Posted on 10/26/2002 1:59:09 PM PDT by polemikos
In October 2002 it was announced in Biblical Archaeology Review that a first century stone ossuary had been discovered that is believed to have held the bones of St. James, the brother of Jesus, also known as "James the Just."
An ossuary is a box used to hold the bones of a dead person. Stone ossuaries were widely used by Palestinian Jews between 20 B.C. and A.D. 70.
This ossuary bore the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." It had been bought a number of years previously by a Jewish collector who prefers to remain anonymous. He did not initially realize its potential significance until he asked Andre Lemaire of the Sorbonne, a paleographer or expert in ancient writing, to translate the Aramaic inscription on the ossuary.
James, Joseph, and Jesus were very common names in first century Palestine, and Lemaire estimates that there may have been as many as twenty individuals in Jerusalem who were named James and who had fathers named Joseph and brothers names Jesus. Nevertheless, Lemaire and other experts believe it probable that the James to whom this ossuary belonged very probably was the one referred to in the New Testament as "the brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1:19).
It is extremely uncommon for brothers to be named in ossuary inscriptions. Of the hundreds of such ossuaries that have been found, only two name a brother as well as the father. The fact that this one does so suggests that the brother was considered very important. It is unlikely that there were other men named James who had fathers named Joseph and who had brothers named Jesus that were so important that they warranted mention on an ossuary.
Following the announcement of the discovery, many were quick to ask its potential apologetic significance. If authentic, its immediate significance is that it provides the earliest known inscriptional evidence for the historical reality of Jesus, as well as providing confirmation of two of his family relationships. Previously the only first century data on Jesus and his family has come from literary sources, such as the documents of the New Testament and (with important qualifications) from the first century Jewish historian Josephus.
Some non-Catholics were quick to tout the box as evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary, however this does not follow. The ossuary identifies its James as the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus, it does not identify him as the son-much less the biological son-of Mary. The only point that Catholic doctrine has established regarding the "brethren of the Lord" is that they are not biological children of Mary.
What relationship they did have with her is a matter of speculation. They may have been Jesus' adoptive brothers, stepbrothers through Joseph, or-according to one popular theory-cousins. As has often been pointed out, Aramaic had no word for "cousin," and so the word for brother was used in its place. This inscription is in Aramaic, and so there would be little surprise if it were being used in that way.
While the inscription does not establish the brethren of the Lord as biological children of Mary, it does have an impact on which theory may best explain the relationship of the brethren to Jesus. If James "the brother of the Lord" were Jesus' cousin then it would be unlikely for him also to have a father named Joseph. This would diminish the probability of the cousin theory in favor of the idea that this James was a stepbrother or an adoptive brother of Jesus.
The stepbrother hypothesis is, in fact, the earliest one on record. It is endorsed by a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which dates to the year 120, within sixty years of James' death (James died in A.D. 62). According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was an elderly widower at the time he was betrothed to Mary. He already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a virgin consecrated to God. The stepbrother hypothesis was the most common explanation of the brethren of the Lord until St. Jerome popularized the cousin hypothesis just before the year 400.
The stepbrother hypothesis is also supported by the fact that Joseph apparently was significantly older than Mary, as he appears to have died before our Lord's public ministry began.
Bottom line: If the ossuary of James bar-Joseph is that of James the brother of the Lord, it sheds light on which of the theories Catholics are permitted to hold is most likely the correct one, but it poses does nothing to refute Catholic doctrine. If authentic, as seems probable, it is to be welcomed as further archaeological confirmation of the life of our Lord.
James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife (as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book), after our Lord's passion at once ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles and even this is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority.
Hegesippus [the second century historian] who lived near the apostolic age, in the fifth book of his Commentaries, writing of James. says
"After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees."
He says also many other things, too numerous to mention. Josephus also in the 20th book of his Antiquities, and Clement in the 7th of his Outlines mention that on the death of Fetus who reigned over Judea, Albinus was sent by Nero as his successor.
Before he had reached his province, Ananias the high priest, the youthful son of Ananus of the priestly class taking advantage of the state of anarchy, assembled a council and publicly tried to force James to deny that Christ is the son of God. When he refused Ananius ordered him to be stoned. Cast down from a pinnacle of the temple, his legs broken, but still half alive, raising his hands to heaven he said, "Lord forgive them for they know not what they do." Then struck on the head by the club of a fuller such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with-he died.
This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death. He it is of whom the apostle Paul writes to the Galatians that "No one else of the apostles did I see except James the brother of the Lord" [Gal. 1:19], and shortly after the event the Acts of the apostles bear witness to the matter.
The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of the Saviour says, "but the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from among those that sleep)" and again, a little later, it says "'Bring a table and bread,' said the Lord." And immediately it is added, "He brought bread and blessed and brake and gave to James the Just and said to him, 'My brother eat thy bread, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep.'"
And so he ruled the Church of Jerusalem thirty years, that is until the seventh year of Nero, and was buried near the temple from which he had been cast down. His tombstone with its inscription was well known until the siege of Titus and the end of Hadrian's reign. Some of our writers think he was buried in Mount Olivet, but they are mistaken.
See also: Brethren of the Lord and Mary Ever Virgin
The half brothers argument raises some questions..Where were these brithers and sisters when Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem?Did they travel with their father and his wife..there is no mention of others there..Did they go to Egypt with Mary and Joseph?
There are many children mentioned as siblings to Jesus was Joseph an old man? Could an old man have easily made these journeys
Good point. Also, if Joseph was so concerned of himself that he contemplated putting Mary aside for being "with child" and unwed, it hardly makes sense he should himself father children out of wedlock, so these "others" could not have been younger siblings from other spouses.
Hey, grandma....we always left our kids with the grandparents.
It's heresy to suggest he married another woman after Mary, isn't it? It'd bother both Protestants and Catholics. Protestants want MARY to have other kids. Catholics WANT Joseph to be celibate after meeting Mary. (Father of the Church and all that.)
If brothers are blood brothers, then there are only two choices: They had both parents in common or they had only one parent in common.
I understand that in the Nicean/Post-Nicean era that the discussion centered around Mary being "impregnated" by 2 different "husbands" when the 1st husband was still living. They believe it made her into a "loose woman."
How would you argue against Mary being "an adulteress?"
If James is from a previous marriage and Joseph is an old widower how old would this have made James?
One more thought..It is a sin for a woman to refuse to be a wife in all respects to her husband...so if Mary refused that right to Joseph that was a sin..
Now in the long runs none of this matters much ..Jesus is still the product of a Virgin Birth , Son of God..King of Kings and Lord of Lords..
Of course, it also would have been a sin for Mary to be pregnant without being married. So, obviously, we can assume God's plan for Mary must have been unique. Further, where in Scripture does it say Joseph demanded that "right?"
Where in scripture does it say he wouldn't?
It doesn't. So if I were a sola scriptura Protestant, I really wouldn't be able to comment on the matter of Mary's perpetual virginity, one way or the other.
But I am comfortable with Joseph not wanting to have sex with her too..it makes no difference either way Jesus is the Son of God, born by a Virgin Birth ..planned before the foundation of the earth to pay for my sins..He died on the cross and rose from the dead ..He is my Savior and my Lord and my King whether his mom had sex or not..
If it weren't for Catholics that are duped by tradition that contradicts Scripture there would be no need for the foolish discussion on Mary's virginity.
Why is that papists want us to defend our views with scripture and then hide behind the skirt of tradition and sola scriptura when the same thing is asked of them?
Hypocrisy or scriptural ignorance?
That makes no sense..How was a Jewish marriage sealed?
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.