Not So Fast!: "Brother of Jesus" Might Be Authentic, But Not "James, The Son of Joseph"

Share/recommend this article:

Excerpt After a trial of more than five years with 138 witnesses, more than 400 exhibits and a trial transcript of 12,000 pages, Judge Aharon Farkash of the Jerusalem District Court cleared the defendants of all forgery charges in the case of the James Ossuary. Still, the trial details leave us with concerns about the total authenticity of this artifact. ABR Staff member Gordon Franz interviewed one of the trial witnesses and conservator, Orna Ohen, in 2008. Continue reading

Explore
Related Articles
Support
Like this artice?

Our Ministry relies on the generosity of people like you. Every small donation helps us develop and publish great articles.

Please support ABR!

Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover & PayPal

Introduction

 

In the latest issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks addressed the fallout from the verdict in the “forgery case of the century” between the Israel Antiquities Authority and the antiquities dealer and owner of the James ossuary, Oded Golan (2012:26-33, 62, 64-65). The issue Shanks focused on was the authenticity of the inscription: “James the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus.”

 

Is the Inscription Authentic?

 

In the article, Shanks asked the question and then gave his opinion: “Is the inscription authentic? The court held only that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the inscription was a forgery. But it surely did not find that the inscription was authentic. I have no doubt, however, that it is” (2012:26). One reason the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt was because the witnesses disagreed whether all, part, or none of the inscription was authentic. Most of the witnesses believed that the words “brother of Jesus” was a modern-day forgery. Shanks, however, pointed out that one of the government witnesses, Orna Cohen, testified that there was original patina in the word “Jesus” (2012:31), but Shanks did not tell the whole story. Orna revealed more.

 

Interview with Orna Cohen

 

Four years ago, in July of 2008, Stephanie Hernandez and I interviewed Orna Cohen. Orna is a conservationist of antiquities who has made outstanding replicas of artifacts for museums and restored a number of buildings, including the monumental Late Bronze “ceremonial palace” at Hazor where we conducted the interview.

 

We covered a range of topics about Orna’s job and why it is important to conserve what has been excavated. Orna is one of the best in the field of archaeological conservation and restoration. One of the issues that we asked her about was forgeries on the antiquities market and could patina be faked. In her answer about patina being faked, Orna mentioned the James ossuary, which at that time was at the center of the forgery court case in Israel. Orna was one of the government witnesses in the trial and had the privilege of actually examining the James ossuary first hand. Here is what she had to say:

 

Gordon: “How easy is it to fake patina?”

 

Orna: “It is possible, but it is not easy to fake patina. You need the knowledge, but it has been done. There is research going on about it for historical buildings. For instance when you are renewing part of a building you want to repeat the patina, so there is research about these things. I had the pleasure of looking at and checking the James Ossuary and I gave my comments on it. I think the ossuary is authentic and a real one, but the inscription on it, I am convinced there are two hands that wrote the inscription. To my opinion, part of the inscription is faked, part is original. Of course, there are things that go on in trial now [This interview was conducted in July 2008]. They are still trying to figure out what is faked and by whom it was made. To my opinion, the name Joshua [on the ossuary] is real. The inscription reads: “Ya’acov bar Yosef achi Yehoshua.” [Translation: Jacob (or James), the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus]. So the first part, I think is added. My professional opinion is almost against all the others that think the last name [on the inscription]; “brother of Jesus” (Joshua) is a fake. So my opinion was against the others [at the trial]. I checked and it’s according to the patina in the letters. There was a fake patina of just dirt that was put in these letters on purpose so I cleaned part of it and underneath there was the original, yellowish patina that based on my experience, was the original one. It was not on the first part of the inscription but it was on the last part of the inscription. That is what I gave as my opinion.” (Brackets […] added by interviewers for clarity).

 

Assuming Orna is correct, we still do not know who the second hand was that added the first part of the inscription “James the son of Joseph.” On cross-examination, Yuvel Goren also admitted there was ancient patina in the word “Jesus” (2012:31) which confirmed Orna’s statement.

 

The Conclusion of the Matter

 

In my opinion, it is not “Case closed!” I do not think Shanks presented a strong case for the authenticity of the whole inscription and the jury is still out on its authenticity. Perhaps some day the second hand will reveal itself and we will know the identity of the person who added “James the son of Joseph.”

