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 ...
No verse in Scripture calls James, son of Alphaeus, the brother of Matthew/Levi. In fact, only Mark 2 calls Levi/Matthew the "son of Alphaeus." (Alphaeus, incidentally, was a common name; Halpai in Aramaic. It's entirely possible that James and Matthew were the sons of two different men who happened to have the same name.) Both Matthew and Mark list Matthew close to James in their lists of the Twelve; don't you think they'd mention if they were brothers?
There were two James's. Only two. James the Greater, brother of John, and James the Lesser, also known as James the Just. That's why they have those names, "Greater and Lesser". You would not go around talking about "berned the greater" and "berned the lesser" and "berned the other berned" and "berned some fourth berned we haven't told you about yet".
James the Greater was "put to the sword" by Herod around AD 44, as noted in Acts. James the Less/James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem & "brother of the Lord," also author of the Epistle, and "brother" of Joses, Simon the Zealot, and Jude Thaddeus ... he was stoned to death by the Pharisees (one source says he was thrown from the parapet of the temple first). Josephus dates this as happening in AD 62. (That's not what he calls the year, but we can figure it out from the information he gives.)
None of the ancient sources, including the Bible, specifies a third James, or a fourth, or a fifth. Their relics are unknown. Their manner, dates, and places of death are unknown. Nothing is known about them, because they never existed.
You've heard the phrase, "if something is too good to be true, then it probably is" - the same thing applies in research. The quickest way to be exposed as a fraud is to submit data, for example a graph, which exactly fits the theoretical predictions with absolutely no error (or to use a recent example to submit graphs from two different experiments which have exactly identical noise profiles). In other words if you have too perfect a specimen then that will raise some cackles somewhere.
Every heretic in the world quotes from Scripture, and claims to follow it, and has followers who believe him. You don't need to take my word on that, Martin Luther said it, as did more than one of the early church fathers. Even the Epistle of Peter adverts to it, when it says "Know this first, that no Scripture is of personal interpretation".
The Bible still says that the pillar and ground of the truth is the Church of the Living God. Your FALSE RELIGION implicitly denies that truth, berned, while claiming to follow the Bible.
Hippo and Carthage proclaimed that the Septuagint versions of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras are canonical. In the Septuagint, 1 Esdras is the Apocryphal additions to Ezra while 2 Esdras is the Jewish verion of Ezra-Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. However, the Council of Trent omits the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras and maintains that 1 Esdras is actually Ezra from the Jewish canon and 2 Esdras is Nehemiah from the Jewish canon! Further, Hippo and Carthage state that Solomon wrote 5 books of the Old Testament when in actuality he wrote only 3.I wouldn't stand with Origen on much of anything if I were you.If that's not enough, the Council of Rome did not include Baruch even though Hippo and Carthage and Trent did. Some, to gloss over the inconvenient omission, have maintained that Baruch was counted by Rome as part of Jeremiah, but there's no evidence of that.
It looks like I just refuted your irrefutable facts.
Okay, so what about the rest? Do you discredit them as well?No, Mike. You obviously have the exegetical subtlety of a sledgehammer.
Maybe so, but at least I know my church history.
Yes, but not Catholic in the sense that you know Catholicism today. If you studied up a bit you would be shocked at the contrasts in beliefs between the early Church Fathers and today's Catholic teachings.
Paul doesn't seem to think there is anything 'unusual' or miraculous about Jesus' birth either.
Acts 2:22:1
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
According to the flesh means physical. gasp! Could Paul mean sex?? Oh my!
IIRC, the writings of Paul predate the gospels. (at least the Greek versions)
According to Bishop Papias, (Papi/av), c. 125:
"Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech, but each interpreted them as he could."
Matthew wrote in Hebrew, or more likely, in Aramaic which is a Hebrew dialect that was the language of Jesus' day. He did not write the original Gospel in Greek!
It is obvious that whoever wrote a book called Matthew, the book now known to Christianity and which opens the New Testament was obviously rewritten in Greek by some later person. (most likely written by a Gentile or heavily edited by one) It was probably at that time that the now-cherished traditions of the birth and death accounts were tacked onto the sayings of Jesus! This is also probably when they tried to de-judaize Jesus. jmo
This is what Papias says about Mark:
"And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who was indeed Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who as necessary would make his teachings but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them."
Begs the question. Just who is this Mark? And since this Mark, is an interpreter for Peter, that means that the Gospel of Mark (deceptively named), isn't even giving a first hand account. Also notice he wrote down the sayings and deeds of Jesus, which exclude the birth and death accounts as we now have them. Now if the "sayings or deeds" of Jesus were all that Mark wrote down, and if, as so many authorities now assert, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, from where did the genealogies and the birth and death narratives in the Gospels come from? Even with these questions, keep in mind that this particular "Mark" wasn't personally present at the events and sayings he reports.
The first New Testament was assembled by Marcion in 140 C.E.:
Here are some of the passages which are NOT found in Marcion's Gospel of Christ in his "first" New Testament:
* The birth of John the Baptist.
* The birth of Jesus.
* The baptism of Jesus.
* Jesus' genealogy of Luke 3:23-38.
* The temptation narrative of Luke 4:1-13.
* Jesus' preaching at Nazareth in Luke 4:16-30.
