Queries & Comments
010
Fan Mail
I am no professor, learned judge or pastor of any kind. I am just an 84-year-old lady, a resident of a retirement home who loves your magazine very much and looks forward to each issue. Several years ago at Christmas, one of my great-nieces gave me a subscription. Each year she renews it. She could not please me more.
Sarah E. Bentley
Huntsville, Alabama
James Ossuary
Wow!
Great article on one of the most significant archaeological finds ever (“Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus,” BAR 28:06)!
Kym A. Loncar
Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas
Journalistic Road Apples
Rarely have I seen such shameless and dishonest crap. The assertion that “This container provides the only New Testament-era mention of the central figure of Christianity and is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus” [as stated on the BAR Web site —Ed.] is simply dishonest. There is absolutely no way to prove such a linkage. Continue to pimp your magazine at the expense of your credibility if you wish, but be assured that I will not be renewing my subscription.
Jay Frank
Niles, Illinois
We Know Who the Father Was
Surely André Lemaire and the editors of BAR are aware that there is a version of Jesus’ family tree in addition to the three presented as options in your graphic in the November/December 2002 issue. (“Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus,” BAR 28:06) Many faithful readers of BAR believe that Jesus of Nazareth is not the son of Joseph, husband of Mary. His Father was the God of Heaven.
It is true that Jews, Muslims and some Christians do not believe that God would have a son who would live on earth as a mortal, but many Christians still believe that there is nothing figurative about the paternity of Jesus. He had a mortal mother and an immortal father. He is the Son of God, exactly as he taught and as recorded in the New Testament.
Lemaire wrote that “Luke 4:22 and John 6:42 both indicate Joseph was the father of Jesus.” That is not true. Both verses pose a question from the common people, “Is this not the son of Joseph?” The scriptural answer to that interrogatory is “No, He is not the son of Joseph. He is the Son of God.” That is plainly taught in numerous passages in the Gospel of John (1:49; 3:16; 5:17–26; 10:32–36; 19:7), and in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 3:17; 14:33; 16:16; 27:43; 012Mark 9:7; 14:61–62; Luke 1:32, 35; 9:35).
I am well aware that scholars of the Jesus Seminar and other academics who do not believe in the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ simply write off the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospel references to Jesus as the Son of God as unreliable and lacking historical credibility, but there are many Christians who still believe the Bible (as far as it is translated and transmitted correctly) and believe what the Bible says—that Jesus is God’s Son.
Daniel Kelly Ogden
Professor of Ancient Scripture
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah
Diagrams Missed the Biblical View
The entire message of the New Testament hinges on the concept that Jesus was not the offspring of Joseph but the product of a miraculous conception. One may not agree with the concept, but the fact remains that this is indeed clearly the New Testament’s teaching. None of your diagrams of the three versions of the family tree of Jesus really does justice to the New Testament view.
Onelio Marrero
Rockaway, New Jersey
The Evangelical View
Most evangelical Protestants will take exception to the idea that Protestants hold to the belief that James was the full brother of Jesus. In fact, like Catholics, we believe that Jesus was the biological son of Mary, through virgin birth. However, unlike our brethren, we believe that James (and the other siblings of Jesus’ family) were the half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus, the biological offspring of both Joseph and Mary, born after the birth of Jesus.
Otherwise, let me say that I enjoyed the article and greatly appreciated the archaeological evidence and commentary it contained.
Pastor Frank S. Gribble, III
Calvary Baptist Church
Kokomo, Indiana
Hachlili Is Not Convinced
André Lemaire’s conclusion that “it seems very probable that this is the ossuary of the James in the New Testament” seems to me unacceptable. No provenance is known, as the ossuary belongs to a private collection. The patina and geological evidence do not prove that the ossuary came from Jerusalem; it could have originated as well from around Jerusalem or Jericho. The onomasticon of names in the Second Temple period includes all three names [found on the ossuary]. The name Yehosef (Joseph) is the third most frequent name, Yeshu’a (Jesus) is common and Ya‘akov (Jacob/James), although rare, appears on several ossuary inscriptions. The formula “brother of so-and-so” is rare but found on other ossuaries inscribed in Aramaic and in Greek and might just indicate family relations [rather than the fame of the brother—Ed.]
I believe it is impossible to establish the authenticity of such an ossuary, especially the claim that its inscription belonged to “James, the brother of Jesus,” on such meager evidence as common names and formulas. I doubt very much that it will ever be proved adequately.
