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
The Church that tells us that Mary remained a Virgin and that she was the Mother of God is the same Church that defined the canon of scripture that you readily believe is the word of God and trust. Why you reject what was handed down is beyond me? You trust the men that gave you the bible but not what they held as part of the faith! Amazing!
Also you have not the disability of attending her "Bible school" that teaches such nonsense as she preaches.
Then again, why does she need "Bible school" at all since each of them is guided by Their Own Personal Interpretation of Scripture (TOPIOS: Thank you, Polycarp). What is perfectly obvious to her and others was not perfectly obvious to the reformers themselves who rejected her expressed belief, but never mind!
Which is the more notable title? Son of Joseph or Bishop of Jerusalem?
I don't remember the dimensions of the box, but it just seems like if he was The James, it might say Bishop and Martyr on the box since it was also a big deal to be martyred.
The box is empty. No bones. Sorry.
SD
ROTFLMBO!!!!!!!
First the RCC stakes it's credibility on (and brainwashes their young to believe) a completely UN-scriptural teaching about Mary being "ever-virgin". Then, when they get busted by slam-dunk archaeological evidence exposing this teaching as a lie, they invent a whole new, ridiculous "BRADY BUNCH BACKSTORY" about Joseph (also completely w/out a shread of Scripture to back up), which they themselves never even taught before!!!
O, what a tangled web we weave...
That having been said, your, ummm, "slam-dunk evidence" is nothing of the sort. There was a Washington Post story on this farce which concluded that the circumstances, as reported, would make it impossible for this "slam-dunk evidence" ever to be taken seriously by actual scholars (as opposed to YOPIOS enthusiasts).
1. The ossuary box or lid or whatever is reported to have been purchased by the unknown Muslim (who wishes his identity to remain secret, sort of like Anita Hill and probably for the same reason) of Middle Eastern residence who is said to own the artifact, assuming that it exists.
2. Although the unknown Muslim is said to have purchased the ossuary box or lid or whatever from other Middle Eastern Muslims whose identity or identities if he, she or they actually exist, is also not revealed to us and is not intended to be revealed to us.
3. We are to believe that neither the unknown Muslim buyer nor the unknown Muslim seller(s), despite their residence in a part of the world that has religion as its most important and widespread product (Judaism, Christianity, Islam of recent note) understood nothing of its significance, and would not have been expected to know that there might be some significance top allegations of a James, who was the son of Joseph and "brother" (the Aramaic language having no word for cousin and using the word for "brother" instead, according to posts here by those more scholarly than I).
4. Why, the unknown Middle Eastern Muslim buyer and the unknown Middle Eastern seller(s) were so ignorant of the significance of those alleged relationships that they transacted a price of the princely sum of $70 when berned or his pastor would probably have paid twice that, at least.
5. In fact, all those ignorant Middle Eastern buyer and seller(s) were so much in the dark that they consulted not local Aramaic language scholars but one all the way over in France with whatever he or they showed him (at an expense very far beyond the $70 which was allegedly paid for the artifact itself, assuming that there is an artifact).
6. The unknown Muslim buyer does not want credit for his find nor money from the interestedly gullible infidels in the West (we Catholics to destroy it or hide it forever or you Prods to gain the right to exhibit "slam-dunk evidence" that you claim proves you were right in this controversy, fat chance). No, no, Mr. (Ms.?) Unknown Muslim (Muhammed el Rootie-Kazootie?) is MUCH too public-spirited and even-handed for such crass personal gain, so much so that the Unknown Muslim buyer is too bashful to allow scientists to examine the ancient wonder box of the desert sands, object of a veritable grailquest by reformed folks everywhere.
