A Discovery That's Just Too Perfect [James brother of Jesus Ossuary is a hoax-my title]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-eisenman29oct29.story?null ^ | October 29, 2002 | Robert Eisenman

[Polycarp]

COMMENTARY

A Discovery That's Just Too Perfect

Claims that stone box held remains of Jesus' brother may be suspect.

By Robert Eisenman Robert Eisenman is the author of "James the Brother of Jesus" (Penguin, 1998) and a professor of Middle East religions and archeology at Cal State Long Beach.

October 29 2002

James, the brother of Jesus, was so well known and important as a Jerusalem religious leader, according to 1st century sources, that taking the brother relationship seriously was perhaps the best confirmation that there ever was a historical Jesus. Put another way, it was not whether Jesus had a brother, but rather whether the brother had a "Jesus."

Now we are suddenly presented with this very "proof": the discovery, allegedly near Jerusalem, of an ossuary inscribed in the Aramaic language used at that time, with "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." An ossuary is a stone box in which bones previously laid out in rock-cut tombs, such as those in the Gospels, were placed after they were retrieved by relatives or followers.

[Mr. Lucky]

Mark refers to Jesus as the son of Mary. He dosesn't make that reference to any of the others.

[Campion]

the half-siblings of Jesus were recognized for the first several hundred years of church history

Jerome lived in "the first several hundred years of church history." He was there when a man named Helvidius proposed the idea that Mary had had other children. Read his response. (Jerome was not a nice man. Helvidius got both barrels.) Jerome knows nothing of this opinion you claim was "recognized".

[Campion]

At face value, any one without an agenda would say that the speaker just named off members of the same family.

I know what "members of the same family" means to you, as one 21st C. American talking to another.

It had a much broader meaning in Judaea 2000 years ago.

[Polycarp]

The ossuary itself is undoubtedly genuine; the well executed and formal first part of the inscription is a holographic original by a literate (and wealthy) survivor of Jacob Ben Josef in the 1st century CE. The second part of the inscription bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition and is questionable to say the least.

Thanks for posting this.

Berned, since you cannot refute the other critics either, but only impugn their criticism by pointing out other beliefs they hold, you better start your character assassination against the author of this analysis too.

And quick.

Interesting thought:

Might Moslems haoxsters have a similar agenda to prove Jesus had brothers/sisters just like protestant fundies do?

If so, what is it about their beliefs about Jesus that would drive them to perpetuate this hoax, how does it intersect with the protestant heresies about Jesus and Mary, and what does it say about the gullibility of these fundies who have signed onto this hoax that they would be willing to accept the hoax of Muslim extremists to try to further their sectarian and anti-Catholic agenda?

[TotusTuus]

Do Catholics believe that Jesus' mother Mary loved her son Jesus enough to VISIT Him at His tomb after He died?

Why would she visit His tomb when she knew He was ressurrected?

[Delbert]

Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit? hmmmmmm okaaaaay.

[Delbert]

hmmmmmm....I wonder if that's perhaps because Jesus is the topic of discussion?

[Campion]

Might Moslems haoxsters have a similar agenda to prove Jesus had brothers/sisters just like protestant fundies do?

Actually, Muslims believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady. It is explicitly asserted in the Koran.

Since (as a Christian) I obviously believe they got that idea from us, its presence in the Koran, while not proving its truth, certainly proves its antiquity. (Actually, the belief was already centuries old when the Koran was written.)

[Polycarp]

BTW, what do you think of your boy Eisenman

BTW, does it not bother you that you are using a Muslim hoax to try to defend YOPIOS?

Not surprising, that's just about how strong the foundation of YOPIOS really is.

[berned]

So we have an anti-christian nut, who believes Jesus's miracles were faked, and this other woman, against the well-respected Bibloical Archaeology Society, who have examined the inscriptions and vouch that they pass muster.

As I said before, ALL archaeological finds get "challenged". It's part of the process.

I asked you to summarize the strongest points of objection against the veracity of the ossuary so we could discuss them.

If you are saying that the strongest argument is that the inscription "Brother of Jesus" was written in a different hand, one that was "illiterate", that doesn't prove it's a hoax.

The vast majority of ossuaries simply have "So and so, son of so and so". It's rare to add "Brother of _______" It only happens when the Brother is noteworthy or famous.

How is it IMPOSSIBLE for someone in 62 AD to have said, "We really should add that this man was the brother of Jesus Christ" and add that to the inscription? How is that mind-bogglingly impossible?

Do you really think this escaped the eyes of the B.A.S.? If so, do you challenge all the other Bible Archaeology they've done?

