|
|
Controversial Bone Box May be a Link to the Biblical Jesus |
| By
Rebecca Maggard |
|
|
Dec 15, 2003 |
|
UT News regrets the story “UT researcher asked to re-evaluate ‘Jesus box’” was published in the print edition Dec. 5 without changes suggested by Dr. James Harrell, professor of geology in the department of earth, ecological and environmental sciences. The revised copy appears below.
Several words carved into an ancient limestone burial box have recently sparked a heated debate in both the archaeological and Christian communities, and Dr. James Harrell, professor of geology in the department of earth, ecological and environmental sciences, has found himself in the center of the international argument.
 |
| The inscription reads James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. |
The James ossuary, or “Jesus box” as it has been dubbed by the media, is inscribed with the words “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” According to Harrell, the ossuary is so important because if the bones of the brother of the biblical Jesus were actually buried in the box, it would be only the second known contemporary reference to Jesus outside of the Bible.
 |
| Dr. James Harrell |
A recently released report on the ossuary from an expert committee formed by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) concluded the box dated back to the first century A.D., but the inscription was a modern forgery. Harrell, an archaeological geologist and executive committee member of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, was brought into the debate when he was asked by the publisher of Biblical Archaeology Review to re-evaluate the raw data collected by the IAA committee. “I believe the IAA, with the full knowledge of the Israeli government, predetermined the final conclusions before the committee members filed the reports of their findings,” Harrell said.
From his analysis of the geochemical data, which will be published in the next issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review later this month, Harrell concluded that it is possible that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic; however, he also believes that it is still possible that it is a forgery. “Everyone agrees that the box is from ancient times, the concern is with an anomalous coating covering the inscription that is clearly modern and which has led some people to conclude that the inscription underneath must also be modern. It is entirely possible, however, that this coating results simply from the modern cleaning of an ancient inscription. More tests need to be conducted in order to evaluate this possibility."
Harrell added that in addition to the geochemical analyses, there is more evidence that supports the authenticity of the inscription. “According to experts on ossuary texts, the forming of the letters and the spelling of the words are entirely consistent with a first century A.D. date. It would be very difficult for a forger to make such an error-free inscription,” Harrell said.
“An important point that needs to be made is that even if we are able to prove that the inscription is not a modern forgery, it will be nearly impossible to prove that it refers to the biblical Jesus,” Harrell said. “James, Joseph and Jesus were common names in the first century, and there was no other evidence with the box that could identify which Jesus the inscription referred to.”
“Because the analytical techniques available today cannot prove definitively that the inscription is either ancient or modern, we may never really know if it is a forgery,” Harrell said. “In the end, believing it is authentic and that it refers to the biblical James, Joseph and Jesus is going to simply be a matter of faith and not of science.”
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
