The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) last summer declared the inscription on the James ossuary—which reads, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”—to be a fake.a Since then, however, both the reasoning and the conclusion of the IAA report have been widely attacked by experts.b And the members of the committee have not responded to the criticism.
Now there is new reason to believe that at least the word “Jesus” on the ossuary is authentic.
045
The IAA’s conclusion was driven by the findings of the two geologists on the committee, who saw three layers of coatings on the ossuary, the topmost only in and around the inscription. Based on the oxygen isotopes in this topmost coating, the geologists concluded that it could not have formed in a cave environment over 2,000 years.
To reach this conclusion, committee geologist Avner Ayalon took seven samples of the coating from the letters of the inscription and compared their oxygen isotopes to surface patina elsewhere on the ossuary and to patina on other ossuaries in the IAA collection. The coating taken from within the letters of the inscription was distinctly different from the other patinas. Based on this isotopic difference, Ayalon determined that the temperature of the water from which the inscription coating was formed was hotter than normally is found in the hills around Jerusalem. Therefore this coating was formed in modern times, Ayalon and the other committee geologist, Yuval Goren, concluded. The two geologists did not use the word “fake” or “forgery.” They asserted only that this coating was formed relatively recently, either to mask a forgery “or” (their word) as a result of cleaning the inscription.
Though six of the seven coating samples taken by Ayalon seemed to fit this theory, the seventh did not. And the one that didn’t fit the theory was in the word “Jesus”! The critical number produced by the isotopic examination of the coating sample from the word “Jesus” was within the range of the numbers produced by the authentic patina elsewhere on the ossuary.
046
For those with a scientific bent, here are the numbers. The numbers are the standard “delta numbers” that compare the isotopic ratio of oxygen18 to oxygen16. (For further explanation of these terms, see Harrell’s article in our previous issue, cited above.)
The samples of (the unquestionably ancient) patina from the surface of the James ossuary produced delta numbers between –4 and –6. Samples of patina from other ossuaries in the IAA collection ranged between –4 and –5.
By contrast, six of the seven samples of the coating in the James ossuary inscription ranged from –7.5 to –10.2. It was this that led the IAA geologists to conclude that the coating in the inscription was produced in modern times.
But the seventh inscription sample was –5.8, well within the range of results from the authentic patina elsewhere on the James ossuary.
What to do about the seventh sample? What to do about this anomalous finding? What to do about the only sample the investigator took from the word “Jesus”?
Ayalon had an explanation. He must have accidentally scraped some of the limestone from under the inscription coating, mixing the limestone with the inscription coating when he took the seventh sample. In other words, the seventh sample was not pure inscription coating; it was a mixture of the inscription coating and the underlying limestone of which the ossuary was made. What he had unwittingly tested in the seventh sample was a mixture of inscription coating and limestone.
Here is what Ayalon wrote in his report:
047
“Clearly, if during sampling, particles of the original limestone entered the sample, the measured isotope composition will be less negative. This appears to be the case in the sample from the last letter of Yeshua [Jesus].”
Nice explanation. But will it wash?
We now know that the delta number for the limestone of the James ossuary is between –4 and –4.6. In order to get a delta number of –5.8 (the reading of the seventh sample from the word “Jesus”) from a mixture of the limestone in the ossuary and the inscription coating with a delta number of between –7.5 and –10.2 (the range of delta numbers in the other six samples of the inscription coating), you would need an awful lot of limestone in the mixture. To put it another way, assuming that the inscription coating in the seventh sample has a delta number between –7.5 and –10.2, how much limestone with a delta number of –4 do you need to mix with this in order to get the mixture to give a delta number of –5.8? The answer is a great deal.
Is it possible? Yes, but it would require a mixture that included mostly limestone, rather than inscription coating. In short, to get this delta reading in the seventh sample (from the word “Jesus”), we must assume not simply that Ayalon accidentally scraped a little of the underlying limestone when he took sample, but that he actually took a great deal and thus did a very sloppy job of taking the sample.
Unless Ayalon did this very sloppy job of taking the sample, it would appear that the seventh sample (from the word “Jesus”) was within the range of the samples taken from the genuine ancient patina taken from elsewhere on this ossuary. In short, either Ayalon was very sloppy in his sampling or the seventh sample appears to be authentic.
If I have erred in this explanation, I hope Ayalon will correct me.
That the seventh sample is authentic is consistent with the finding of IAA committee member Orna Cohen, who stated that “a microscopic examination revealed the same yellowish patina as on the ossuary surface in the letters ‘brother of Jesus.’” Therefore, she wrote, “part of the inscription may be original.”
One other point: In his statement to the IAA, Ayalon told us the delta values only for the oxygen. But neither the authentic ancient patina nor the inscription coating was pure calcite. Both also contained carbon, for which there are also delta numbers, based on the isotopic ratio of carbon13 to carbon12. I asked James Harrell, the geologist who wrote the article in BAR cited above, about this. Here is his answer:
“In my BAR article I called for the carbon isotope data on the samples Ayalon took, both from the inscription coating and the patina elsewhere on the surface of the ossuary. We now have this data. The delta carbon values for the ancient patina on the ossuary surface vary from –1.2 to –7.7. The delta carbon values for the inscription coating vary from –1.1 to –7.4—almost identical to the readings on the ancient patina.
“It is now clear why Ayalon did not include these carbon isotope results in his report to the IAA. They do not support his conclusion! The inscription coating is only anomalous in its oxygen isotopic composition and not in its carbon isotopic composition.”
Uzi Dahari, the chairman of the IAA committee, has stated that, “This is a forgery, 100 percent. Sometimes you have doubts. In this issue, we have no doubts.”
This kind of bravado seems unjustified. On the contrary, a new examination of the ossuary by an international team of unquestionably qualified experts is clearly called for.
The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) last summer declared the inscription on the James ossuary—which reads, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”—to be a fake.a Since then, however, both the reasoning and the conclusion of the IAA report have been widely attacked by experts.b And the members of the committee have not responded to the criticism. Now there is new reason to believe that at least the word “Jesus” on the ossuary is authentic. 045 The IAA’s conclusion was driven by the findings of the two geologists on the committee, who saw three layers of coatings on the ossuary, […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
