A relic of the brother of Jesus has been on show in Toronto. Jill Kamil visited the exhibition and reports on the controversy it has aroused An astonishing 95,000 people visited the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) between 16 November and 29 December 2002 to view the so-called ossuary of James, brother of Jesus Christ. The exhibit had been hurriedly restored after being seriously damaged in transit from Jerusalem. The restored ossuary has now been packed up and is ready for shipment to its place of origin. Experts and archaeological enthusiasts in Toronto, however, have attacked the credibility of a 2,000- year-old empty, nondescript limestone box which may have contained the bones of James, the brother of Jesus, and the first apostle. The debate among sceptics and believers was in full swing by December. It was back in February 2002 that archaeologist and Sorbonne professor André Lemaire, one of the top-ranking experts in the Aramaic inscriptions of the three decades following the crucifixion -- about the years 33 to 63 -- stumbled upon the limestone box which had been reputedly looted from a Jerusalem cave and held in a private collection in Israel. It was 51cms long and made of porous limestone, slightly trapezoidal in shape, and with a slightly convex lid. When Hershall Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeological Review, broke the news of the discovery at a news conference in Washington on 22 October, a controversy arose among scholars and archaeological enthusiasts as to its authenticity. Nevertheless Shanks set about transporting it to Toronto to coincide with the meeting of the Biblical Archaeology Society. The simple burial box bore the Aramaic inscription "Ya�akov (James), son of Yosef (Joseph), brother of Yeshua (Jesus)", and it was claimed as the earliest known object to mention Jesus. Ossuaries were used to hold the bones of the dead in the early years of the Christian era and this one, unadorned but carved on the outside in the vernacular language of Jerusalem at the dawn of Christian history, had an unusual combination of names which raised the question of whether the inscription could have been a recent addition to a 2,000-year-old coffin. Israel's Geological Survey offered an answer. Scientists subjected the ossuary to scientific study and concluded that the patina in the inscription did "not contain any modern elements and it adheres firmly to the stone". In other words, there were no signs of the use of a modern tool or instrument, nor, indeed, "evidence that might detract from the authenticity of the inscription found". Nevertheless, scholars and biblical enthusiasts reacted with caution. Until the appearance of the ossuary, the earliest known object mentioning Jesus was in a papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John found at Bahnasa in Middle Egypt, written in Coptic and dating from the first half of the second century, about the year 125. The ossuary, if genuine, is the only other concrete evidence. Biblical enthusiasts have called the ossuary "important" and "tantalising", but admit it is "probably impossible to confirm a definite link between the inscription and any central figures in the founding of Christianity". Some sceptics, however, have dismissed it as far-fetched, pointing out that the second half of the inscription (which includes the reference to Jesus) is slightly different from the first half, and concluding that it must therefore have been added at a later date. Archaeologists stress that because the provenance of the ossuary is not clear, and nor is the fate of the bones that were once inside it, whatever fragments of bone that might remain should be subjected to DNA analysis. Yet, even were such a study carried out, and proved to date to the correct period, would that necessarily mean that the ossuary contained the bones of the James, brother of Jesus of Nazareth? Among enthusiasts who proclaimed authenticity was Lemaire. When he examined the box he claimed that the inscription was "done by a single hand", and told Michael Posner, an arts reporter in Toronto: "[We] have here the first epigraphical reference to Jesus of Nazareth." Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins University backed Lemaire's claim; he also pronounced the inscription "legitimate". Hershel Shanks, meanwhile, continued to enthuse that "this earliest written reference to Jesus has implications for our understanding of New Testament archaeology". But biblical scholars were at odds. The dominant view of the Protestant Church that James was a brother of Jesus is not universally accepted by Christianity: he could have been a half-brother (Joseph's son by a previous marriage), or Jesus' first cousin (the son of Joseph's brother Clopas and his wife Mary). The discovery therefore challenged Orthodox and Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Among the Gnostic writings in the Nag' Hammadi codices impressive status was attributed to James the Great, who was placed on a par with the supernatural powers in charge of the great baptisms. From Oxyrhynchus (present-day Bahnasa in Middle Egypt) a fragment from a shroud includes the words: "The disciples say to Jesus: 'We know that Thou wilt leave us; who will (be the great(est) over us?' Jesus says to them: 'Wherever you go, you will turn to James the Just, for whose sake heaven as well as earth was produced.'" The manner in which the ossuary was discovered is part of the problem, say scholars. It