Ben Witherington is still defending the authenticity of the so called ‘James Ossuary’ (though just to be utterly clear the ossuary itself has never been doubted as an authentic artifact from ancient times- it’s the second half of the inscription in particular that has been shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to be bogus).
Ben Witherington is a very well-known and prolific Biblical Studies scholar based at Asbury Theological Seminary, Kentucky. In this interview with MBCDS’s Andy Cheung, Dr Witherington discusses his writing, theology, and outspoken views concerning the highly controversial James Ossuary, which has been the subject of wide coverage in, among others, the Biblical Archaeological Review.
But that doesn’t mean, does it, that everything he thinks is so, is so. He’s wrong about the ossuary just as he’s wrong in his belief that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. Mind you, we all are wrong about something or other, so I’m not criticizing him for being wrong! But, and this is the point, he IS wrong about the ossuary in spite of his protestations to the contrary.
The interview contains some interesting stuff, but for present purposes this is the relevant bit (and I quote it in whole):
Before we finish, I’d like to spend some time talking about the James Ossuary. For the benefit of those who don’t know, perhaps you could briefly describe what this controversy and debate is about?
The James Ossuary is a burial box and it has an inscription on it that says “James son of Joseph, his brother is Jesus.” All who have examined the inscription found it to be genuine and so do I. Right now, it’s embroiled in the controversy surrounding the trial of its owner, Oded Golan, so were waiting to see how that turns out.
Haven’t the Israel Antiquities Authority declared it to be a fake?
Well let’s be clear about this. First of all, the Israel Antiquities team that first investigated it declared it to be authentic. Secondly, the chief epigrapher of the IAA again said in January [2008] that it was authentic. People who are saying it’s inauthentic would be the head of the IAA, Yuval Goran, and Shuka Dorfmann. So it’s not every one in the IAA and those who are most expert on inscription say it’s genuine, including those who work for the IAA.
It would appear that among the popular press at the least, the majority consider it to be a fraud. Are you saying that view is wrong?
Absolutely but I don’t think that is the majority opinion of the press. I continue to be asked about this by the BBC, NBC, ABC, CBS and others. Their response to the Jesus Ossuary has been very different to, say, the Talpiot Tomb (the so-called burial tomb of Jesus). The media has come to the conclusion that the Talpiot Tomb discussion is not worth continuing because the evidence is so strongly against it being the tomb. But the issue of the James Ossuary is that ever since the beginning in 2001, so many heavyweight scholars from all kinds of different persuasions have weighed in and said it was a genuine ossuary with a genuine inscription.
Do you think there’s a political aspect to the IAA and their declaration of the ossuary being fake?
There’s no question there is. The IAA have a genuine concern with forged and stolen antiquities and I understand that. But the way to deal with those concerns is not to declare any unprovenanced artefact as a fake or forgery.
The Geological Survey of Israel have also declared it to be fake too though.
Well, the GSI is a subheading under the IAA and their two leading experts both claimed it was genuine to start with. Under pressure, they were forced to retract what they said but they did not repudiate their findings. Now that’s a whole different ball game. It’s one thing to talk about a retraction; it’s another thing to talk about the repudiation.
Do you think there will be a resolution on this within the next few years?
Yes I would say there will be some resolution, but let me say why this is such an important issue. The James Ossuary is an indirect testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. The reason I say that is you don’t brag about being related to Jesus if the last thing that happened to him was that he died on a cross – that was the most shocking way to die in antiquity. So the fact that this ossuary reads, “Jesus the son of Joseph, his brother is Jesus” is very clear that this person is claiming to be related to Jesus and he wouldn’t be claiming that if Jesus died on the cross and there was no resurrection.
Finally, do you think that this has anything to do with the IAA claiming that the James Ossuary is fake?
Of course! In fact, Shuka Dorfmann said as much when he said, “we don’t want this ossuary used for a fundamentalist Christian agenda.”
One thing you have to say about BWIII- when he gets something in mind- it sure stays there. With thanks to Brother Crossley for the tip.
UPDATE: James has now offered a perspective of his own here.
