Posted on 11/01/2002 10:45:35 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
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".
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.
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?
Why would she visit His tomb when she knew He was ressurrected?
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.)
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.
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.
What a coincidence. In a different thread I mentioned this to somebody and actually found the treatise on the internet. Here it is:
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."All generations will call her "blessed". That includes you, sir. How dare you speak so insultingly of "the mother of my 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
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.
Its nice to see you embrace what is demonstrably a Muslim hoax in your fight against Christianity.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.