"Marcion, rejected the entire Old Testament. He accepted the following Christian writings in this order:
* Gospel according to Luke
* Galatians
* I Corinthians
* II Corinthians
* Romans
* I Thessalonians
* II Thessalonians
* Ephesians (which Marcion called Laodiceans)
* Colossians
* Philemon
* Philippians
but only after pruning and editorial adjustment. In his opinion the 12 apostles misunderstood the teaching of Christ, and, holding him to be the Messiah of the Jewish God, falsified his words from that standpoint. Passages that Marcion could regard only as Judaizing interpolations, that had been smuggled into the text by biased editors, had to be removed so the authentic text of Gospel and Apostle could once again be available. After these changes, the Gospel according to Luke became the Evangelicon, and the 10 Pauline letters, the Apostolikon.
Marcion rejected the following Christian writings:
* Gospel according to Matthew
* Gospel according to John"
This is William Webster's bogus argument. You know why it's bogus? Hippo and Carthage say nothing about the Septuagint.
The people in Hippo and Carthage were Latin speakers. St. Augustine wrote his works in Latin. The Bible they used was the Old Latin version, not the Greek Septuagint. The "two books of Esdras" in the Old Latin were the same "two books of Esdras" endorsed by Trent.
Maybe so, but at least I know my church history.
You know William Webster's and James White's polemical twisting of church history, you mean.
Here's two
Aug., Retract., i, 21: I have said in a certain place of the Apostle Peter, that [p. 585] it was on him, as on a rock, that the Church was built. but I know that since that I have often explained these words of the Lord, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church," as meaning upon Him whom Peter had confessed in the words, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God;: and so that Peter, taking his name from this rock, would represent the Church, which is built upon this rock. For it is not said to him, Thou art the rock, but, "Thou art Peter." But the rock was Christ, whom because Simon thus confessed, as the whole Church confesses Him, he was named Peter. Let the reader choose whether of these two opinions seems to him the more probable.(Augustine)
Chrys.: That is, On this faith and confession I will build my Church. Herein shewing that many should believe what Peter had confessed, and raising his understanding, and making him His shepherd. (Chrysoslom)
You mean, like the way that Ignatius of Antioch says that one ought not even to speak of the heretics who deny that the Eucharist is truly Christ's flesh?
Or,do you mean the way that Irenaeus says that the one way all men may know that they hold to the Apostolic tradition is by following the faith of the See of Rome?
Or, do you mean the way that various fathers testified to the apostolicity of the practice of infant baptism, some of them saying flatly that the Apostles instituted the practice?
Or, do you mean the way that Origen cousels people on how to pick a good confessor?
Or, do you mean the way that the council fathers of Chalcedon cried out "This is what we all believe! This is the Apostolic faith! Peter has spoken through Leo!" when the Pope's legates read his proclamation?
Or, do you mean the way everyone from the Didache on affirms that the Divine Liturgy is a true sacrifice because it is mystically connected to the Cross?
Or, do you mean the way Clement of Rome demands obedience to his letter, although John the Apostle was almost certainly still alive.
Or, do you mean the way Augustine specifically exempts the Blessed Virgin from any discussion of original sin?
Or, do you mean the way Epiphanius of Salamis said that only Christ and his mother utterly pure and without the stain of sin.
Or, do you mean the way that Jerome rejected Helvidius using words he never, ever used toward those who accepted the deuterocanonicals.
Or, do you mean the way that various fathers (the list is a long one) endorse baptismal regeneration?
I don't find any of those shocking. I do find it shocking that you claim to know the fathers and don't know how completely they would reject anything resembling evangelical Protestantism.
I forgot about James the Greater! You may be correct about James the less being the same as James the Just. Hard to say though since James the less is used only once in the NT:
Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
and at this time, Judas and Simon are not mentioned, plus it would seem that it would be mentioned that Mary was the Lord's mother.
Do you know if there are any early church writings that would confirm that James the less is James the Just?
Yeah, funny what people will do to avoid being killed.
The King James Bible! Poorly translated from the Greek original by half literate northern barbarians who had just recently stopped wearing bearskins and painting themselves blue.
He only mentions two men named James (the other is James the Greater, son of Zebedee). Eusebius (but not Hegesippus) identifies James the Just as a "son of Joseph," I believe erroneously. James the son of Alphaeus just falls off Eusebius' radar screen. (Eusebius does not claim that James was the son of blessed Mary, only the son of Joseph.)
FWIW:
Mark 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
Also John 20 has Mary Magdalene speaking with Jesus, and there is no mention of Mary His mother.
You'd better study up on your history. The death penalty for heresy was unknown until the 12th Century, 700 years after Jerome. Oddly enough, the man who came up with the idea was a heretic, the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa.
The arch-heretics of the first millenium weren't killed. Arius wasn't killed. Nestorius wasn't killed. Pelagius wasn't killed. They were removed from their offices and their writings were burned.
I should add that I obviously believe that that's because James the son of Alphaeus and James the Just were the same man.
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
That's almost funny. From reading your posts, I thought you knew the Bible better than that.
Do a search in the Old Testament, and see how the word "until" is used. It did not imply that the action ever occurred; only that it did not occur before the specified time.
By contrast, in contemporary English, "not until" implies that the action did occur after the specified time. The meanings are totally different.
OT example: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." Was he evicted once his enemies were subdued?
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.