There has been some discussion of to what degree the James ossuary might be described as “plain” or “decorated,” and as “inscribed” or “uninscribed.” The late Joseph Gath makes it clear in his final excavation report that when the ossuaries were removed and tagged in the field, during the first two days of the rescue archaeological operation (March 30 & 31, 1980) that only four of the six inscriptions had been noticed but none were yet “deciphered.” The task of the excavation was not to carefully examine the ossuaries but to remove them, excavate the cave, and record and tag any of the findings as well as produce an accurate survey map. Those tasks were all carried out, under the supervision of Amos Kloner, and with the assistance of Shimon Gibson, according to proper and established procedures. Even several months later when Gath produced his printed report on the ossuaries he simply notes that “Some inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic were found in the cave that have not been deciphered yet.” Lots of ossuaries from tombs were being brought into the Israel Department of Antiquities in those days and those responsible had no reason to pay any special attention to this group. An inscription “Yeshua bar Yehosef” might have been of some interest had it been noticed, but it is quite difficult to read and could well have been one of the two inscriptions recognized only later when they were cleaned, examined, and photographed.

Here are two very clear photos of the James ossuary with views of both the inscribed and the uninscribed sides. One can barely make out the beginnings of an extremely faint rossette pattern on the side without the inscription though whether one might then classify it as “decorated” in the sense of the the others in the tomb is questionable. Depending on how the ossuaries are found in a tomb one sometimes finds soil adhering to surfaces obscuring some features until the ossuaries can be brushed and carefully examined in good light for either decorations or inscriptions.

The five decorated ossuaries, two of which were inscibed (“Mariamene Mara” and the “Jude son of Jesus.”), are actually quite elaborate in contrast to the “plain” look of the James ossuary. Here is 80.506 as a comparative example:

Whether the James ossuary might possibly be the so-called “missing 10th” from Talpiot, or otherwise associated with the Talpiot tomb, remains to be demonstrated, but all we know about the 10th (IAA 80. 509) are two data: the dimensions and the one word description “plain,” with no surviving photo. A excavator’s initial field description of “plain,” without note of an inscription, is fully in keeping with Gath’s preliminary notes and records.

Comments are closed.