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.

[ET(end tyranny)]

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on St. James the Less, the appellation "James the Just" comes from Hegesippus, quoted in Eusebius, History, book II. Eusebius doesn't use the appellation "James the Less"; he calls "James the Just" the "brother of the Lord" and "bishop of Jerusalem".

Correct, which is why I asked if there were any supporting evidence that James the Less and James the Just are one in the same. Looks like there isn't, thus far.

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.

That may be, but then again Eusebius may be right.

[Campion]

All this fighting from Christian sectarians not rooted in the true Apostolic Catholic Greek Orthodox Church.

Yes, but one group of those "sectarians" is fighting for the belief always and uniformly confessed by the "true Apostolic Catholic Greek Orthodox Church". The other group is fighting against it. So, instead of putting on superior airs over and against those of us who wear bearskins and eat raw meat with our fingers, why don't you contend for the true Apostolic Catholic Greek Orthodox faith?

"Let us remember our all-holy, spotless, most highly blessed and glorious Lady the Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, with all the saints, and commend ourselves and one another and our whole lives to Christ Our God."--the "true Apostolic Catholic Greek Orthodox" Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

[Campion]

which is why I asked if there were any supporting evidence that James the Less and James the Just are one in the same

Then, in your view, the "real" James the Less simply disappeared at some point after the last reference to him in the Bible ... unknown to Eusebius, unknown to history, unknown to Christian tradition ... vanished?

I repeat: Eusebius knows about two early church leaders named "James". Only two.

[Genesis defender]

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

I'm not Catholic, but since you asked for the Bible passage(s) "specificly" saying Jesus' mother Mary visited his tomb, here you go.

Mark 16:1, 2
Luke 24:9, 10

[berned]

I'm not Catholic, but since you asked for the Bible passage(s) "specificly" saying Jesus' mother Mary visited his tomb, here you go.

Mark 16:1, 2

Luke 24:9, 10

I am in total absolute agreement with you! :-)

[berned]

My quick two cents. (given respectfully), re: the Mark 6 passage which names the four brothers of Jesus (James Jude Joses and Simon) and the assertion that there were only 2 James's mentioned in the NT.

We know that the James of Mark 6 is not the son of Zebedee, because Zebedee also had a son named John, who is not named in the 4 brother list.

We also know the James of Mark 6 is not the son of Alphaeus, because Alphaeus also had another son named Levi (Matthew) who likewise, is not mentioned in the 4 brother list of Mark 6.

So the James of Mark 6:3 must be at least a THIRD James. (At LEAST).

[John Locke]

[With reference to John xix:26]

I tend to agree with you. The definite article in the text Gunei, ide ho huios sou should not be taken to imply an only son. Of course, we don't know what the original Aramaic was, but in the Greek of the time the definite article was sometimes used to refer to the most important of a set, thus "the Mistress" was sometimes used to refer to Demeter, and "the son" to the firstborn or head of the family.

Of course, it's all speculation, but my take is that Jesus was telling John to be a chief son to Mary. This also has the interesting implication that Joseph was already dead.

What about other sons of Mary? If they were stepsons, then Jesus might well have preferred that John take care of his Mother. If they were younger sons - no, that's strange; if Jesus were 33, then any younger brothers would surely be full adults. So on balance, this specific verse does tend more to support than to refute the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity.

[John Locke]

Actually, Muslims believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady. It is explicitly asserted in the Koran.

I am unaware of any such assertion in the Koran. Chapter and verse, please.

[BlackElk]

I posted on this at greay length on another thread on this ossuary business. It is too late here tonight for me to do it at length right now. Here is the short form (subject to revision tomorrow when I can pull out documentation) as I recall it. I will post it longer tomorrow:

There are at least three of them: St. James the Greater (meaning older) who was the first bishop at Jerusalem after the Resurrection and Ascension and Pentecost. He was an apostle and he was martyred in about 39 AD, apparently by being thrown from a building. His martyrdom is the only one actually documented in Scripture among the Twelve. He was the brother of St. John the Evangelist (and apostle) and both were sons of Zebedee and they were known collectively as the "Sons of Thunder".

St. James the Less (meaning younger) was also an apostle but did not remain long at Jerusalem. He may have been martyred in Persia but there are no confirmable details of his martyrdom. St. James the Less was NOT St. James the Just. He was the most obscure of the three, apparently.

