance: ‘He could not decipher First Publisher: Prof. A. Lemaire repeated the main lines of his article, which are already summarized above. He told the audience that ‘after a careful examination of the inscription, he has little doubt the inscription is genuine, despite the differences between the two halves of the inscription.’(41) His important new opinion was that ‘the graphic character of the inscription indicates no break in the inscription. The final peh in Yoseph is an indication of the end of word , not the end of an inscription. He reiterated that the letters are formed in first-century script styles and that the daleth, yod, and aleph, although cursive, could still be pre-70.’ Very cautiously Lemaire admitted, that ‘there is nothing in the inscription that confirms the person buried in the ossuary was the James the brother of Jesus the Messiah. For this, the statistical analysis of the three names provides the best indication’. He said exactly this: ‘For me it looks very probable that we have here the first epigraphic reference to Jesus of Nazareth.’(42) Experts Epigraphers: Prof. Kyle McCarter, who according to earlier reports had some objections concerning the authenticity of the inscription, now presented his opinion in greater detail. In his view the inscription was made by two hands. The first half of the text ‘was done in a formal script’. It is interesting that ‘the script is similar to that found on the Copper Scroll, which is dated to the 60s CE’. By contrast, the second part of the inscription ‘was predominantly written in cursive letters.’ Especially the daleth and the aleph were evidently comparable with the finds from Wadi Murabba‘at. However, he finally stated that ‘he would not say that the script was impossible for the first century.’ His conclusion was that the inscription was the work of two different hands, but he emphasized that this was probably done in antiquity, he was not saying that the second hand was modern.’(43) It is very spurring that one of the world’s best experts in Hebrew and Aramaic epigraphy, the leading paleographer of the scrollery team publishing the Dead Sea Scrolls, Prof. Frank Moore Cross, was not speaking in public. However, he took part in a private discussion of interested scholars and commented on the ossuary in these words: ‘There will always be doubts about the authenticity, but if the inscription was forged, the forger was a genius’.(44) Historians: Professor Steve Mason, one of world’s experts on the writings of Josephus Flavius, came back to one of the main presuppositions of A. Lemaire concerning the dating of the ossuary. He commented on “Antiquities” Book 20, 173-203. According to him this passage ‘was about the High Priest Ananus and mentioned James only incidentally, a point which argues in favour of this being historically authentic information.’ He also briefly introduced the negative hero of the story, reminding the audience that Ananus ‘had a number of people executed out of hand, including James.’ [One would have expected at this point a statement that this passage in Flavius was one of the most disputed ones and seriously suspected as being in part a Christian interpolation, especially regarding the words ‘brother of Jesus, the one who is know as the Messiah.’ It might be that Prof. Mason is of a different opinion now. We will return to this later on]. Prof. Mason in some way protested against the ‘continuing impression that ossuaries were limited to the pre-70 period’. He rightly reminded those present that ‘L. Y. Rahmani’s catalogue indicates that their use continued into the third century’. He made an important remark in connection with the names on the ossuary. Quoting a study of Jewish names of the period of the Second Temple by Rachel Hachlili, he repeated her caution ‘against treating the names as random occurrences (as do the statistical studies by Lemaire and others).’ According to Hachlili’s study, ‘names appear to be associated with particular family lines’. This observation was supported by Prof. John Painter, who said that ‘names appear in family constellations’ giving a good example of Matthew’s genealogy. Prof. A. Lemaire in his response said that ‘this made the identification of THE James with the ossuary even more probable.’(45) Professor Peter Richardson, a scholar of first century Judaism, offered one important remark and one or two interesting observations. He remarked that if the inscription on the ossuary was a forgery of the Byzantine period, say of the fourth century or later, Jacob would be expected to be called ‘Brother of the Lord” and even a reference to Mary was possible. So, the preserved title ‘argues in favour of authenticity of the object.’ It seems that Richardson had studied the ossuary patiently for a long time, as only he had exceptional observations to make. One concerns his suggestion that ‘there was a grafitto picture on the small end of the ossuary to the left of the inscription.’ He noticed some diagonal, vertical, and horizontal scratches which ‘might have been intended as a picture of a tomb’. (The presence of the previously unnoticed scratches as described by Richardson was confirmed by Prof. Paul Flesher).