Posted on 10/26/2002 1:59:09 PM PDT by polemikos
In October 2002 it was announced in Biblical Archaeology Review that a first century stone ossuary had been discovered that is believed to have held the bones of St. James, the brother of Jesus, also known as "James the Just."
An ossuary is a box used to hold the bones of a dead person. Stone ossuaries were widely used by Palestinian Jews between 20 B.C. and A.D. 70.
This ossuary bore the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." It had been bought a number of years previously by a Jewish collector who prefers to remain anonymous. He did not initially realize its potential significance until he asked Andre Lemaire of the Sorbonne, a paleographer or expert in ancient writing, to translate the Aramaic inscription on the ossuary.
James, Joseph, and Jesus were very common names in first century Palestine, and Lemaire estimates that there may have been as many as twenty individuals in Jerusalem who were named James and who had fathers named Joseph and brothers names Jesus. Nevertheless, Lemaire and other experts believe it probable that the James to whom this ossuary belonged very probably was the one referred to in the New Testament as "the brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1:19).
It is extremely uncommon for brothers to be named in ossuary inscriptions. Of the hundreds of such ossuaries that have been found, only two name a brother as well as the father. The fact that this one does so suggests that the brother was considered very important. It is unlikely that there were other men named James who had fathers named Joseph and who had brothers named Jesus that were so important that they warranted mention on an ossuary.
Following the announcement of the discovery, many were quick to ask its potential apologetic significance. If authentic, its immediate significance is that it provides the earliest known inscriptional evidence for the historical reality of Jesus, as well as providing confirmation of two of his family relationships. Previously the only first century data on Jesus and his family has come from literary sources, such as the documents of the New Testament and (with important qualifications) from the first century Jewish historian Josephus.
Some non-Catholics were quick to tout the box as evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary, however this does not follow. The ossuary identifies its James as the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus, it does not identify him as the son-much less the biological son-of Mary. The only point that Catholic doctrine has established regarding the "brethren of the Lord" is that they are not biological children of Mary.
What relationship they did have with her is a matter of speculation. They may have been Jesus' adoptive brothers, stepbrothers through Joseph, or-according to one popular theory-cousins. As has often been pointed out, Aramaic had no word for "cousin," and so the word for brother was used in its place. This inscription is in Aramaic, and so there would be little surprise if it were being used in that way.
While the inscription does not establish the brethren of the Lord as biological children of Mary, it does have an impact on which theory may best explain the relationship of the brethren to Jesus. If James "the brother of the Lord" were Jesus' cousin then it would be unlikely for him also to have a father named Joseph. This would diminish the probability of the cousin theory in favor of the idea that this James was a stepbrother or an adoptive brother of Jesus.
The stepbrother hypothesis is, in fact, the earliest one on record. It is endorsed by a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which dates to the year 120, within sixty years of James' death (James died in A.D. 62). According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was an elderly widower at the time he was betrothed to Mary. He already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a virgin consecrated to God. The stepbrother hypothesis was the most common explanation of the brethren of the Lord until St. Jerome popularized the cousin hypothesis just before the year 400.
The stepbrother hypothesis is also supported by the fact that Joseph apparently was significantly older than Mary, as he appears to have died before our Lord's public ministry began.
Bottom line: If the ossuary of James bar-Joseph is that of James the brother of the Lord, it sheds light on which of the theories Catholics are permitted to hold is most likely the correct one, but it poses does nothing to refute Catholic doctrine. If authentic, as seems probable, it is to be welcomed as further archaeological confirmation of the life of our Lord.
James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife (as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book), after our Lord's passion at once ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles and even this is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority.
Hegesippus [the second century historian] who lived near the apostolic age, in the fifth book of his Commentaries, writing of James. says
"After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees."
He says also many other things, too numerous to mention. Josephus also in the 20th book of his Antiquities, and Clement in the 7th of his Outlines mention that on the death of Fetus who reigned over Judea, Albinus was sent by Nero as his successor.
Before he had reached his province, Ananias the high priest, the youthful son of Ananus of the priestly class taking advantage of the state of anarchy, assembled a council and publicly tried to force James to deny that Christ is the son of God. When he refused Ananius ordered him to be stoned. Cast down from a pinnacle of the temple, his legs broken, but still half alive, raising his hands to heaven he said, "Lord forgive them for they know not what they do." Then struck on the head by the club of a fuller such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with-he died.
