Posted on 10/21/2002 9:05:57 AM PDT by rface
WASHINGTON- An inscription on a burial artifact that was recently discovered in Israel appears to provide the oldest archaeological evidence of Jesus Christ, according to an expert who dates it to three decades after the crucifixion.
Writing in Biblical Archaeology Review, Andre Lemaire, a specialist in ancient inscriptions at France's Practical School of High Studies, says it is very probable the find is an authentic reference to Jesus of Nazareth.
The archaeology magazine planned to announce the discovery at a news conference Monday.
That Jesus existed is not doubted by scholars, but what the world knows about him comes almost entirely from the New Testament. No physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus has been discovered and verified. Lemaire believes that has changed, though questions remain, such as where the piece with the inscription has been for more than 19 centuries.
The inscription, in the Aramaic language, appears on an empty ossuary, or limestone burial box for bones. It reads: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Lemaire dates the object to 63 A.D.
Lemaire says the writing style, and the fact that Jews practiced ossuary burials only between 20 B.C. and A.D. 70, puts the inscription squarely in the time of Jesus and James, who led the early church in Jerusalem.
All three names were commonplace, but he estimates that only 20 Jameses in Jerusalem during that era would have had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus.
Moreover, naming the brother as well as the father on an ossuary was "very unusual," Lemaire says. There's only one other known example in Aramaic. Thus, this particular Jesus must have had some unusual role or fame - and Jesus of Nazareth certainly qualified, Lemaire concludes.
It's impossible, however, to prove absolutely that the Jesus named on the box was Jesus of Nazareth.
The archaeology magazine says two scientists with the Israeli government's Geological Survey conducted a detailed microscopic examination of the surface patina and the inscription. They reported last month that there is "no evidence that might detract from the authenticity."
The ossuary's owner also is requiring Lemaire to shield his identity, so the box's current location was not revealed.
James is depicted as Jesus' brother in the Gospels and head of the Jerusalem church in the Book of Acts and Paul's epistles.
The first century Jewish historian Josephus recorded that "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, James by name," was stoned to death as a Jewish heretic in A.D. 62. If his bones were placed in an ossuary that would have occurred the following year, dating the inscription around A.D. 63.
The Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer, a Bible professor at Catholic University who studied photos of the box, agrees with Lemaire that the writing style "fits perfectly" with other first century examples and admits the joint appearance of these three famous names is "striking."
"But the big problem is, you have to show me the Jesus in this text is Jesus of Nazareth, and nobody can show that," Fitzmyer says.
The owner of the ossuary never realized its potential importance until Lemaire examined it last spring. Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, himself saw the box Sept. 25.
Lemaire told The Associated Press the owner wants anonymity to avoid time-consuming contacts with reporters and religious figures. The owner also wants to avoid the cost of insurance and guarding the artifact, and has no plans to display it publicly, he said.
---
On the Net:
Biblical Archaeology Review: http://www.bib-arch.org
Dittos on the "unlikely" word due to the notion of primogeniture. Jesus was descended from David through both his mother and his adopted father, Joseph. If Jesus were not the first-born (even if adopted) son of Joseph, he would not have had the title King of the Jews. Ergo, the notion that Joseph could have had sons from a previous marriage is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of those trying to escape the obvious.
Yep, my bet would be that they're referring to Jesus Rodriguez!
Here is a little better picture of it:
It appears to me to be Hebrew, not Aramaic. The reason I say that is that it appears to use the Hebrew "ben" (bet-nun) for son, rather than the Aramaic "bar" (bet-resh).
It appears to say "Yakov ben Yosev akh (possibly Yeshua)" Jacob son of Joseph brother of Yeshua. However, there seems to be too much space between the shin and the ayin at the end of Yeshua, so it could be something else. But it is extremely difficult to read in the photo.
A view not shared by Luther, Calvin or Zwingli.
Mark 3:35 "For whosoever shall do the word of God, he is my brother, and my sister, and mother."(Emphasis added)
Linguistic literalists never learn.
Thanks!
As far as your disagreeing with my theology, that's certainly no problem. Actually, sometimes I find that even I disagree with my theology... ;-)
Jews practiced ossuary burials only[?] between 20 B.C. and A.D. 70, puts the inscription squarely in the time of Jesus and James, who led the early church in Jerusalem.But A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel says,
Volume covers every aspect of the study of the ossuaries used in Jewish burial from around 20 BCE through the mid-third century CE.
Two scientists with the Israeli government's Geological Survey conducted a detailed microscopic examination of the surface patina and the inscription. They reported last month that there is "no evidence that might detract from the authenticity."Two scientists working for Sharon, huh?
