Posted on 01/01/2014 3:47:12 PM PST by SeekAndFind
A 2,000-year-old burial box believed by some to contain the remains of James, the brother of Jesus Christ, is set to go on public display in Israel, after its owner was cleared of forgery.
Oded Golan, the Israeli antiquities collector who owns the limestone burial box, insists that "this is the oldest evidence that mentions the name of Jesus Christ," according to a report in The Guardian.
"There is no doubt that it's ancient, and the probability is that it belonged to the brother of Jesus Christ," he added.
Golan was cleared by the Israeli Supreme Court of having forged the inscription that mentions the name of Jesus after a 10-year investigation, though the Israeli officials who analyzed the evidence have been accused of vandalizing the box.
"It's not in the same condition as before the trial. The inscription was defaced, contaminated. They poured red silicon into the inscription and they let it dry and when they took it out they took the patina. It's ruined," Golan said.
"I have to evaluate the damage, see if it can be restored and if there is the possibility of carrying out further tests on the inscription in the future that will allow us to show its authenticity. The government said the second half of the inscription was forged – the words 'brother of Jesus' – and that's where the major damage has been done."
People will soon be able to see the inscription for themselves for the first time since it was briefly exhibited in Toronto in 2002. Despite the finding by the Israeli judges that the inscription was not forged, the authenticity of the box remains in question.
"Because of the differences in the depth and the clarity and the kerning (spacing) between the first half of the inscription that mentions James son of Joseph, and the second half, I'd be willing to wager that the second half was added in modern times," offered Prof Christopher Rollston of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem.
Others, however, such as Professor Gabriel Barkay of Bar-Ilan University, have said that it is an authentic inscription.
"The inscription is written in the Jewish script, it was done with a sharp instrument and I think it was done by the same hand. It is an authentic inscription," Barkay said.
The authenticity of the box could also be a point of controversy for the Roman Catholic Church, which disputes claims that Christ had brothers and sisters.
Golan will also offer expert opinions from the trial as part of evidence in favor of the burial box, though further details about the public display have not yet been available. The James Ossuary Trial Jerusalem blog, maintained by journalist Matthew Kalman, offers updated news on the fallout of the trial and the future of the disputed box.
It could be an authentic first century box with an authentic first century inscription, with an authentic 4th century addition to make it more valuable as a religious relic.
After Helen, mother of Constantine announced that she would tour Palestine to research Christianity, there was a boom in creating relics for her to discover.
Perhaps you have heard of the Holy Lance, discovered by Peter the Hermit during the first crusade? Hitler touched it and felt that possession of it was key to his destiny. Recent tests reveal (Iron has carbon in it) it to be a 7th century fraud. As such, it is a relic of something, perhaps the first crusade, but not of Jesus. There is a nail in it that is consistent with a first century Roman nail, but of course there were quite a lot of them out there.
What really interests me more is this — Is James really the half brother of Jesus? Did Mary have other children after giving birth to Jesus, or did she remain a virgin for the rest of her life?
she had other children, it’s right in the bible.
The experts have long been on the side of this ossuarys authenticity. What I find odd is the refusal to view the inscription like any other ancient inscription.
What’s known about the phrases used by the majority of people who knew Jesus? We know they called themselves “brother”. So the most likely explanation is not that the ossuary contained the bones of a biological relative but rather that it contained the remains of a disciple of Jesus.
This is snake oil that should not be associated with Christianity.
This sort of object idolatry is pretty common in pagan religions, such as fragments of Buddha’s tooth or the like.
A joke by Dr. Martin Luther:
“A German, making his confession to a priest at Rome, promised, on oath, to keep secret whatsoever the priest should impart unto him, until he reached home; whereupon the priest gave him a leg of the ass on which Christ rode into Jerusalem, very neatly bound up in silk, and said: This is the holy relic on which the Lord Christ corporally did sit, with his sacred legs touching this ass’s leg. Then was the German wondrous glad, and carried the said holy relic with him into Germany. When he got to the borders, he bragged of his holy relic in the presence of four others, his comrades, when, lo! it turned out that each of them had likewise received from the same priest a leg, after promising the same secrecy. Thereupon, all exclaimed, with great wonder: Lord! had that ass five legs?”
That’s right. Many families in the ancient world referred to first cousins as brothers and sisters and still do today in Russia.
The meanings then are not the same as in our time.
Of course Jesus had brothers and sisters! The Bible says so!
Of course Jesus had brothers and sisters! The Bible says so!
I don’t know how that hiccup happened ... :-) ...
Really? Where is that verse that identifies someone other than Jesus as Mary's son or daughter?
“Many families in the ancient world referred to first cousins as brothers and sisters and still do today in Russia.”
Have they moved Russia into the Holy Land these days...?
It’s right in the Bible ... :-) ...
Matthew 13 ...
54 And when He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works?
55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?
56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
57 So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”
58 Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
NOTICE that Jesus didn’t say, “Look, you guys can’t even get it right that there were no brothers or sisters in my house and my mother never had any other kids. If you can’t get that right, right in the middle of YOUR OWN TOWN, what makes you think you can get anything else right?”
LOL ...
See Post #14 ...
All of the apocryphal books (which Catholics refer to as "deuterocanonical," and were written in the intertestamental period) are in Greek.Finally, the entire New Testament is in Greek. That is the very precise language God chose for the New Testament.
Now, Greek does indeed have a word for "cousin," anepsios, which is used in Colossians 4:10 to describe the relationship between Barnabas and Mark. Paul, who wrote Colossians, and evidently knew the word for "cousin", did not apply it to James, the Lord's "brother", in Galatians 1:19. Matthew and Luke also wrote their gospels in Greek, and they certainly had a word for "cousin" at their disposal. They didn't use it because it was inaccurate: these were Jesus' real brothers.
But supposing the word “cousin” had not been available to them; would they have used the word “brother” instead? This would not fit the Biblical pattern. I do not know if there is a Hebrew word for “cousin”; if there is, it isn't used in Scripture. Nevertheless the Old Testament writers still did not fail to differentiate between brothers and relatives who were not brothers.
That issue can’t be proven or disproven from scripture. There is no Hebrew word for cousin or nephew. Abraham called Lot his brother, when indeed he was his cousin. As well, on the cross, Jesus gave his mother to John. If he had younger brothers, it would have been their responds ility to take her under their care...as it is...she was given to John. “ there your mother, there is your son” as well, there is no mention of siblings when they had to return to find Jesus in the temple... As well, there is no evidence that anyone believed that Mary had other children in the early church. It is a newer idea.
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.