This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death. He it is of whom the apostle Paul writes to the Galatians that "No one else of the apostles did I see except James the brother of the Lord" [Gal. 1:19], and shortly after the event the Acts of the apostles bear witness to the matter.
The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of the Saviour says, "but the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from among those that sleep)" and again, a little later, it says "'Bring a table and bread,' said the Lord." And immediately it is added, "He brought bread and blessed and brake and gave to James the Just and said to him, 'My brother eat thy bread, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep.'"
And so he ruled the Church of Jerusalem thirty years, that is until the seventh year of Nero, and was buried near the temple from which he had been cast down. His tombstone with its inscription was well known until the siege of Titus and the end of Hadrian's reign. Some of our writers think he was buried in Mount Olivet, but they are mistaken.
See also: Brethren of the Lord and Mary Ever Virgin
She is a "co redeemer "to them..if she was a wife and mother the mystic suprahuman element disappears
Right you are Mom.
I know that we agreed on this.
The reason for this is your reliance on NOT-VIA-DIOS. (Non-truth Of The Vatican's Incorrect And Debunked Interpretations Of Scripture).
Study the Book of Revelation. The Vatican has now been debunked. Turn to God's Word for TRUTH! (While you still CAN)
Hey!.....I've read several words of it I beg your pardon!
Study the Book of Revelation. The Vatican has now been debunked. Turn to God's Word for TRUTH!
What, prey tell could I learn from The Apocalypse? When the temple will be rebuilt? What candidates to support to insure Israel's security? Where the heifer might be located? Yours is a (forgive me for saying so) a kooky and potentially dangerous interpretation. It's as logical as someone claiming the discovery of a box debunks the Vatican. You said the committee that recommended that Jews not be converted debunked the Vatican. Rice Chex debunks the Vatican in your mind.
(While you still CAN)
How long do I have?
Do you mean "kooky" like the whole "Mary was Ever-Virgin even though had FIVE sons" idea?
Considering the fact that you clearly and admittedly --(What, prey tell could I learn from The Apocalypse?) -- know nothing of the Bible, what exactly are you doing on these threads, where serious people who have studied God's Word for years are debating something they consider important?
The fact that the RCC is filled with a billion "st. Chuck's" -- people who happily admit they know from nothing about God's Word -- is what allows them to ensnare and enslave people with their lies and deceptions.
You're ensnared willingly, and if I am right, you will one day weep and gnash your teeth because of that. (see # 156) But there may be seekers lurking on these threads who thirst for knowledge, discussion, and truth -- and you waste their time, giving your li'l opinions when you freely admit you haven't a clue what the Bible even says.
If you think God doesn't notice that, and you think He considers His Word to be of little importance, all I can say is -- GOOD LUCK.
I meant to say (see # 159) not 156.
What is the chain of custody SINCE it is alleged to have been found?
Who is the owner now?
How was it acquired?
From whom?
Where was it found?
How did the person said to possess the artifact get a French scholar in France to examine whatever was examined?
If that expertise was merely linguistic rather than archaeological, why not consult local Middle Eastern experts on Aramaic? Such questions only begin the inquiry. We certainly would all wish to be as concerned about standards of evidence as to this box or lid as we would be in authenticating a modern document before allowing it entered into evidence in a civil trial.
As I recall, stone does not carbon date very well since it lacks half-lives, not being at any time a living carbon-based organism.
Compare and contrast to the Shroud of Turin which may or may not be authentic but which lends itself to carbon-dating because it is carbon-based plant material converted to cloth. Even then, the carbon-dating process is not foolproof because it has trouble distinguishing the cloth from the damage done by the 14th Century cathedral fire which deposited molten silver on several areas and contaminated the cloth's surface by burning.
I make no claims for the Shroud of Turin or for many other artifacts said to be in the possession of my Church but, objectively, the Church has not been bashful about allowing scholarly research even by atheists and agnostics. The Shroud may the shroud of some other crucified prisoner. With little proof, I tend to think it is the lost Shroud of Odessa, subsequently acquired by a crusading knight and brought to Turin. If it is not, it is not. My Savior and yours liveth in either event.
You are obviously a dependable source for Catholic doctrine.
Why don't you give me the passage so I know that we're talking about the same thing.
Belief that Mary was ever-Virgin is harmless. Belief that you are capable of determining Our Lord's second coming when He clearly said you could not affects U.S. foreign policy and undermines U.S. national interests.....just for starters.
