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 ...
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:
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.
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.
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?
Why don't you show me the passage which states that She did NOT visit His Tomb? You methodology is silly.
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
And Martin Luther, who just tossed aside entire books from the Bible he didn't like?
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...:)
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?
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.
Only in this case. The vulgarism does not apply to evolution.
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 Lords body, that court of the eternal king."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!-- Pope Siricius I, "Letter to Bishop Anysius", A.D. 392
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.
Added? Added to whose version? You make no sense.
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.