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 ...
Please be a little more discerning when you throw out patronizing remarks in such a broad fashion.
Thanks.
Hmmm...clarity of thought. I like that.
It is Jewish practice, presumably going back to Apostolic times (the period of the Talmud) that one minimizes the visits to a loved one's grave during the first year. Additionally, Mary, as a devout Jew, would have been observing shiva, a full week of mourning in which the immediate family of the deceased stay home, abstain from any creature comforts (such as music or perfume), and go without shoes (shoes being regarded as a sign of comfort and prosperity). [see, for example, chapter 42 of Rabbi Chaim Binyamin Goldberg, Mourning in Halachah, publ. 1991 by Mesorah Publishing] Mary might have been observing shiva or, being considerably older and perhaps more griefstricken than the other women, was not among the first to reach the tomb.
As for the part of the inscription that was thought more ancient than the rest, "Jesus son of Joseph" (keeping in mind that Jesus is the Greek equivalent of Joshua) is about as common as "Robert son of William" would be nowadays.
I don't know Shanks, but I do know hoaxes. I'm not accusing Shanks or any of the researchers of hoaxing--any one could have done it and "planted" it. And I can think of a number of reasons some stranger would have. Publicity and hatred of Catholicism, for two.
Here's a Catholic reference, the Catholic Encyclopedia at the New Advent website, that places this James as James the Less. You can also get St. Jerome's Against Helvidius at this site. Seems like pretty sound commentary:
Yes, they're called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
I have no problem with oral tradition. The only problem I have is when those traditions conflict with the Scriptures.
Do you know what the word "canon" means and why the Church uses it as a synonym for the Bible?
Canon means list or rule. The Canon of Holy Scripture is the list of books which are in the Holy Bible. "Bible" itself means library. That's how the Holy Bible got it's name. It is a library of the 72 books containing the Divinely inspired Word of God in Holy Scriptures. I personally prefer to refer to the Holy Bible with either the adjective "Holy", to assure others that it is indeed Holy and not just another human "library", or to refer to the Holy Scriptures as "Scriptures", which means Sacred Writings.
The term "canon" is also used in other contexts in and outside the Church for other phenomena associated with "lists" or "rules". For example, "canon law" or a "canonist" being a type of lawyer.
It would appear that berned has run away.
Yes, it means that, but also much more:
Middle English canoun, from Old English canon, and from Old French both from Latin cann, rule, from Greek kann, measuring rod, rule.]A canon is the standard by which other things are measured. The phrase "it is written" appears approximately 90 times in the New Testament, yet not once does Jesus appeal to tradition or the rules of the religious authorities.
Read Matthew 4 for the story of Christ's temptation by Satan. Jesus certainly could have appealed to Himself, but three times He chose to use Scripture as His final authority. Read also Matthew 15 where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees, asking "why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
Note that the thrust of Matthew 15 is to religious authorities who used their religious traditions to usurp Scripture. The religious leaders of the day thought that their traditions supposedly handed down from Moses had the same value as Scripture, but Jesus told them that Scripture was the final authority. Tradition is not bad, but tradition that obscures and negates the Scriptures is.
The early Church had ir right when they called Scripture canon, or the measuring rod.
BALONEY!!!!!
Then why did Mary Magdelene, Joanna, Salome, and Mary (the mother of James & Joses) all disciples of Jesus Christ, go to the tomb IMMEDIATELY?
Lame "rebuttals" like that do not help your cause.
So your citation certainly does not prove DonQ's theory false.
Sitting shiva is first specifically mentioned in the Mishnah.
The Mishnah was composed of rulings of Jewish sages, many of whom were Jesus' contemporaries, so it makes sense that it was already an old practice at the time of the crucifixion.
According to Jewish law, only parents, spouses, children and brothers and sisters of the immediate family are required to sit shiva.
The practice is considered biblical and is traced to the seven-day mourning period observed by Joseph over his father in Genesis 50:10.
So, far from being "baloney", DonQ's thesis is certainly plausible.
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.