Naked Archaeologist believes the "James Ossuary" is the real thing

Folks, today I watched from 6:00 to 7:00 PM EDT a couple of old episodes of History Channel’s The Naked Archaelogist, in which Simcha Jacobovici – the "Naked Archaeologist," probes the authenticity of the so-called James Ossuary, "a sepulchral urn for containing bones, which was found in Israel in 2002 and was claimed to have been the ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus" (Wikipedia and numerous other sources). The matter was given wide press coverage and even spawned a book when the James Ossuary was first revealed in 2004.

Jacobovici contends, along with several other experts, that the James Ossuary is "the real thing," that it is not a "fake." But, what does it mean to say that "it is not a fake"? What it would mean is that the chiseled Hebrew inscription on the ossuary which reads "James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus" is contemporary with the rest of the urn which itself dates to the 1st century.

What I disliked about the mini-documentary was its repeated assertion that the inscription of the box provides extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Not that I doubt the historical existence of Our Lord, but I also recall that a demographic estimate of the number of related people named "Jesus," "Joseph," and "James" during the middle of the 1st century in Jerusalem and its environs yielded numerous such instances -- over 30, if I remember correctly. The urn would only be a proof that the names were in common use during those years and that they could be found in the same family, nothing more. "The Naked Archaeologist" was being a tad sensationalistic in his claims. This bothers me because I believe in the Truth and, the authenticity of the urn aside, we need to state accurately what the find would really mean. We need to be open to the possibility that the urn is not connected with Jesus of Nazareth at all.

Then again, assuming that the inscription is authentic, we could ask, why is it written the way it is, why "James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus?" Why highlight James' relationship to this "Jesus" when, at the time, only one's descent from one's father was the really important relationship to note? Remember all those biblical genealogies, for example? No "brothers of so-and-so" to be found in them. This suggests that the familial connections between "Joseph," "James," and "Jesus" were important enough to be recorded and memorialized in a funerary urn for posterity.

Also, how come James is called the "son of Joseph" but not "Jesus"? This either suggests that the inscriber was a Christian who knew that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, or else, that the James and Jesus mentioned in the inscriptions were half-brothers, which further begs the question as to why was so important for the inscriber to highlight the connection. I can see why we all want to understand the inscription as a reference to the New Testament personalities of the same name.

Jacobovici provided a tantalizing line up of experts supporting the 1st century origins of the urn's inscription. He also questioned the methodology Israel's Antiquities Authority utilized to declare the urn a fake.

So, what's my problem? I think the urn is too good to be true. Call me jaded, but I think that we should continue testing this urn and eliminating all competing explanations until we embrace the one that seems to be the obvious one, that this was indeed the ossuary of St. James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, brother of Jesus of Nazareth and son of Joseph – "James, son of Joseph" being a piece of information that is not found explicitly in the New Testament itself.

Post script: atheists, agnostics, and other unbelievers will never accept this urn as either connected to, or referring to the Jesus, James, and Joseph of the New Testament. I think that the only evidence many of them will accept as proving the historicity of Jesus would be ossuary of Jesus of Nazareth himself, which would pose another set of problems to say the least.

Post post script: thankfully for all of us in the audience, "the Naked Archaeologist" is anything but.

- Check out the Wikipedia article on the James Ossuary.

- Visit the Naked Archaeologist's website.

- Update 2/23/2006. Folks, I rewrote this sentence: ...I also recall that a demographic estimate of the number of related people named "Jesus," "Joseph," and "James" during the middle of the 1st century yielded about numerous such instances. It now reads: ...I also recall that a demographic estimate of the number of related people named "Jesus," "Joseph," and "James" during the middle of the 1st century in Jerusalem and its environs yielded numerous such instances -- over 30, if I remember correctly. I did it to complete a hanging, incomplete thought and further delimit the sample.