What’s In a Name

It used to be the case that any man could get a fast horse, head to the holy land, purchase a wonderful item used by Christ in his ministry, and bring it back to Europe to ensure a heavenly afterlife. Thankfully, we live in a more rational time today, or do we?

The truth is that, the relic trade is alive today, and stronger than it was at any point in this era. Among lay people, especially those of faith and money, this has taken the form of involvement in the antiquities market, where looted objects from various sites are sold. One way that these objects can be sold for even more money, is if they contain an inscription, especially one tied to famous biblical figures. Such was the case of the James Ossuary, purchased by a collector in the 1970s or 1980s. Not only was this now famous item, bearing the inscription “James son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus”, ripped from the archaeological record, making its actual site of origin a mystery, but it was concluded to be a forgery.^[1] This, is of course the risk of purchasing items obtained illicitly, and offered not for scholarly but for monetary gain.

Springing up around the James Ossuary, as well as the famous Ivory Pomegranate, originally thought to have been from Solomon’s temple and now recognized as a forgery by the creators of the James inscription, has been a number of people seeking to defend the authenticity of these artifacts from the claim that they are forgeries. The Biblical Archeology Society, has a petition, with hundreds of signature calling for the James Ossuary to be tested once again, presumably representing a large number of people disagreeing with the original scientific findings. The arguments for the authenticity of the inscriptions may eventually prove true, but at present, the evidence is stacked against them, and refusal to accept the findings of the Israel Antiquities Authority seems to be largely based on personal hopes in the authenticity of an artifact that has been popularly, though not scientifically, linked to Jesus Christ. One cannot help but draw a comparison to the Shroud of Turin, similarly shown as a forgery, but still defended by believers today.

However, lay persons are not the only ones who fall victim to the search for named antiquities. The earliest biblical archaeologists were believers, often theologians, and frequently directed at proving the Bible historically accurate. While many, have outwardly done away with this goal, there are residuals of it felt throughout biblical studies to this day. A named artifact linked to a biblical figure is a great boost, to both one’s career and one’s funding. It is perhaps because of this that biblical scholars still present so many books and articles identifying items with biblical figures, such as the recent discourse concerning the Talpiot Tomb, which some have linked to Jesus’s burial. Similarly, a seal, identified as belonging to Jezebel, has recently come under comment as being too hastily tied to this biblical figure.^[2]

In his defense of the identification of the Talpiot Tomb with Jesus, Simcha Jacobovici, the filmmaker behind Discovery Channel special on the tomb, drew a parallel to an ossary that some scholars tie to the biblical priest Caiaphas. Which raises the question of why one may be more valid than the other, and quite simply, it isn’t. The fact is that this identification is also too speculative to be taken as ideal, and should lead serious archaeologists not to accept the conclusions presented concerning the Talpiot Tomb, but to question prior assumptions of biblical scholarship.

At this point, one might ask, if it is possible to tie items to historic personages, and if so, what evidence one must have in doing so. The answer, is that, it is in fact possible to identify historic figures with actual items from history. Unfortunately, the nature of the evidence required is not as clear cut of an answer, and depends heavily on the nature of the identification.

In terms of an inscription, we should question those of the Talpiot Tomb or the James Ossuary and proposed ties to Jesus on the basis of the lack of clear ties to a specific Jesus. This situation leaves it to the modern imagination to decide which Jesus. This situation is quite different from inscriptions like those found at the gates of the Urartian fortress at Ayanis in Turkey. In this case, there is a very clear identification of Rusa, son of Argisti, allowing archaeologists to tie the site’s founding to so called Rusa II. However, this relies on not only the inscription but a knowledge of royal lineage, taken both from Urartian and Assyrian inscriptions, and traditions of building and royal inscriptions in Urartu, in short epistemological support. No similar knowledge exists concerning first century Hellenistic Israel that would support the identification of a specific object with Jesus. In the case of the James Ossuary or the Talpiot Tomb, lacking inscriptions of specific attribution, the evidence to tie an item would be much greater, something along the lines of DNA. This is of course absent, as there is no existing DNA sample from Jesus Christ. So, it seems that any specific identity cannot be found for these items.

An observant reader may note that the Ivory Pomegranate, the James Ossuary, and the Jezebel seal were all looted. This robs them of one of the most important pieces of evidence, context. Yet, even without this invaluable aspect, these and other looted items are given significant coverage, such as the James Ossuary, which was presented at a press coverage and has been the subject of a documentary. This is to spite a very strong movement to stop the publication and study of looted object, one given focus by scholarly organizations such as the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Archaeological Institute of America. Instead, many leading biblical scholars have signed a petition, started by the Society of Biblical Research, calling for the right to publish looted artifacts and those in private collections. Those who sign attest a value to looted objects, which cannot be overlooked. In some cases, such as the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, this may be true, and extremely difficult to overlook, but this judgment must come with a balance between value of specific items and their potential damage to archaeological sites by an inflamed antiquities market.

In the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is a relatively strong context, as they are tied to specific caves, and a large amount of information available simply from reading the scrolls, some of which is available elsewhere.^[3] On the other hand, the James Ossuary, if authentic, offers only a series of three names used in first century CE, without any context at all. The only value is that attached by those who see it as religiously valuable, potentially offering proof to the existence of Jesus Christ.

In the end, this desire for fantastic objects tied to the bible is deeply rooted in biblical scholarship, and seems to be pushing for interpretations that favor historic identification and examinations that focus on looted objects. Historians, archaeologists, epigraphers, scientists and other scholars should remain skeptical of these, and instead look for the information of what can actually be be supported. It should be the duty of scholars to move against this modern day relic hunting, and while this may mean the unfortunate loss of information found in looted objects, it allows for more robust conclusions and better preservation of sites. We should also be reminded that names, no matter what they be, cannot be conclusive proof of historic personal ties, instead we should always look for epistemological evidence, while at the same time recognizing that historic ties are not the goal of archaeology, but a better understanding of history much more equated with the nameless everyday person.

A final note should be made that, while relic hunting is a heavy influence in some biblical scholarship, similar drives can be seen in other areas of archaeology, such as the drive to find the earliest site of Native American habitation, the earliest example of Complex Society, extreme Afrocentrism, or Chinese prehistory.

---

[1] I will ignore the debate over the authenticity of the James Ossuary kept alive by some until a later point in this discussion, instead deferring to scientific consensus. For the current point of discussion, this is relatively immaterial, as such forgery is quite a real possibility when dealing in the antiquity markets, and the James Ossuary at present serves as a fine example.
[2] I dealt with this seal in an earlier article, found here.[3] For further information on the context of the Dead Sea Scrolls, see this site.