It's nice to see you side with Islamic apologists like Eisenman in your fight against Christianity.

[TotusTuus]

He was there when a man named Helvidius proposed the idea that Mary had had other children. Read his response.

What a coincidence. In a different thread I mentioned this to somebody and actually found the treatise on the internet. Here it is:

St. Jerome Against Helvidius

[Polycarp]

Very good point. I'd like to know then what the real agenda of these hoaxsters is. I think the Muslims know who really represents Christianity in the world (how many Muslim plots to kill Billy graham versus to kill the POPE?!?) so this could be their own attempt at psy-ops to drive a wedge further between the differing camps of their enemy, Christianity. (Tinfoil off now.)

[B-Chan]

Did she drop Jesus like a hot potato the minute she saw that He had died?

How disrespectful.

And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda. And she entered into the house of Zachary and saluted Elizabeth. And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. And she cried out with a loud voice and said: "Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb! And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord [kyrios ="kyrios", Lord God"] should come to me? For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord."

And Mary said: "My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

-- St. Luke 1:39-48

All generations will call her "blessed". That includes you, sir. How dare you speak so insultingly of "the mother of my Lord"?

If you don't accept the virginity of Mary, that's your problem -- but to speak of her as if she were some sort of fickle groupie is deeply offensive to any Christian. We're talking about the Mother of God here, not some kind if Judean mall trash! Show some respect!

Shame on you.

[Polycarp]

It's nice to see you side with Islamic apologists like Eisenman in your fight against Christianity.

Its nice to see you embrace what is demonstrably a Muslim hoax in your fight against Christianity.

[Mr. Lucky]

That may well be; my point was that Mark6:3 neither advances nor diminishes the basis for belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

[Desdemona]

If we all agree that the Bible is the word of God and divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, why would we think that we are supposed to take these words at anything other than face value?

What you're doing is looking for birth records in a foreign country using an Ellis Island name.

The bible was divinely inspired. That is not in question. Where the problem is has to do with culture and an ignorance of historical culture. See, what history scholars have to say doesn't dispute the story or any part of the bible, but more of it makes sense with some archiological background considered.

However I have never seen mention in the scriptures while speaking of the nativity story, that it mentions anything about Joseph and Mary trekking across the desert to the Bethlehem version of the Motel 6 looking for accomadations for the 2 of them plus six other kids.

Joseph was a widower. That's there somewhere. As I understand it, at the time, families lived in big groups in multi-level dwellings. The ground floor was where livestock was kept (stable) and the next floor up was a common room which translates to the word "inn" in English. The word in Greek for messenger is "angel--". It's assumed Mary went into labor and they put her in the only quiet place in the house to deliver the baby, which was the ground floor. When she delivered, they sent the kids out to the fields where the older relatives were tending to the flock to tell them that all was well. Because it's not in the bible exactly this way you might not believe it, but language wise, in the orginal Greek, I understand, it does fit.

As to why any children Joseph would have had from a previous marriage are not mentioned, I don't know, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Even the gospels say they they are not a complete narrative. Assuming they are one, is not wise, IMO.

[DallasMike]

Jerome lived in "the first several hundred years of church history."

St. Jerome was born around 320 and died in 420 -- not exactly what I would consider the first several hundred years. I'm talking the first 200 years or so of church history, of which there is ample evidence for my position and scant evidence for yours.

Jerome was also dead set against including the "deuterocanonical" books in the Bible. Was he correct about this, too?

[Campion]

How is it IMPOSSIBLE for someone in 62 AD to have said, "We really should add that this man was the brother of Jesus Christ" and add that to the inscription? How is that mind-bogglingly impossible?

Now you're down to defending a stone box which contradicts the Bible on the basis that it's not IMPOSSIBLE that someone could have carved it in AD 62?

[DallasMike]

In a different thread I mentioned this to somebody and actually found the treatise on the internet.

Thanks. I'm already very familiar with the treatise but I appreciate people who actually go to the trouble to look for them. Not many do.

My point stands though -- Jerome's position didn't become popular until around 300 AD while Helvidius's position was the position of the early church. If I recall correctly, Jerome's defense was written around 380 AD.

[Campion]

I'm talking the first 200 years or so of church history, of which there is ample evidence for my position and scant evidence for yours.

Very little for either one, if the truth be told. People being actively persecuted usually don't have much time for theological debates.

Jerome was also dead set against including the "deuterocanonical" books in the Bible.

Not "dead set" at all. When it became clear he was on one side and Rome was on the other, he obeyed the Pope like the good son of the Church he was.