appears to have fallen into the hands of looters who sold it on the open marked and, according to Shanks, was eventually bought by an unidentified collector in Jerusalem. Scholars are critical about the publication of looted objects if they do not come from a controlled excavation and have no authenticated provenance. The Israeli Antiquities Authorities (IAA) meanwhile probed cracks in the story of how their ossuary came to see the light of day after nearly two millennia underground. Amir Gamor, the authorities' chief of "prevention of antiquities theft" told the daily Toronto Star that it was "stolen from a grave in Jerusalem. There is no other explanation." He went on: "How it got from the grave to where it is now -- this is what we have to find out." So far the Israeli authorities' findings contradict the story of the ossuary's owner, the Tel Aviv collector whose name was originally withheld -- he wished to remain anonymous -- but who is now acknowledged to be collector and entrepreneur Oded Golan, a 51-year-old engineer from Tel Aviv who has other, similar boxes in his possession. Golan apparently told police that he acquired the ossuary in about 1967 and it was stored in his parents' house until about 15 years ago, when he moved it to his own apartment. However a report in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz said the IAA had received information that the ossuary was actually purchased by Golan "just a few months ago". During a seminar on the ossuary in Toronto's Royal York Hotel on 24 November, the voices of the sceptics were the loudest. "It is unlikely that it (the ossuary) contained the bones of the James," York University professor Steve Mason said. Duke University's professor Eric Meyers reiterated his misgivings "because the object was not scientifically excavated"; and John Painter, theology professor at Canberra's Charles Stuart University and the author of the book Just James, himself confessed to being "worried -- because there is not a sufficiently large database of names from that era to give a proper sample". Meanwhile, amid the hue and cry about authenticity, and when the ossuary, which had been transported for exhibition at the ROM, was being unpacked, it was found to have sustained serious damage in transit. Curators at the ROM were shocked when they uncrated this major archaeological relic only to find a number of cracks which had been sustained in shipping. Some of the fault lines were new, while others were extensions of pre- existing cracks. One huge crack that had not been present before shipment cut through the word "Jesus". There was uproar. Biblical scholars were outraged that "one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of our time" had suffered damage as a result of inadequate packing. On 2 November The Toronto Sun 2002 ran the headline "ROM'S HOLY FREIGHT... cracked in transit" and said ROM's director Dan Rahimi was "heartbroken when he saw the damage". Rahimi claimed that the packing and shipping was the responsibility of the owner and was handled by a reputable company chosen by the owner. The museum offered to have the museum's conservation experts "redress the cracks" and make the object structurally sound for its scheduled display. The owner agreed that the repairs should go ahead. While the repairs were being carried out at the ROM by conservator Ewa Deziadowiez, more evidence came to light. Museum archaeologist Ed Keall told a news conference that the clear outline of a carved funereal rosette -- a traditional adornment on bone boxes in the first century BC -- was visible at the back of the box; he had accidentally discovered two faintly incised concentric circles while Deziadowiez was repairing the cracks. "The rosette," Keall asserted, "suggested that the ossuary had been previously owned; it probably contained the bones, not of James the brother of Jesus, but of two of his relatives". Keall said that the faint designs indicated that the box spent a century in a cave before being emptied of its original bones and re-dedicated to James. "Too little is known about Jesus' family tree to speculate whose remains may have been placed there. I believe that the bones of James would have been put in it when the original owner's bones disappeared." Further analysis led some epigraphers to the opinion that since the second half of the inscription was "less formed than the first, it was carved by a different hand, at a different time". But, Keall insisted, when the chemical patina was cleared from the second half of the inscription (which was more thickly encrusted with calcium carbonate) "the apparent differences between the two halves disappears". Geologists proceeded microscopically to examine the chisel marks; statisticians estimated how many of the 40,000 men in ancient Jerusalem were not only named James, Joseph and Jesus, but were related; and linguists debated the exact, contemporary meaning of the word "brother". Interestingly, despite all the publicity and the startling promotion of the text in the media, most international scholars have refused to be drawn into excited speculation even though Discovery Channel has already announced plans for a TV documentary in the Spring of 2003 on "The Scientific Testing of the So-called 'James Ossuary'". "Whether the bones were those of James, brother of Jesus will always be an act of faith," Keall says. "For me, it simply deepens the mystery and increases the challenge we face in getting the right answer."
