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 ...
Galatians 1
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
As noted in an earlier post, Eusebius refer to James the Just as being a brother of the Lord. As does Clement.
James is mentioned by Josephus in his massive work Jewish Antiquities. We are told that James was sentenced by the Sanhedrin to be stoned:
"But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:" (Jewish Antiquities, 20.9.1)
What else did Eusebius say about James?
He was surnamed “the Just” on account of his virtue
He was the first bishop of Jerusalem
“Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” as the account of the holy Gospels shows. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Savior, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.” But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.” Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, “Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” (Eusebius, Book 2, Chapter 1)
“BUT after Paul, in consequence of his appeal to Caesar, had been sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned against James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. The following daring measures were undertaken by them against him. Leading him into their midst they demanded of him that he should renounce faith in Christ in the presence of all the people.
But, contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with greater boldness than they had anticipated, he spoke out before the whole multitude and confessed that our Savior and Lord Jesus is the Son of God. But they were unable to bear longer the testimony of the man who, on account of the excellence of ascetic virtue and of piety which he exhibited in his life, was esteemed by all as the most just of men, and consequently they slew him. Opportunity for this deed of violence was furnished by the prevailing anarchy, which was caused by the fact that Festus had died just at this time in Judea, and that the province was thus without a governor and head.
The manner of James’ death has been already indicated by the above-quoted words of Clement, who records that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, and was beaten to death with a club. But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows: “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Savior to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James. He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people. Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, Bulwark of the people’ and ‘Justice,’ in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him….
So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, ‘Let us stone James the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, ‘I entreat thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, ‘Cease, what do ye? The just one prayeth for you. And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.”
These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement. James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him”. (Eusebius, Book 2, Chapter 23) Near the bottom of the page.
I agree with you. Very plausible.
The first stage is the period between death and burial. During this time the mourners are excused from all religious duties in order to prepare the burial.
After the burial, a period of seven days of mourning – the “shiva” begins. During this time the mourner does not leave his house...
Luke 23:
53Then he took the body down from the cross and wrapped it in a long linen cloth and laid it in a new tomb that had been carved out of rock.54This was done late on Friday afternoon, the day of preparation for the Sabbath.55 As his body was taken away, the women from Galilee followed and saw the tomb where they placed his body.56Then they went home and prepared spices and ointments to embalm him. But by the time they were finished it was the Sabbath, so they rested all that day as required by the law...
Luke 24 1But very early on Sunday morning the women came to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared (to embalm Him)
The shiva wouldn't have started until they were satisfied Jesus had been given a proper Jewish burial WHICH INCLUDED THE EMBALMING (with spices and ointments)
(1) According to some interpretations of Jewish law, embalming is forbidden. There is some debate among Jewish sages as to the precise point where cleansing the body ends and embalming begins.
(2) According to Jewish law, shiva begins as soon as the body is buried.
Placing someone in their tomb is presumably a burial.
I'm not saying DonQ is necessarily right - just that his viewpoint merits consideration and is not automatically "baloney".
Perhaps Joseph of Arimathea, being a Pharisee, felt that washing Jesus and wrapping him in a shroud fulfilled the mitzvah. Perhaps some other friends of Jesus, who did not come from a Pharisaic background, had a different opinion about whether the body had been properly embalmed or buried.
Further, most Christians take for granted that Christ's being placed in the tomb constituted a burial, as the early creeds attest.
All other things being equal, I don't think there's any principle of Jewish law which says that a body cannot be considered buried until it is washed in spices and ointments. I believe simply washing the body in accordance with ritual ablutions would suffice.
If I may bud in. You are right in saying that it is odd that the Mother of our Lord was not present early that first day of the week as the Holy Scriptures attest to. It is a case where silence os golden. The ancient oral Tradition of the Fathers of the Church shows the belief that Mary, the Mother of God, did not show up because she knew Christ was going to Resurrect from the dead! In fact she would have been the first person whom Jesus showed Himself to. Is it recorded in the Holy Scriptures? No. Does the Holy Scriptures deny this? No.
If you wanted to play games with this, I'll just say that, truth be told, the Holy Scriptures do not record the Resurrection! This most important event is not recorded! It is recorded that He did Rise, but the event itself isn't recorded. Therefore, when seen in this light, the above statement about Mary not showing up at the tomb is sound belief. Sacred Tradition (not to be confused with human traditions) and Holy Scripture are both the Word of God and cannot contradict one another. They complement one another!
And this is recorded clear as day in the Bible! The fascinating thing about it is: while her visit to the Tomb is clear and visible to Christians from the Scriptures, it is completely INVISIBLE to Roman Catholics reading the same exact Scriptures!
p.s. you should know by now that the made-up "traditions" of the Roman Catholic Church hold ZERO WATER with Christians. You guys should all truly know that by now.
The fact the y'all need to go completely outside of the Bible to come up with rationales to believe in RCism, speaks volumes in itself.
First you guys try the "she was sitting shiva" excuse. Then, when that collapses, now it's "Christ told her He would be resurrected so she was off the hook to care for His corpse". After that collapses, RCC spinners will quickly come up with a THIRD alibi.
Anything but believe what the Bible clearly says.
There have to be AT LEAST three James's, and I can readily prove it.
Catholics believe there were only TWO James's. James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphaeus. But notice, here in the "Jesus's family verse" from Mat 13:55:
"Is not this the carpenter's son ? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joses and Simon and Judas ?
Ok, we know the James of Mat 13:55 is not James, the son of Zebedee, because Zebedee's wife is Salome, and his OTHER son is JOHN, who is not mentioned in Jesus's family in Mat 13:55.
