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.

[berned]

Christians are REQUIRED to give a ready answer for what they believe. Polycarp adamantly refuses to do this. This is not about fighting or arguing. This is about Polycarp refusing to answer a simple question.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

[Gophack]

You're right, I meant step-brothers, I was just thinking ahead of myself and not proof-reading! Thanks for pointing it out, and God bless!

[arthurus]

Answer the question I posed to you in # 15

Given the probable forgery of the second part of the inscription, your points in #15 are irrelevant. That they could have been true is irrelevant. Your thesis awaits anoher ossuary or some other discovery. Look at the picture. Your untrained eyes should instantly notice that the left portion of the script is fainter and not so straight as the rest. You hurt your own case by frantically insisting that pyrites must be accepted as gold. Forgery in this instance does not prove that you are wrong thinking that James is the immediate brother og Jesus. It only proves that this piece does not prove anything.

[Myrnick]

I agree. But while you have hammered on Polycarp for failing to answer (to your satisfaction) some questions about Mary's whereabouts on the weekend of resurrection, you have also failed to engage him on his point potentially refuting the legitimacy of this archeological find - in Post #131.

I for one would like to think this is a genuine find. I can even convince myself that the second "hand" is the result of a second person coming along and adding a detail he was familiar with which the carver neglected. But you haven't even given Polycarp the benefit of that shaky theory, let alone any rock solid proof that this is the ossuary of THE James. You've allowed your sight to be clouded by a doctrinal point which in the end, likely won't matter much.

[berned]

I've spent the last hour or so trying to get Polycarp to type a "Y" or and "N".

As to the ossuary, if it's a forgery or a hoax, I will suck it up and admit it. It will be the end of the Biblical Archaeology Society which has done much good work authenticating and dating other finds, and that would be sad.

As to the writing on the box. I'm sure you'll agree that if the writing was done contemporaneously (an addition done in 62 AD) then it merely means that someone added the fact that this was James brother of Jesus to the inscription. That would not be a HOAX. And in fact, would not much affect the veracity of the find.

Now, if someone added those words, say, 20 years ago -- obviously, that's a hoax.

I wonder if electron micography could shed light on that?

[A. Pole]

If so, show the Bible passage which SPECIFICLY states that Jesus' mother, Mary bothered to visit His tomb as He lay dead.

Why don't you show me the passage which states that She did NOT visit His Tomb? You methodology is silly.

[virgil]

I am not too impressed with the discovery of this box. If it turns out to be a hoax then so be it. So-called "evidence" could be used to disprove as well as prove the existence of Jesus and be used as an effective propaganda tool on gullible minds. People who otherwise might accept Christ. Jesus is a matter of faith to me. I don't need a box to prop up my faith.

[B-Chan]

You're like somebody that doesn't understand when someone is being sarcastic, and takes them seriously.

My dear Brother in Christ:

While never doubting your salvation or sincerity, I unfortunately have learned by hard experience to almost never take your ideas seriously.

Praying for you,

B-chan

[sinkspur]

Was it not Thomas Jefferson who is said to have taken a pen knife and deftly cut out those scriptures in his Bible he did not accept as necessary?

And Martin Luther, who just tossed aside entire books from the Bible he didn't like?

[Joshua]

"Yes I've notice..they flee"

Nah, we don't flee. Sometimes it's just nice to sit back and watch you people.

I admit I didn't read the article. Seeing that most on the LAT board don't even believe in a God, it seems a waste of time to read what they write about it. The fact that Poly posted it confirms it's useless.

We have the bible as our proof. We don't need to be looking at box tops with magnifying glasses.

I don't see why Rome would even bother with this. If it turned out to be true they would just come up with a new tradition proving it false.

Scripture or history has never stopped them before..

Lighten up lass...:)

[berned]

I've stated several times that challenges are a normal and routine event in virtually EVERY archaeological find. They ALL get challenged. It's part of the process. I imagine the B.A.S. will want to rebut the challenges soon.

As to my "refuting" post # 131, how would I do that?

Someone makes a scientific discovery, using all the tools and expertise at their disposal. Someone else disputes that find. How can I or you or anyone sitting at a computer "REFUTE" this challenge?