 

Transcript of the Interview

 

For the transcript of the whole interview conducted by Stephanie and I, you are invited to visit my website and read, "It is the Best Job in the World!: An Interview with Conservator Orna Cohen”.

 

Bibliography

 

Shanks, Hershel

“Brother of Jesus” Inscription is Authentic! Biblical Archaeology Review 38/4: 26-33, 62, 64-65.

 

 

ABR Editorial Note: Orna Cohen has done work for ABR in conserving and restoring ancient coins discovered at our excavation at Khirbet el-Maqatir, Israel.

Comments Comment RSS

6/29/2012 1:03 AM #

Wait, so everyone agrees that "brother of" is fake?  I find it hard to believe no one confirmed that not a single molecule of ancient patina exists on the first part of the inscription.

(P.S.  Typo:  "...the trail witnesses...")

G.M. Grena - 6/29/2012 1:03:55 AM

7/18/2012 4:31 PM #

But "Joshua" (Jesus) was a very common name in Israel, as was "Jacob" so finding those together would not indicate that meant Messiah Jesus. In fact, i find it surprising that an ossuary of containing the bones of a man as poor as the family of Joseph and Mary were would have been found in a Jerusalem burial vault - especially since it was not considered to be the likely family tomb of Joseph of Arimathea who provided the burial tomb for Jesus. i watched the film on the initial finding of that burial chamber and it made me more of a skeptic because the writing seemed to have been chiseled in not in a straight line but as though it had been done at two separate times. Thanks for this good follow-up article. i thought at the time the chamber was found and the whole newspaper hoopla about it that there was something not quite kosher about it all. i stand by my original thought on that ossuary.

Jayleigh - 7/18/2012 4:31:34 PM

7/18/2012 7:40 PM #

Somehow this conclusion does not seem logical to me because it would seem odd to have an ossuary that just says "Brother of Jesus". Wouldn't it seem logical that there should be some name, the name of the person who was actually buried in the ossuary, included before "brother of Jesus"?

Chip - 7/18/2012 7:40:15 PM

7/18/2012 8:18 PM #

But, even so, how many "Joshuas" and "Jacobs" were there in Jerusalem at that time? If you watched either of the films, you see that there were many. Miriam (Mary) was also a very common name in those times. It seems to me the point of the whole thing was to try to prove that this was the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and that the Mary whose name was found was Mary of Magdala and thus, she was Jesus' wife and there was supposedly another ossuary naming a "son" of Jesus and Mary of Magdala proving, under that theory that Jesus was married to Mary of Magdala. It's a boondoggle and it just doesn't ring true. i think this article clearly explained the patina issue, as well.

Jayleigh - 7/18/2012 8:18:26 PM

7/19/2012 9:07 AM #

I think there is some major confusion here... the above article is about the James ossuary - not the ossuaries found in the supposed "Family Tomb of Jesus". The James ossuary contains an inscription that reads "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus". This ossuary is NOT connected with the Jesus Tomb documentary. Two of the comments above are comments about ossuaries examined in the "Famly Tomb of Jesus" documentary. The James ossuary was NOT found in that tomb. These are two totally different topics. If you want to see a GREAT rebuttal of the supposed "Jesus Tomb" you can order it from Source Flix, it is titled - "The Jesus Tomb Unmasked". This rebuttal completely exposes the false claims associated with the "Jesus Tomb".

Chip - 7/19/2012 9:07:37 AM

7/19/2012 10:16 AM #

The ABR ministry carries "The Jesus Tomb Unmasked" here in our online bookstore:

www.biblearchaeology.org/.../...Tomb-Unmasked.aspx

Blessings,

ABR

ABR - 7/19/2012 10:16:35 AM

Research RSS Feed

AddThis Feed Button

Recent Articles

For many years, Jericho has been a "problem" in Biblical archaeology since scholars claimed that there...
Because the Shroud of Turin has received much public attention in the news, on television and on the...
Lately my son, Barry, and I have been experimenting with shooting aerial video from a remote control...
For decades, scholars have continually argued that "there is no evidence for the Exodus" in Egypt. Aside...
Associates for Biblical Research
  • PO Box 144, Akron, PA 17501
  • Phone: +1 717-859-3443 | Fax: +1 717-859-3393
  • Toll Free: 1-800-430-0008
Friend ABR on Facebook.com Join us on Twitter Join us on Twitter