St. James the Just is believed NOT to have been among the earliest Christians and gained belief in Jesus Christ rather late but he did succeed St. James the Greater as leader of the Church at Jerusalem. St. James the Just was NOT an apostle but he became a martyr in approximately 62 AD when he was stoned to death in the vicinity of the Temple.

One thing that occurs to me at the risk of giving aid and comfort to the reformed amongst us: It seems highly unlikely that James the Just was old enough at his death to be a son of St. Joseph by a marriage earlier than the birth of Jesus Christ since Jesus would have been 66 years old when James the Just was martyred in 62 AD. Jesus was apparently born, according to our calendars in 4 BC the discrepancy being due to different lengths of months in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Tradition has it that Mary lived to be about 55 years of age,that she was about 13 when Jesus was born, that she therefore ceased to live on earth about ten years after the crucifixion (with St. John the Evangelist in Turkey where their house still stands) which would have had the end of her earthly life in about 39 AD since Jesus was 33 when he was crucified. It is generally believed that St. Joseph was well older than she and since no mention of him contemporaneous to Christ's public ministry appears either in Scripture or tradition, he was likely dead by 26 AD.

It seems unlikely that he had illegitimate children on the side while ostensibly married to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. It also seems rather unlikely that they were divorced and finally, it seems very unlikely that St. James the Just succeeded St. James the Greater at Jerusalem as an infant in 39 AD.

This leads me to believe that, if St. James the Just's father was named Joseph, that father was not St. Joseph; that the added inscription on this ossuary (assuming its authenticity as an ossuary regardless of whose) referencing "brother of Jesus" would be likely a subsequent forgery; that it is literally impossible to prove whether or not the box has anything whatsoever to do with St. James the Just.

This is yet another argument that promises to be endless in the absence of proof of the inauthenticity of the box. It is still a matter of faith and likely to remain so. Give Biblical Archaeological Review every benefit of any and all doubts as to integrity, that does not make the publication infallible. Nor, if the magazine is wrong, does that make the author or the publishers liars, just people honestly mistaken.

Source as to all three of the St. Jameses referenced above: a mid-1970s Britannica. More details when I am more awake tomorrow. Good night, all.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Then, in your view, the "real" James the Less simply disappeared at some point after the last reference to him in the Bible ..

First, Last and ONLY reference.

I merely asked IF there were any supporting evidence that the two were one in the same. So far, I haven't seen any.

[FormerLurker]

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

So haven't you, as it is they who gave you EVERYTHING you know concerning the life of Jesus. If they weren't "infallible", then neither is the New Testament.

[mdmathis6]

So you are saying that Mark chapter 6 is false doctrine? I was not trying to be sarcastic, I was trying to get Catholics to look at the original source material. Jesus had real brothers and sisters, how do you suppose they got here?

Sex is ordained by God. The Bible says that the "Marriage bed is undefiled!" Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit and continued to be so until after his birth. After-words she continued to perform her duties as both mother.....and WIFE. Judging from the reproductive results she must have been a very good wife to Joseph....;)

Seriously though your post underscores the problem that many believers have with the Catholic Church...the Bible gets ignored as to what it actually says in favor of the pontifications of so called "church fathers" who "write around" scripture and pluck biblically unsupported blaspemies out of the air(or have had it "whispered to them") and trumpet them as truth! One could argue that St. Jerome might have been the prophet Mohammed had the circumstances been just right...and with the same type of self justifications. I mean come on... I cannot find any biblical basis for what St. Jerome wrote concerning her eternal immaculate and virginal status. Jesus was born of a woman who herself acknowledged her own SINFULLNESS, who called the fruit of her womb.."the Lord of her salvation"
The council of Nicea in 325 pretty much put the Bible together in its present form. There was nothing that came out of that council that asserted that there was a scriptural basis for Mary being for-ever immaculate and virginal..and they even chose to leave Mark chapter 6 in the bible! The writings by various "fathers" were just hyper anal musings from those that just could not get it into there heads that God could find a way to wrap himself in mortal flesh so that he could"surely, he knew our grief and bore our sorrows!". That he could be born of both water(ie: the passing of amniotic fluids during birth) and of spirit(his baptism by John and the empowering given to him by the Spirit). That he might have had a mother who was just an ordinary human being made extra-ordinary by God's choice of her, who declared that she was "saved" by her son, who went on to be a dutiful Jewish wife and lover to her husband, and went on to have other kids besides!