I find the objections they raise to be weak. The mere fact of an addition (if done circa 62 AD) does not spell "hoax". It's merely an addition, as in "Hey, we should also mention that this man James was the brother of Jesus Christ", and added after the first inscription. Perhaps the writer of the first part didn't really know James. Maybe he just routinely put the name of deceased and the name of his father (which the Jews used like we do surnames)

How can I REFUTE the expected challenge?

[Delbert]

I have done a lot of research on relics and found it to be quite fascinating.

[berned]

You didn't gleen where I was going with this. You need to read on.

[Mr. Lucky]

Luther only tossed out the ones you guys added.

[BlackVeil]

Campion I apologise for not reading the thread properly, you had already answered Polycarp's question. The chapter of the Koran you refer to (Maryam), as you say, it shows widespread acknowledgment of the virginity of Mary. Some say that it was drawn from a Coptic "Infancy of Jesus" text, as well as other non-canonical gospels.

There is also a large body of Islamic tales about both Jesus and Mary. Obviously, more folklore than anything else, but quite possibly drawing on early Christian narratives. Springs associated with Mary are credited with many miracles in the Middle East.

The figure of Mary may have influenced the early Islamic community, because of the way that the Shia fastened on to the role of Fatima, Mohammed's daughter. According to Shia doctrines, she transmitted the line of divine guidance and was herself a holy figure. As she was married and had several children, she couldn't be described as a virgin, but some of the claims around Fatima - such as that she never menstruated, was never impure, was "not like other women" - sound like a varient of what some theologians postulated about Mary. Fatima's birth was suppossedly attended by a mystic appartion of Mary the Virgin. Fatima's early and tragic death (a fatal beating by one of the Caliphs) and the later martyrdom of her son Hussayn, set the seal on her image as an icon of Shi'aism. They refer to her as Lady Fatemeh, and attribute great powers of intercession to her.

All this, in the eyes of the majority Sunni Islam, is pernicious nonsense. They say that Fatima was an ordinary, if good, woman, that the Prophet's legacy could only pass through men, that her death was an accident and Caliph Omar a rightous ruler, and that all talk of intercession is an actual heresy. It is not only Christianity that has a few divisions in beliefs ... (grin!)

[arthurus]

. It will be the end of the Biblical Archaeology Society

It certainly will not be the end of BAR and I look forward to the issue(s) that deal with it. BAR does not stake its existence on the truth or error of any proposition.BAR reports on projects in the Holy Land and has articles and letters by eminent and not-so-eminent scientists who discuss and argue about the significance of finds.

[Dataman]

Extraordinary finds need extraordinary evidence to support them.

Only in this case. The vulgarism does not apply to evolution.

[B-Chan]

Oh she was a virgin when Christ was born, but heaven forbid that she would ever have real sex with her husband and have another six or seven or eight or so. That reality would just absolutely muddy the tidy image that many have of Mary...one of eternal chastity and bountiful omnipotent grace!

Your jejeune attempt at sarcasm has failed, dear brother.

"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king."

-- Pope Siricius I, "Letter to Bishop Anysius", A.D. 392

Yes, it is natural and proper for husband and wife to have sexual relations, but there are appropriate and inapproprate places for that intercourse. just because a given bodily function is natural doesn't mean it's always and everywhere okay to perform it. Urination is natural and proper, for example, but there are appropriate and inappropriate places to urinate. Even though a crucifix is only a piece of wood or metal, it's still a symbol of and reminder of our Lord; no Christian would ever piss on a crucifix!

Mary's body and soul were immaculate, made so by the Christ she carried within her. What sort of holy man would St. Joseph have been if he'd wanted to impregnate a womb that had one held God Himself? It would be worse than pissing on a crucifix; it would be an act of carnal desire performed upon the Ark of the Covenant itself.

[sinkspur]

Luther only tossed out the ones you guys added.

Added? Added to whose version? You make no sense.

[Mr. Lucky]

...and if Mary really had another six or seven or eight or so... children wouldn't at least one of them have been decent enough to care for their widowed mother?