(by Ryan Jaroncyk)
Yesterday I shared a list of arguments concerning the identification of the Talpiot Tomb with the tomb of Jesus and his family. Last month proponents of that theory claimed that analysis of the “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus” ossuary reveals a geochemical fingerprint virtually identical to the Talpiot Tomb. If true, this means that the James Ossuary would have been buried in the Talpiot Tomb as well.
Below I have gathered arguments presented in favor of this latest claim as well as significant objections.
1. At least one geologist who was involved in the analysis believes the geochemical link is indisputable.
2. A majority of scholars believe the entire inscription is authentic and from the 1st century.
3. The latest statistical study concluded that it is likely only 1.7 individuals with that unique combination of names and their apparent relationships on the ossuary lived in 1st century Jerusalem.
Moreover, the study calculated a 38% chance only 1 such individual existed, compared to a 32% chance for 2 individuals, 18% chance for 3, 8% chance for 4, etc.
4. There are no other “James son of Joseph” ossuaries.
5. The addition of “brother of” likely means that this brother “Jesus” was a well-known, influential public figure at the time. Jesus of Nazareth is an ideal candidate.
6. Only one other “brother of” ossuary has been discovered from this era.
1. The results have not yet been published or submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
2. The sample size may be too small to yield meaningful conclusions.
3. This ossuary’s photograph was dated to the 1970s by a former FBI director during an Israeli trial, four years before the Talpiot Tomb was even excavated.
4. There is a 2nd-century reference and 4th-century literary evidence of James being buried in the Kidron Valley, not the Talpiot area.
5. The possible soil match could be from another area of the East Talpiot region and not this specific tomb.
6. This theory requires the Talpiot Tomb held 11 ossuaries, not 10 according to several of the original excavators.
7. This ossuary would have just happened to be the one by the opening to the tomb, leaving it vulnerable to illicit removal.
8. This would have just happened to be the only ossuary that was raided and stolen, while every other ossuary in the tomb was left untouched.
9. There is a minority of reputable scholars who question the authenticity of the inscription, specifically the “brother of Jesus” part.
10. Two statistical studies have estimated that there were 1.7 to 3.3 “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus” individuals alive during Jesus’s lifetime. The most recent statistical analysis estimated the following: 38% chance there was only 1 “James son of Joseph brother of James,” 32% chance there were 2 “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus” individuals, 18% chance there were 3 individuals, 8% chance there were 4 individuals, etc. This suggests that there is a 62% chance there were 2 or more individuals with this full appellation in 1st-century Jerusalem, meaning it is not likely to be totally unique.
11. At least three top scholars have argued that the “brother of Jesus” portion of the inscription is insufficient to link to Jesus of Nazareth, without any further descriptors.
12. James originated from a relatively poor family and lived in relative poverty as leader of the Jerusalem church, yet the style of the ossuary is consistent with wealth.
13. Josephus referred to James as the “brother of Jesus, who was called Christ” (Ant. 20.9.1 [§200]).
This differs from the James Ossuary which calls James the “son of Joseph.” In addition, Josephus’s descriptor, “who was called Christ” offers a definitive link to Jesus of Nazareth that is not present in the ossuary.