"James -- SON of Joseph, (there goes the "cousin" defense) BROTHER of Jesus".
For centuries, the Catholic Church has lied to the world that James was Jesus' cousin. That has now been debunked. What does your note # 47 have to do with the mind-boggling news about this burial box?
Sorry, berned, wrong again!
Perhaps the following will clarify the position.
MATTHEW 13:55-56, and MARK 6:3, both say, "Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the brother of JAMES, and JO'SES (JOSEPH), and of JUDE and SIMON? And are not His sisters here with us?" (Note! Only the 'carpenter' is called 'THE Son of Mary', not 'A Son of Mary') Some people refer to these verses as 'proof', that Mary had other children. See also: Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31, Lk 8:19, Jn 7:5, Let us examine this more closely, using your bible...
The word: 'Brethren'...appears over 530 times in the Bible.
'Brother'....appears over 350 times.
'Brothers'...appears only once, in Num 36:11.
'Sister'.....appears over 100 times.
'Sisters'....appears over 15 times.
BRETHREN: This is a plural word for 'brother' as shown in dictionaries. BROTHER: The Hebrew word 'ACH', is ordinarily translated 'brother'. Since Hebrew, and Aramaic in which the Gospel of Matthew was written, had fewer words than our English, the Jews at that time, used it in a broader sense to expresses kinship. The Hebrew terms for different levels and degrees of relationship did not exist. 'Brother' meant the sons of the same father, and all the male members of the same clan or tribe. In Greek, in which the Gospel of Mark was written, 'brother' is Phratry, from the Greek Phrater, meaning a fellow member of a clan. Even today, the word is used in a larger meaning, so that friends, allies, fellow believers, and fellow citizens can be included in the same brotherhood. It was no different in the time of Christ.
Four dictionaries I have checked list three or four classes of meanings of the word 'brother'. The first class concerns sons of the same parents. The other two or three classes say, kinsman, fellow man, a close friend, a pal, a member of a religious order, a fellow member of a Christian Church, etc. How many times have you seen T.V. Evangelists address their audiences as 'Our brothers and sisters'? Marian detracters accept the last three meanings to suit themselves, but when it comes to Mary, the mother of GOD, they always refer to the first meaning. Is this fair to her? How do you explain this?
See: Num 8:26, 1Sam 30:23, 2Sam 1:26, 1King 9:13, 2Chron 29:34. For Example...
If you will read Gen 29:15, "And Laban said to Jacob, because thou art my brother..." At first you would think Jacob and Laban are blood brothers. Now compare Gen 29:5, "..know ye Laban, the son of Nahor..." Compare Gen 25:21-26, and you will see Jacob was the son of Isaac and Rebekah. Laban was the son of Nahor. They were not blood brothers but fellow citizens.
Christ tells the Multitude and His disciples in Mt 23:1-8, "AND ALL YE ARE BRETHREN." In Mt 12:50 and Mk 3:35, Jesus says, "For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in Heaven, the same is my 'BROTHER', and 'SISTER', and MOTHER." That verse says it all.
In 1Cor 15:6, Jesus appeared to five hundred 'brothers' at one time. Could all of these be blood brothers? Hardly. Then there is Peter speaking before one hundred and twenty brothers in Acts 1:15-16. Paul speaks of one 'called a brother', in 1Cor 5:11. The Bible has many more similar verses.
Now we have four 'brothers', JAMES, JO'SES, SIMON, and JUDE to account for as written in Mk 6:3...
Mk 15:40, "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of JAMES the less, and of JO'SES, and Salome." These people were at the crucifixion.
Jn 19:25, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."
Mt 10:2-3, "...'JAMES' the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus." Alphaeus is an alternate translation of Cleophas (Clophas) and so he is the same person.
Acts 1:13, "...JAMES, the son of Alphaeus, and SIMON Zelo'tes, and JUDE the brother of JAMES."
From these four passages, we see we have another 'Mary', who was the wife of Cleophas (Alphaeus), and the mother of three of Jesus's 'brethren', JAMES (the less), and JO'SES, and JUDE. This clearly shows that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not the mother of JAMES, JO'SES, and JUDE of Mk 6:3. To keep Mk 6:3 in harmony, since three are not children of Mary, the mother of Jesus, then SIMON is not either. SIMON is the Canaanite Mk 3:18, also called the 'Zealot' (Zelo'tes), Mt 10:4, Lk 6:15, Acts 1:13. Jude, who authored the Epistle of Jude, says he is the brother of James in Jude 1:1. Jude was also called 'Thaddeus' in Mt 10:3, and in Mk 3:18. This was to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot. Lk 6:16 further distinguishes the two by saying, "And Judas (Jude) the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor."