Considering the fact that you clearly and admittedly --(What, prey tell could I learn from The Apocalypse?) -- know nothing of the Bible, what exactly are you doing on these threads, where serious people who have studied God's Word for years are debating something they consider important?
If you are deceminating the idea that the bible teaches that the RCC is evil and is the Whore of Babylon, then I am going to expose you for the liar you are. Your interpretation blaspheme's the Holy Word of God. If you think you are engaging in serious debate, then you are quite deluded. If you don't want someone like me to refute your calumnies don't post them. Or post them on biblefreak.com...not here.
Have at it.
There are hundreds of millions of people who believe the Vatican's claim that it is "infallible" on spiritual matters. Do you think THAT is "harmless"?
Do you think the Inquisition was "harmless"?
Do you think the Crusades had no long-lasting "harmful" effects?
Well, I hope you had a good laugh! ;^) Dominus Vobiscum
Just telling you what I have read here from Catholic freeper ie. Mary was a dedicated temple virgin..no where in the bible..but posted by "knowledgeable " RC's here on FR...also Josephs age ..no where addressed in scripture..Here on FR we are told it is a "traditional belief "that he was aged with other childern"...all "FACTS?? " found in the gospel of Mary..the author of the text notes it is found in the works Jerome ...one of your church fathers..
Do you think the Inquisition was "harmless"?
I think that the Inquisition was beneficial. It struck at heresy, and preserved Christian orthodoxy. Inquisitional courts sat only where Church and state agreed that peace and security were threatened. Civil unrest necessitated these courts (rather than war and vigilantism) and the Church was involved due to the close relationship between church and state. Were there abuses? Yes, but only in a small part of southern Europe where Albigensianism ran amok. For the most part the church served as a brake on the secular courts. The courts of the Spanish Inquisition were the fairest, most lenient, and most progressive in all of Europe. You would probably be surprised to know that Texas kills more people per year than the Spanish Inquisition ever did, and I'm sure that is shocking to you since you know that heresy was a capital crime in Europe in those days.
Do you think the Crusades had no long-lasting "harmful" effects?
The crusades was a defensive war fought to keep Europe Christian. Had not the Crusades occurred you might well be a Koran scholar rather than a "bible scholar."
I answered your questions. Now answer mine. What Can I learn from The Apocalypse?
Wow!!!!
You think torturing and killing people who refused to bow down and worship a man, the pope, was BENEFICIAL???? And you have the unmitigated gall to accuse Bible-loving Born-again Christians of being "religious zealots"????????
Had not the Crusades occurred you might well be a Koran scholar rather than a "bible scholar."
Then why did JP2 formally APOLOGIZE for the Crusades in March 2000, begging the world for forgivness of what he called the Catholic Church's SINS?
Do you know anything about ANYTHING, chuckie? Is there any subject that your ignorance of prohibits you bloviating about?
I answered your questions. Now answer mine. What Can I learn from The Apocalypse?
Well you can learn that there is an organization that God calls "The Whore of Babylon". God tells us He DESPISES this organization, and commands His people to come out of it, or they WILL share in her punishments.God also gives some features of this organization so we can identify it. Among it's features are
1. It is known for wearing the colors red (cardinals) and purple (bishops).
2. It is "drunk with the blood of the saints" (true believers). (In other words, it is known for KILLING people who believed in Jesus Christ).
3. It is a world-wide (not regional) religion that has many adherents in many cultures and nations.
4. It is known for featuring a golden cup. (what other major worldwide religion on the earth today is known for a golden cup?)
5. It features a universally recognized leader. One man. God calls this person "The False Prophet".
6. It is headquartered in "the city that sits on seven hills". Ummm... that would pretty much be Rome.
What I provide for you is reality based on historical fact. What you provide is fantastic speculation on the allegorical content of The Apocalypse. Your malice for the RCC is based on myth, propaganda, and Satan's lies. I told you six months ago if you want to speak credibly about the RCC then you better get to a mass so you can appear to know what you are talking about. But I'm certain that you are more comfortable in your cocoon of ignorance. You don't want to learn anything that might penetrate your armor of prejudice. You are brainwashed.
Well today not only do the infidels live but the Popes kisses the Koran...Holy Spirit must have changed his mind
Well today not only do the infidels live but the Popes kisses the Koran...Holy Spirit must have changed his mind
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.