We also know the James of Mat 13:55 is NOT the son of Alphaeus, because Alphaeus had ANOTHER son, and his name was LEVI (also called "Matthew") and LEVI does not appear in Jesus's family in Mat 13:55.
Mark:2 14As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at his tax-collection booth. "Come, be my disciple," Jesus said to him. So Levi got up and followed him.
So who is the "James" mentioned in Jesus's family?? There has to be at least THREE James's!
Agreed.
yet not once does Jesus appeal to tradition or the rules of the religious authorities.
Off hand, I don't know if that is entirely accurate, but your point is well taken. Obviously, the Word of God found in Holy Scripture is above any human law or tradition, even of an ecclessial source. I am not aware of anybody on these threads that would deny this - Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. Human traditions and customs - even those in the Church - are not necessarily bad, but cannot contradict God's Word.
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.
But of course! I'm not denying the authority of the Holy Scriptures. We are to believe that Christ is in every page of Scripture. "Ignorance of Scripture is ingorance of Christ" as per St. Jerome. Also note that even Satan will try to use Scripture for his own purposes. Satan even tries to quote the Scriptures against our Lord to tempt Him!
Note that the thrust of Matthew 15 is to religious authorities who used their religious traditions to usurp Scripture.
Agreed, but I'm wondering what your point is. For example later you state that:
...but Jesus told them that Scripture was the final authority.
Well, actually He didn't. He did state: In this way you have made God's word null and void by means of your traditions.
I assume that you are trying to make a point concerning the contention of the Catholic Church that the Word of God is found both in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition? Our Lord is talking about human traditions above and not what the Catholic Church means when She points to Sacred Tradition. Note that, in the Church, valid traditions and customs necessarily develop as well, though they are not the same as Sacred Tradition and are only valid to the extent that they are correctly correlated with the Word of God. The Church, with protection of the Holy Spirit, has to constantly adjudicate these developments as they occur. Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture are of the same cloth, so to speak, they are flip sides of the same coin. By definition they cannot contradict one another but only complement each other. Think of "Tradition" as the guiding force by the Magisterium of the Church in interpreting Scripture. This whole thread is a case in point.
The article itself is about an ossuary box that could have been associated with one of our Lord's Apostles. Some on this thread immediately jumped on it as "proof" that the Catholic Church is wrong in teaching that Mary the Mother of God is a perpetual virgin. Neglecting a commentary on the ridiculousness of that "proof", let's just say that the box was a prop to drive the discussion to the Church's belief. But why the argument?
Because Holy Scripture does not explicitly state that Mary was a perpetual virgin - note the italics. Problem is, Holy Scripture doesn't deny it either. I believe this teaching is implicitly contained in Scripture, and the Church, when it was "early" as now, does too. Others obviously don't. But who has the authority to infallibly state the Truth? God through Christ in the Power of the Holy Spirit does. But how? Through His Divinely instituted Church which He founded and of which Christ is the Head and the Holy Spirit Her Soul. Even the Scriptures themselves state that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of Truth" in St. Paul's 1st Letter to Timothy, and Christ Himself states that He will be with Her "always, till the close of the ages" as well as promising the Paraclete to guide Her in all Truth. Think of Sacred Tradition as the Church's way of living out the Sciptures through time, fleshing out teachings not explicitly given or denied in the Holy Scriptures. This is not the same as "inventing" teachings. The Church cannot do that. The fulness of the Gospel, the deposit of Faith of Divine Revelation has been given to the Apostles in the Holy Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. These are not in an either/or struggle. The Holy Spirit continues to guide and protect the Church in interpreting and bringing this Revelation, this Faith, to the world, and in developing and living out an ever deeper understanding of the Mysteries of God's Plan for mankind found in His Word.
The early Church had ir right when they called Scripture canon, or the measuring rod.
Indeed, Yes! But note that the early Church appealed to both Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture as the Word of God to be followed.
I could use a little help here. None of the Four Gospels mention Mary the Mother of our Lord going to the tomb. Maybe I'm just a night owl like all the early Fathers of the Church, so I'll need you to show me the Scriptural reference for this.
p.s. you should know by now that the made-up "traditions" of the Roman Catholic Church hold ZERO WATER with Christians.
Did you mistype? Is that BS or PS?
I'm not aware of any "made-up traditions".
P.S. Catholics ARE Christians! (The originals, in fact)
P.P.S. As to the rest of your wonderfully erudite comments, neither I, or any others (I think), on this thread can authoritatively or infallibly speak for the Catholic Church. Not everybody, including myself, is a bona fide historian, archaeologist, theologian, Scriptural exegete, etc. I can only speak for myself, but I think others would agree, sometimes we all make mistakes. Then again, maybe that "Shiva" thing is true. Chill out. It's just a stupid thread on FR supposedly about a box with bones.
My belief? Noting that I don't think the Church has bound anybody to this particular analysis, and noting that the Holy Scriptures CLEARLY don't indicate that the Mother of our Lord was at the tomb that first morning, I believe she wasn't there because she KNEW He would Rise form the dead, and in fact already did so and saw her. This is consistant with what a LOVING Son, particular if He is God, would do. The Scriptures are silent, one way or the other, on this point.
Wait a second. A few POSTS ago, catholic freepers were "correcting" me in no uncertain terms that the reason Mary didn't visit the Tomb was because she was deep in mourning and sitting shiva, and unable to leave her house.
Wha'happened to THAT? :-)
Ok, first some "setup"...
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Now, for the "Tomb" verses...
Mar 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;
Luk 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary [the mother] of James, and other [women that were] with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
-------------------------------------------
Please read this along with post # 391, regarding how many "James's" there were.
Mar 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;
Is the above verse from the crucifixion or from the tomb? I think its from the crucifixion.
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.