More on the topic of 'Mary's other children', I have another point to make...
Jn 19:26-27, "When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by, whom He loved..." The disciple was John, the author of the Gospel of John. "Then He said to the disciple, BEHOLD THY MOTHER." Was John a child of Mary and blood brother of Jesus?
Read the following verses to see...
Mk 1:19, "...He saw James, the son of Zebedee, and 'JOHN', his brother."
Mk 3:17, "And James the son of Zebedee, and 'JOHN' the brother of James."
In neither of these passages is it said that Jesus saw a blood brother or even recognized them as men that He knew.
Mt 27:56, "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James
Mt 20:20, (the less) and Jo'ses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."
Mk 15:40, "...among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James (the less), and Salome (mother of Zebedee's children)."
Lk 24:10, "It was Mary Magdalene...and Mary ('the other Mary') the mother of James (the less)..."
A comparison of Mt 27:56, and Mk 15:40, clearly shows that Zebedee had a wife whose name was Salome. She is called the 'mother of Zebedee's children' in
Mt 27:56, and 'Salome' in Mk 15:40. They had two children, JOHN and JAMES,
Mk 3:17. JOHN at the foot of the cross to whom Jesus gave His mother, was not a child of Mary, the mother of Jesus, but of Zebedee and Salome. If Jesus had blood brothers, why then did He not give His mother to them? Jewish law would have demanded it... +
GENEALOGY:
---Zebedee-----------------------------------------------
+ >------begat------James and John----------------------
---Salome------------------------------------------------ +
---Cleophas-(Alphaeus)-----------------------------------
+ >------begat------James (the less), Jo'ses, and Jude--
---Mary---(the other Mary, Mt 27:56,61, 28:1, Jn 19:25)-- +
---THE HOLY SPIRIT---------------------------------------
+ >------begat------JESUS THE CHRIST--------------------
---Mary-------------------------------------------------- +
This 'Genealogy' shows who the real parents of the 'brothers' in Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55, are, and makes the word 'brother' a non-argument.
Additional notes...
Mt 1:25, "And knew her not till...". The old meaning of the word 'till' or 'until', meant an action did not occur up to a certain point. It does not imply the action did occur later. Gen 8:7, "He sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, 'until' the waters were dried up off the earth."
2Sam 6:23, "...the daughter of Saul had no child 'until' the day of her death." Did she have a child after she died?
Lk 1:34, "Then said Mary unto the Angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" This shows Mary had no relations with a man before and was virgin.
Lk 2:7, "And she brought forth her 'firstborn' Son and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes..." Firstborn, at the time of the writing of the Gospels, meant, 'the child that opened the womb'. See Ex 13:2 and Num 3:12.
Firstborn does not imply that Mary had other children, as an ONLY son, IS a 'FIRSTBORN SON'. The author of this letter is one.
NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS, HAD OTHER CHILDREN. WHY THEN, DO SOME INSIST THAT SHE DID?
Bible References: Gen 8:7, Gen 25:21-26, Gen 29:5,15, Ex 13:2, Num 3:12, Num 8:26, Deut 23:7, 1Sam 30:23, 2Sam 1:26,6:23, 1King 9:13, 2King 10:13-14, 2Chron 29:34, Mt 1:25, Mt 4:21, Mt 10:2-4, Mt 12:46, Mt *12:50, Mt 13:55-56, Mt 20:20, Mt 26:26, Mt 27:56,61, Mt 28:1, Mk 1:19, Mk 2:14, Mk 3:17-21,31,35, Mk 6:3, Mk 15:40,47, Lk 1:34, Lk 2:7 Lk 2:41-51, Lk 5:10, Lk 6:16, Lk 8:19, Lk 24:10, Jn 7:2-7, Jn 19:25-27, Acts 1:13-16, Rom 8:29, 1Cor 5:11, 1Cor 9:5, 1Cor 15:6, Gal 1:19, 1Pet 5:12, Jude 1:1
You've truly got to be kidding with that statement, right? It CONTINUALLY says that Jesus had brothers, (James, Jude, Joses, and Simon) and that he also had SISTERS.
The Catholic Church has now been caught red-handed in it's biggest lie ever.
Logic at work here!
Matthew 12:50 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother."(Emphasis added)Mark 3:35 "For whosoever shall do the word of God, he is my brother, and my sister, and mother."(Emphasis added)
Interestingly, JESUS made the previous statement in the context of the following scenario ...
Matthew 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.