Rachel Hachlili
University of Haifa
Israel
Professor Hachlili is widely recognized as one of the leading experts on Jewish names in the Second Temple period—Ed.
Whose Brother?
Thanks for the fascinating article on the ossuary that may have once held the remains of Jesus’ kin (“Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus,” BAR 28:06). Whether or not the ossuary inscription refers to Jesus of Nazareth, one other interpretation was not examined in this otherwise informative article. The inscription reads: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” The article assumes that the final phrase, “brother of Jesus,” refers to James. However, it may instead refer to Joseph.
Thomas Dubé
Bothell, Washington
P. Kyle McCarter, of Johns Hopkins University, responds:
We can’t be certain that the inscription doesn’t mean that Joseph was the brother of Yeshua (Jesus). We interpret it to mean that Jacob (James), not Joseph, was the brother of Jesus because we assume it follows the usual practice in writing names in ancient inscriptions. According to this practice, the patronymic (“son of Joseph”) is roughly the equivalent of a last name in modern names. Think of “James Josephson, the brother of Jesus.” This is the ordinary formula—the patronymic is given first, followed by any further identification, such as another relationship or a title. But ancient writers made exceptions to this convention when there was a reason to emphasize the identity of the father, for example, “Jonadab son of Shimeah brother of David” in 2 Samuel 13:3 and 32, and “Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians” in 1 Kings 16:31. So it’s theoretically possible that the James buried in the ossuary was the son of Joseph and nephew of Jesus.
How Important Is It?
The world was amazed by the discovery of the ossuary bearing the inscription “Ya‘akov [Jacob/James] son of Yosef [Joseph] brother of Yeshu’a [Jesus].” It certainly excites the imagination, especially if you are a Christian believer, but if we put aside religious feelings, what does this ossuary and its inscription (assuming it is authentic) contribute to our knowledge of the late Second Temple period?
L.Y. Rahmani, in A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, lists 233 inscriptions; in them the name Yosef (Joseph) appears 19 times, Yeshu’a (Jesus) 10 times and Ya‘akov (Jacob/James) 5 times. In addition, Tal Ilan, in her Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, has studied names listed in historical sources and on inscriptions. She found that among 1,986 male names, Joseph appears 150 times (second only to Simon), Jesus 71 times (sixth place) and Jacob 34 times (tenth place). What does the James ossuary add to this data? Very little.
I am not naîve enough to think that many people are interested in such a narrow discussion. People want hard evidence for the existence of the people in the New Testament. I experienced this myself a decade ago when an ossuary inscribed “Joseph son of Qaifa” was discovered and which I was fortunate to study and publish [see “Caiaphas Name Incribed on Bone Boxes”, BAR 18:05 —Ed.]. There was tremendous interest in that ossuary as well. Journalists refused to accept anything less than a statement we had found the ossuary of the High Priest Caiaphas, who interrogated Jesus and turned him over to the Romans. We should note that the ossuary was excavated, along with others, by archaeologists led by Zvi Greenhut. This is not a minor point because no one questions the authenticity of the Qaifa ossuary, while the James ossuary, which comes from the antiquities market, will always be tainted with some doubt.
Despite everything I have just said, I certainly acknowledge the power of such discoveries to excite emotions. They can even be used to promote tourism. The James ossuary should have made its premiere appearance in the entrance hall of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.
Ronny Reich
University of Haifa
Haifa, Israel
014
A Case of Levirate Marriage?
André Lemaire points out that there is only one documented example of the mention of a brother on an ossuary. He suggests that the reference to a brother may be due to the fact that the brother had taken responsibility for the burial or because he was well known and the deceased had a special connection with him. There is another situation where one might expect the name of a brother to be mentioned on an ossuary or another funerary inscription: When the brother had acted as a levir for his deceased brother and married the widow in accordance with the law in Deuteronomy 25:5–10. Application of this law led to the birth of two ancestors of David and hence of Joseph, the father of Jesus and James [descendants of David according to the genealogies in Matthew and Luke—Ed.]: Perez, born to Tamar from Judah after Judah refused to allow his son Shelah to act as levir—and after Onan had died failing to perform his levirate duty (Genesis 38)—and Obed, born to Ruth after Naomi’s closest kinsman refused to perform the duty of the levir and Boaz graciously stepped into the breech (Ruth 4). The Deuteronomic law says that by abiding with the law of the levir, the living brother perpetuates the name of his deceased brother. In such a situation it would surely have been appropriate to mention the name of a deceased brother on an ossuary.
