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.

[Richard Kimball]

Can't they do carbon dating to find out if it is legit?

Aside from carbon dating, the difficulty with dating stone artifacts is that the material from which the artifact is made will be far older than the artifact itself. With bronze or other metals, you can do some pretty accurate dating (and marking of location of creation) as the metals will have distinctive compositions. With stone, on the other hand, you can get rock from the same area as existing relics, and it will test exactly the same. The indications of multiple people working on the inscription can several things. First, it could be a hoax; second, it could be a hoax from the Crusades, when many "artifacts" were created; third, it could mean that two people worked on the inscription at the time it was made, or shortly after.

The questions raised about the box ask some of the fundamental questions that should be asked about any archaelogical discovery. Most hoaxes are discovered because the person creating the hoax works from a mind set different from that of the people of the era.

[berned]

I dealt with what you posed in posts # 150 & # 161.

When you ask me something I respond. Now, BOTH OF YOU, please respond to my post to you # 170.

I will NOT let you off the hook till you respond.

[Desdemona]

Hey, Campion, how many Marys are there in the gospels? It seriously sounds like my Spanish family's reunions.

[Delbert]

I have seen a webpage on the "Jefferson Bible"...I think all it had was everything that was directly attributed to Jesus or was said by Jesus.

[aruanan]

Well, there's no evidence that he wasn't a widower, either.

In the absence of evidence that he was, indeed, a widower, it's intellectually dishonest to posit that he was in order to support some other doctrine for which there is no evidence.

[Gophack]

At present, I see no reason to believe or disbelieve its authenticity.

I am Catholic, and I agree with you on this point. As a Catholic, however, I believe:

1) Mary was ever-Virgin and had no children after Jesus. This is supported through the earliest testaments of church fathers from the 1st and 2nd centuries.

2) Any references to "brother" in the Bible can also be interpreted as "cousin", "bretheren", or even believers in Christ as the Messiah (for example, all Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ).

3) Joseph may have been married previously, as many theological scholars believe that he was must older than Mary. Some "brothers" may be Jesus' half-brothers through Joseph.

But the point is, whether the "brothers" were "cousins" or half-brothers is irrelevent. Faith demands that we believe that Mary was ever-virgin; who these "brothers" were is irrevelant to our salvation.

God bless.

[berned]

So you are now going on record as saying the SONS mentioned in Mark 6:3 are the sons of ALPHAEUS. That appears to be what you are alleging in note # 166.

Am I correct in stating your belief?

[TotusTuus]

while Helvidius's position was the position of the early church.

I don't know that there is any evidence of this. His position was treated as "new" by St. Jerome. It really wasn't heard from again in both the East and West until after the Protestant Reformation in the West. Even the original Protestant Reformers, i.e. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli taught and believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and therefore, the Mother of God. It is precisely in being 'set apart' for this singular mission in the Divine Plan of Redemption that her Perpetual Virginity is important.

[Desdemona]

In the absence of evidence that he was, indeed, a widower, it's intellectually dishonest to posit that he was in order to support some other doctrine for which there is no evidence.

Well, I trust the church on this one as the notion the Joseph was a widower is taught. They know better than I do.

[Delbert]

Well someday soon, hopefully we can all ask her in person and she can settle this issue for us once and for all.

[Clintons a commie]

Y'know, I haven't been to Church since Easter and I'm not the best Christian in the world these days. But these attacks on the Blessed Mother are sickmaking; from what I remember in theology class, Mary isn't mentioned visiting the tomb on Easter Sunday for two reasons:
1)those who were pictured visiting the tomb where people whose faith may have faltered, and Mary's faith was not questioned by the early Christian Community, as she was the first disciple and the one who said "Serviam" to God(as opposed to Lucifer's "Non Serviam").
2)The most ancient traditions of Christendom suggest that Jesus Christ showed Himself Risen from the dead to His mother before any other disciple. In fact Augustine posited that Jesus was appearing to Mary at the same time that the other women were journeying to the tomb.

Catholic baiters have more respect for 19th century evangelists than they do for the woman who carried their Lord and Savior in her womb.

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

There is very little about Joseph in the Bible. On the basis of the evidence in the Bible, one could say that Joseph was not previously married, or that he was. The Bible is silent on this point.

However, the Protoevangelium of James does record that Joseph was a widower with children. Here is a URL to an Internet copy of this document:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

Of course, this document is not Sacred Scripture, but it is a very early document, from about AD 120 or so. So, St. Jerome was defending a very ancient teaching when he wrote against the heretic Helvidius.


sitetest

[berned]

I fully believe that Jesus' mother Mary certainly DID visit His tomb, at first daylight! As any grieving mother would. She went to care for His body as a loving mother certainly would.

Only Roman Catholics believe she didn't visit His tomb.

[Sabertooth]

The RCC has staked EVERYTHING on it's doctrine of "infallibility".

berned, please explain the Catholic "doctrine of infallibility," with sources.

From whence does the "doctrine" originate, and to what does it refer?

[shhrubbery!]

I would take Eisenman's critique with a large grain of salt. I may be wrong, but I believe he's the atheist 'scholar' who's hell-bent on disproving that Jesus ever existed.

[Irisshlass]

Joseph was forbidden all time due to Jewish law..

[Desdemona]

However, the Protoevangelium of James does record that Joseph was a widower with children.

That's one of the unfortunate traps of following the bible only. So many documents aren't included. I knew it wasn't invented.

Thanks.

[Mr. Lucky]

I think that would be everybody's point. Canonical scripture doesn't address one way or the other how the brothers and sisters referred to in Mark were born. Those of us who believe in Mary's perpetual virginity do so by inference; those who believe that Mary had children subsequent to Jesus found their belief on inference as well. I think the inference in support perpetual virginity is stronger than the inference against it; you don't.

[aruanan]

As far as the perpetual virginity of Mary goes (which is why most people insist that the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" were children of Joseph from a previous marriage), this would have required that she never have sex with Joseph. But it's clear from Matthew that Joseph did, indeed, have sex with Mary. He just waited until after Jesus was born.

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us." When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
--Matthew 1:22-25

[berned]

Yes or no, guys? Is it your belief that the SONS mentioned in Mark 6:3 are the sons of ALPHAEUS?

No more slippery running away. Please answer clearly.