But to certain church "fathers", they just couldn't leave the simple truth of salvation alone...the simple fact that God has a concern for mortals who eat, sleep, copulate, defecate..and die and go to hell because they never accepted the gift of grace he provided for him through the breaking of his body and the shedding of his blood on the cross! Yes God became incarnate and was born from a woman who would indeed later on have her birth canal "corrupted" by semen from Joseph her husband;a woman who even saw it as her holy duty to DO SO, as she would have understood Jewish practice of that era. YET..... the simplicity of the plan was to messy, to involved with the "gross" things of humanity...to actually have God involved in the midst of it all. Yes, Christ was called Emmanuel or "God with us" but we can't have him really "with" us because we can't have God involved with all that "dirty icky stuff". So Mary is to made incorruptible and Christianity must be "purified" from all "icky stuff"....the Bible must be placed in its "proper perspective" and all the "icky" truths in it just explained away by the DOCTRINS of men. We musn't have Christ born from a "icky" woman...don't ya know!

"The marriage bed is undefiled" and Mary is still remembered as blessed for all generations because of her birth and care of Jesus....when she was still a virgin!

[mdmathis6]

At what stage of his life did he write this...I understand that towards the end of his life he was subject to a stange"nervous" condition..subject to rages and confusion much like an alzheimers condition. He wasn't known for his more contraversial views on scriptures and his anti-semitism until later in his life.
We do revere him for what he did in his much younger life, his questioning of established religious practises and the corruption plaguing the church as a whole leading to the Reformation!

[A. Pole]

First, Last and ONLY reference.

OK, James was the British, French and Irish king. It is in the KJV Preface: "James by the grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith , &c."

Case closed!

[A. Pole]

Here is the link: Epistle and Dedicatorie

[VRWC_minion]

You've heard the phrase, "if something is too good to be true, then it probably is"

But that isn't the case here. The evidence isn't conclusive and is debatable.

[metesky]

The inhabitants of the ME have been making a living pawning off phoney relics on the gullible for at least 1500 years.

[ET(end tyranny)]

OK, James was the British, French and Irish king. It is in the KJV Preface: "James by the grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith , &c."

Doesn't say 'James the Less'.

RMELOL

[ER_in_OC,CA]

You wrote: "You've gotta be kidding. You can't think of a reason?"

I noticed you didn't respond to my expansion of this point in the rest of my post. Instead you took a single-sentence potshot, which I'll assume is because you were short on time.

I can't believe some posters here are giving preference to Eisenman, whose I"research" leads him to doubt the historical Jesus of Nazareth even existed to the research of someone with the solid standing of Hershel Shanks.

While Eisenman's other past conclusions which are at odds with most 1st century scholars do not disprove his objections to the Shanks team discovery, they certainly give an early indicator as to his judgement skills on these topics.

So, now that you're in this debate, care to expand beyond your single-sentence reply? Perhaps you've expanded further on this thread, care to point me to your post number?

Can to give me some reasons why Shanks and the scholars would perpetuate a hoax like this? Include deference to the reasonable description of the anonymous ossuary owner's avoidance of money and fame in the Shanks article (perhaps this isn't true). Also, to support your assertion, can you give other examples of poor judgement and outright fraud by Shanks or the other scholars involved?

I've been an occasional reader of BAR over the years, and Shanks has a solid reputation. Furthermore, Shanks is anything but a fundamentalist "I found the Ark" pseudo-researcher. Can you give me some reasons why I should doubt Shanks intellectual integrity?

Again, this "discovery" deserves reasonable skepticism. And it may be conclusively proven to be a forgery -- experts can often be wrong (see the tale of the Hoffmann forgeries). But the article by the professor at the lightly regarded Cal State Long Beach should not be given deference against the long-standing, highly-regarded work of Shanks and fellow scholars, especially in light of his past conclusions about Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christian movement.

[ER_in_OC,CA]

Signal/Noise Ratio WARNING!!!

This thread has become virtually unbearable because of the Catholic/Protestant bickering in here.

Maybe you folks can start a "smokey backroom" thread for your endless debates over whether Mary was a perpetual virgin, etc.?

If anyone posts replies which are actually a discussion of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the discovery, further reflections on Shanks, BAR, Eisenman, Altman, etc. (i.e. anything else ON TOPIC), please ping me: ER_in_OC,CA