It is possible that the inscription on the ossuary is for a levir called Jacob (James), the son of Joseph, who married the widow of his deceased brother Joshua (Jesus), rather than James the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus of Nazareth?
Gershon Hepner
Los Angeles, California
We checked with several scholars, who confirmed that the practice of levirate marriage continued into the medieval period.—Ed.
The Short List
Add Erastus
Thank you for your wonderful articles concerning the James ossuary. I saw the ossuary in Toronto and was suitably impressed.
Re: “The Short List” of the other New Testament figures who are attested in artifacts, you might also have included Erastus, whose name is inscripted in the 015Corinth amphitheater (Romans 16:23; see the Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, p. 571, for details).
Ronald Youngblood
Emeritus Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew
Bethel Seminary
San Diego, California
Finkelstein Interview
A Glimpse into an Outstanding Mind
I found myself thoroughly absorbed by this month’s issue, especially the editor’s interview of Israel Finkelstein (“A ‘Centrist’ at the Center of Controversy,” BAR 28:06). I read it with relish.
Initially, I was disturbed by the apparent antagonistic nature of the interview, but I must confess that this fueled my desire to read on. I am quite glad that I did, for had I not continued reading I might have remained ignorant of one of the truly outstanding minds of modern archaeology—Israel Finkelstein. I was intrigued by his apparent good manners in fending off the editor’s antagonisms, keeping a cool head under pressure, and presenting a clear and logically methodical description of proper archaeological procedures. I was left feeling confident that with people such as Mr. Finkelstein doing the fieldwork, truth will prevail no matter how many ignorant or politically motivated theorists oppose his methods. I pray that he and students of his methodology continue unhindered to discover and shed light on past truths.
I am likewise impressed with BAR for printing the interview. It will keep me coming back for more.
John Nichols
Nashville, Tennessee
The Battle of the Bible
I have just finished reading the interview with Israel Finkelstein. I am a conservative Christian priest (Episcopal), a four-time visitor to Israel and a sometime high school Bible teacher. This 016interview was one of the more helpful pieces I have read in BAR in a long while. The energy between Shanks and Finkelstein jumps off the pages. The interview gives the reader a very clear sense of what the battle looks like; the battle of the Bible, as it were. The issues are clearly presented, the points of debate clearly outlined and the passion of the debate uncensored.
Rev. Peter Pierson
Grafton, New York
Three Questions for Finkelstein
In his interview with Hershel Shanks, Israel Finkelstein kept saying in various formulations that the Bible’s stories “are fully immersed into the realities of late monarchic times” (the seventh, sixth and fifth century B.C.E.). Unfortunately, Shanks limited his questions to the archaeological evidence and seemed to share Finkelstein’s literary estimation. I would like therefore to pose the following questions to Finkelstein.
1. One of the main principles of the late monarchic times is the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem, but the patriarchs sacrificed in many places (see for example, Genesis 28:10–22) and never in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not even mentioned explicitly in the Torah, a fact that caused a real problem for the late Jewish exegetes (see Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 28:11). Is it possible that late monarchic scribes should ignore Jerusalem in such a striking manner or describe Beth-el as “none other but the house of God, and this is the gate to heaven”; or that they should tell us that the patriarchs planted trees and set up pillars in total contradiction to the law in Deuteronomy 16:21–22?
According to Exodus 12, the passover could be sacrificed anywhere, but in late monarchic times this law was abolished (2 Kings 23:21–23). Does the law in Exodus reflect in any way late monarchic times?
2. In Genesis, Benjamin and Joseph are the sons of Rachel, and Judah is the son of Leah, but in monarchic times the tribe of Benjamin is a part of the Judahite kingdom. The description in Genesis reflects the priority of Reuben (he is the eldest), but in monarchic times Reuben was a minor tribe. How can one claim that these stories are immersed into the realities of late monarchic times? Quite the opposite seems true; almost all the stories about Jacob’s sons seem to reflect a time before even early monarchic times.