(46) A second dealt with the rosette design. As has already been noted, the rosettes are on the opposite side of the inscription. Richardson remarked that ‘since the rosettes themselves cannot be seen, although the outer circle can be’ it looks that ‘the design was incomplete in antiquity’. The ossuary was needed ‘in a hurry and purchased unfinished off-the-shelf.’ He concluded that ‘the ossuary was in primary use and thus the inscription is a single piece, not done at two different times.’(47) Professor John Painter, a biographer of Jacob the apostle, admitted that ‘he would like the ossuary to be from THE James’. He made some criticism of Prof. Lemaire’s proposal by noticing that ‘the date of 63 CE assigned to the ossuary comes from James’s supposed date of death and not from any evidence found on the ossuary itself’. What is more, he rejected the statistical interpretation of the names in question arguing that ‘there was an insufficient sample size on which to base any reliable statistical analysis’. To sum up, ‘it is possible that the ossuary is that of James, but there is not enough evidence to indicate probability.’(48). Prof. Painter was the only one to invoke testimonies about James from early Christian writers like Clement, Eusebius, and Hegisippus. He reminded the audience of the details concerning the murder of James stressing that James ‘was buried where he fell’ and that his monument was still visible at the time of the quoted authors. He also recalled the tradition that James was buried in the tomb of Zechariah and Bene Hazir on the Mount of Olives. He also referred to the tradition concerning the Armenian Cathedral in the Old City of Jerusalem: ‘the cathedral’s founders took James’ remains from the tomb and reinterred them in the cathedral’. He concluded: ‘there are no traditions about any ossuary from which James’ bones were taken.’ The fourth professor specializing in the period to which the ossuary is dated, Benjamin Witherington, a New Testament scholar by profession, ‘focused more on the ossuary in its historical context.’ He acknowledged that it is something very rare that a person is identified in relation to his brother, and he went on to argue ‘that if the inscription had said “brother of Jesus the Messiah,” it would more likely be a forgery’. What is more he also touched on the very intriguing problem of whether the word ‘brother of’ really meant ‘brother’ or ‘cousin’. For him, brother means brother. If so, ‘this raises questions for Catholic theology, which believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary and therefore Jesus could have no siblings’. He concluded by saying, ‘we would not expect mention of Mary in this inscription because of the patriarchal character of the society.’(49) The last, not exactly historical but rather philological comment, was offered by the noted Josephus scholar Louis Feldman. He explained that ‘the Greek word translated as ‘aforementioned’ in “Antiquities” 20:200’ was ‘actually a present passive participle and should thus be translated as “the one who is called the messiah.”’ Archaeologist: The only archaeologist allowed to present in public his ideas about the ossuary was Professor Eric Meyers. He was a well chosen authority as he is the author of the still remembered monograph: “Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth,” Rome 1971. His introductory words were connected with the general negative policy of the ASOR concerning illegally acquired objects and their publicity. It is hard for me not to subscribe to this policy. It ‘forbids any and all publication of black market antiquities’ because that ‘promotes looting of sites and robs items of their historical and archaeological context and meaning.’ As an archaeologist with five seasons’ experience, mostly of the rescue excavations in the south of Poland, I fully understand the ASOR official policy. However, I also find reasonable the view of H. Shanks, who responded Meyers in these words: ‘But isn’t display and scholarly discussion better than the alternative, which is nothing?’ It is an accidental discovery in a private collection and it should be verified by specialists. Such events, however, should be very exceptional, not a rule, as it seems to me H. Shanks suggests.(50) More important was Meyers’s discussion of many aspects of the discovery of the ossuary in question. First its illicit nature, second some of its philological aspects, third its weathering, and fourth its link with the supposed Pharisaic belief in the resurrection. In every point it was obvious that the comments were made by an outstanding authority. In the opinion of Prof. Meyers the illicit nature of the ossuary excluded verification of its authenticity. We deal with ‘the total lack of ancient context and clarity about the object’s recent past’. These elements ‘raise a number of warning signals for anyone studying it’. The ossuary itself ‘is fairly typical. It is made of soft Jerusalem limestone in a fairly standard form. The dirt and patina covering of the stone box need additional scientific verification, for ‘both can be faked.’ Meyers found very odd the fact that the ossuary has the inscription on the back of the box not on the front with rosettes. What is more it is very suspicious that the ossuary on the rosette side was highly weathered. ‘It clearly covered the rosettes and was responsible for the difficulty in seeing them. The rosettes, then, are clearly from antiquity, and the weathering on them suggests a significant elapse of time before any inscription was added on the opposite side. The weathering on the inscription side of the ossuary, however, does not appear in an even manner.’ All those points have an impact on the degree of certainty of anything we say concerning the ossuary’s authenticity. Meyers’s philological remarks were connected with the term ‘brother of ...’ For him this terminology for such kind of inscription was ‘suspicious in the extreme.’ He said that the dialectological remarks of Father Joseph Fitzmyer and Prof. Paul Flesher suggested ‘that the inscription and the ossuary are later than Lemaire and others claim.’ He accepted the preliminary analysis of R. I. Altman indicating that ‘the inscription was composed by two hands.’ Concerning the incised text, Meyers also noticed that ‘while the left end of the inscription (i.e., the second part of the “reused ossuary’ has more obvious pitting, the right ends seems to have been extensively cleaned up.’ ‘Who did this and when?’, Meyers asks. [The answer from the owner was very simple: his mother did it when she tried to clean the object kept on the balcony. However, taking into consideration the quoted below remark of Mr. Lupia on the patina the problem seems more complicated]. Very surprising, but in fact obvious, was Meyers’ rejection of the idea that there is a link ‘between ossuary burial and Pharisaic belief in the resurrection of the dead’. He referred to the famous recent discovery of the Caiaphas ossuary. Caiaphas for sure was ‘a Sadducee and did not believe in the resurrection.’ So, the ossuary burial should not be linked with a belief in life after death.(51) OTHER RECENT DISCUSSIONS ON THE OSSUARY Since the beginning, i.e. since the first press report at the end of October, the ossuary has been alive independent question in the media. By the time of writing (the end of January 2003), there has been n o o f f i c i a l p u b l i c a t i o n. That is expected to be done by Prof. A. Lemaire in the spring issue of the proceedings of the French Academy of Inscriptions and Literature. Prof. Lemaire is to present his discovery and interpretation in the presence of members of the Academy in February 2003.(52) Some people have decided to discuss the new ‘discovery’ unofficially. I am unable to present everything that has been written in the internet or announced in the press, but I should like to present some voices of experts and of scholars below, adding my own preliminary remarks in a few cases. Archaeological context Several French scholars have given their opinion concerning the archaeological context of Jacob’s ossuary. Professor Jacques Briend, a Biblical scholar and biblical archaeologist who is now president of the scholarly committee at “Le Monde de la Bible”, says that ‘il est périlleux de tirer des conclusions a partir d’un objet privé de tout contexte archéologique’ [it is dangerous to draw conclusions starting with an object without any archaeological context]. He adds that as the number of ossuaries without context is in fact enormous, ossuary study as such is problematic. His point of view is supported by Professor Marie-Française Baslez of the Paris XII University. For her ‘la rupture de l’histoire d’un objet archéologique l’expose a des risques de manipulation’ [a gap in the history of an archaeological artifact lays it open to manipulation]. She does not say that the object is a fake, but it seems that, like me, she does not rule out such a possibility. Also Estelle Villeneuve, an archaeologist by profession, reminds us that ‘on a vu des faussaires si habiles, qu’il est difficile d’etre a 100 % sur de l’ancienneté de l’inscription. Les fausses inscriptions existent, les fausses patines aussi’ [we have known so gifted fakers that it is difficult to be 100 per cent sure about the antiquity of the inscription. There are fake inscriptions and fake patinas, too].(53) A nearly identical opinion has been expressed by Mr. Eliot Braun, an archaeologist working with the Israel Antiquities Authority. I quote him in extenso: ‘As a dirt archaeologist with more than 25 years of experience picking up after looters and developers, I can tell you that only objects found in controlled excavations are of unquestionable bona fides’.(54) Professor Jerzy Kolendo, Warsaw University, a very well known Polish epigrapher dealing mostly with Latin inscriptions of the Roman empire period reminded me of some famous forgeries of the 17th and 18th centuries. The objects used were original, but the texts were invented and inscribed by expert fakers. In Kolendo’s opinion as the Polish expert on false antiquities, the scenario of the present story is very similar to stories well known to him. He advises great caution. I certainly do not wish to involve him in our polemic by quoting his ideas, nor do I use his authority to support my suspicions, especially as we both know the object from good photographs only, but I simply want to suggest that the problem of the authenticity of the ossuary should be solved as soon as possible. The sooner, the better. A renowned laboratory not embroiled in the present dispute should do it.
|