3. When one looks into the development of the relation between man and God in the history of the Jewish religion, one notices that it becomes less and less direct; God becomes more and more remote and sublime. How can Finkelstein explain the unique character of God and his attitude to man in the Torah, particularly in Genesis (for example, 1:26; 3:21; 18:1–15; 32:25–31), and how is it possible that especially in Genesis the contact between man and God is so direct? Is this not a clear proof that Genesis belongs to the oldest layers of the Biblical literature?
The truth is that the Torah (except Deuteronomy) is almost totally unacquainted with the realities, views and major problems of late monarchic times. The Torah is not familiar with the idea of the Torah as a book (an idea that is so central to the Deuteronomic school), with the division of the Israelite kingdom or with the great ideas of the prophets and does not reflect the view of a late age. These questions are not new, but Finkelstein has never answered them. One cannot escape the suspicion that the reason for his taciturnity is his inability to do it.
Jeff Cohen
Tel Aviv, Israel
Israel Finkelstein declined to respond to Mr. Cohen, so we asked Finkelstein’s colleague Baruch Halpern, of Penn State University, to comment.—Ed.
Baruch Halpern responds:
While Cohen’s points deserve to be addressed, he fails to deal with Pentateuchal source criticism, the division of the text into four strands (commonly called J, P, E and D), and this hurts his critique. Finkelstein’s point, as I understand it (and I am not fully in agreement with it myself), is that the compilations that we have belong to the late monarchic era, primarily the late seventh century B.C.E., but he concedes that the compilers relied on earlier sources. More specifically:
Point 1: Cohen puts his finger here on an essential point of Biblical criticism central to the hypothesis of multiple sources of the Pentateuch or Torah (see Richard E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?): Sacrifices are offered all over, not just at a religious center (Jerusalem). But this is true not just in the Pentateuch, but also in the books of Samuel and even Kings (as with Elijah at Carmel in 2 Kings 18). It is generally agreed by scholars that the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) was compiled in the late seventh century B.C.E. This is the view of almost all Biblical scholars, not just Finkelstein.
By the end of the 19th century, nearly all critical Biblical scholars were in agreement that the centralization of sacrifice was a creation of the late seventh century B.C.E., and that the other materials—the J and E sources in the Pentateuch, and large segments of Samuel and Kings—stemmed from earlier times and reflected earlier doctrines. In Genesis 12–13, for example, Abraham builds altars at every place he visits in Canaan (according to the J source). While there is no explicit notice of sacrifice at these altars, the presumption of it is strong. On Point 1, Mr. Cohen has a good argument.
Point 2: The incorporation of some of Benjamin into Judah was at best sporadic, so it is impossible to reach chronological conclusions on the basis of this material. However, Reuben effectively disappeared as an Israelite tribe/territory, along with more northern Transjordanian Israelite polities, as a result of conquest by Damascus in the mid-ninth century B.C.E. and Assyrian deportations in the eighth century B.C.E. It is true that there is no credible explanation for the tradition of Reuben being Jacob’s first-born son in any historical era. On the other hand, the development of Israel’s traditions about its own origins placed Reuben in a primary geographical location: Early Israelite poetry says that Yahweh comes from Sinai (“the field of Edom”). To this Reuben is the closest geographically. Moreover, the idea of a conquest starting from Transjordan dictates that Israel first marched through Reuben’s territory on its way to establishing a homeland and a state. So the traditional route of the Exodus/Conquest made Reuben the first territory to be occupied. Reuben’s first-born status may reflect literary and legendary elements rather than historical situations and is no indication of a remote antiquity. On the other hand, Reuben’s inclusion as an Israelite territory, and the inclusion of the rest of Transjordan up to the Golan, certainly does not reflect any reality, or even aspiration, of the seventh or later centuries B.C.E. Up to that period, our dated sources (D and subsequently P) in effect exclude Transjordan from the Land of Promise, while remembering Israelite occupation of them earlier. On the second point, therefore, the verdict is mixed. The texts reflect periods earlier than the seventh century B.C.E. but not necessarily earlier than the ninth century B.C.E.
Point 3: The argument that God becomes more remote from man over time includes references from a mélange of sources (P, J, E) in the Pentateuch. The projection of closeness to god(s) in earlier times is a property of myths in Greece, Rome and Mesopotamia, not just Israel, and has no bearing on the dating of a text.
004
A Note on Style
B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era), used by some of our authors, are the alternative designations for B.C. and A.D. often used in scholarly literature.
Fan Mail
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.