7. One would think that if the Unknown (and Inscrutably Unknowable)Muslim buyer/owner were a devout Muslim, he (she) would be taking shameless advantage to advance the Muslim agenda that your Savior and mine was merely a prophet and secondary to the truly great prophet Muhammed. But NOOOOOOO, this Unknown Muslim buyer/owner would not want to offend reformed sensibilities enraptured by TOPIOS which would make publication in Biblical Archaeological Review or Biblical anything whatsoever a bit tenuous. Truly, this is an Unknown Wonder Muslim who is so considerate of the tender sensibilities of our reformed friends. What a swell guy! Or what a swell gal, as the case may be! Salaaam!
9. Then we have the little question of where was the ossuary box or lid found by the Mysterious and Unknown and Unknowable Middle Eastern Muslim seller(s) and used ossuary peddlers? Iraq, Iran, Hebron, the Hejaz Grotto?, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Valley of Hinman, the Valley of the Dolls, a garage sale at MGM Studios, the late Gerald L. K. Smith's religious amusement park in Arkansas? We know not, nor shall we know for the workings of grave robbers (in the unlikely event that they have risen to the actually honest and candid level of grave-robbers from the lowlier status of modern-day P. T. Barnums) will be needing to be kept from the gaze of the appropriate authorities who frown on Middle Eastern alleged Ossuary or merely alleged Ossuary box lids Bazaars: Hurry, hurry, hurry: Step right up. What am I bid for this scarcely used ossuary lid which legend indicates may have contained the bones of James the Just, writer of the Epistle of James which Christian literary critic Martin Luther termed an "epistle of straw?"
10. My formerly Protestant and now turbo-Catholic wife tells me that these ossuaries of James, son of Joseph, "brother" of Jesus have turned up on numerous previous occasions. Maybe they were produced by the souvenir ossuary factory?
11. BTW, we don't have a problem with Scripture, just with YOPIOS. Further, of course, we feel not compelled to imagine that each and every thing worth knowing may be found in Scripture.
12. The Scriptures begin in Genesis with Creation of the sun, the moon, the earth, etc. Yet there is no mention of dinosaurs which leads some of my simple Prod friends to the conclusion that dinosaur bones are some sort of conspiratorial hoax or a cosmic challenge by God to one's faith in sola Scriptura since they could not have existed, not having been mentioned in the Scriptures.
"Slam-dunk evidence"?????????? Give it an anti-Catholic rest!!!!!! Isn't your faith in Scripture alone or faith alone or grace alone or all three of them alone or best two out of three alone or whatever? Is it also on ossuaries alone?
But, hey, there ARE prizes for everyone, even you. I happen to know that you can get the one and only diary of Der Fuehrer himself, yes the Adolf Hitler diary (!) from the German magazine Der Spiegel and for less than Der Spiegel paid? Interested? There is also a bridge connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan. On a quit claim deed, I can get it for you wholesale and yours will be riches beyond the dreams of avarice from the tolls you will charge. First, you must pay in collected funds.
God bless!
So now you are divining the Mind of God and telling others what God thinks, what God hates, and what God plans. You are swiftly moving into the company of the foundresses of the Shakers, 7th Day Adventists, and the Christian Scientists.
First of all THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS were also found by a Muslim -- named Muhammad Adh-Dhib. The RCC Cathechism teaches the Muslims are "saved". So I don't understand your RCC squeamishness about a Muslim finding the ossuary.
2. NO ONE in the archaeology-science community has questioned the veracity of the Ossuary or it's dating methods. The box was authenticated and dated by the exact same kind of archaeological science that dates and authenticates every single thing in every museum on earth.
3. The James Ossuary VERIFIES AND SUPPORTS exactly what the Bible already says. Jesus had four brothers -- James, Joses, Jude and Simon -- and that they were sons of Joseph and Mary. This is not a discovery of some new teaching, heretofore unknown. The reason the Ossuary is so exciting is because it verifies SCRIPTURE (For you Catholics, "Scripture" is just a big word meaning "The Bible")
You catholics have been caught lying to the World, yet again. The reason for this is because of your disastrous reliance on N.O.T. V.I.A. D.I.O.S. (Non-truth Of The Vatican's Incorrect And Debunked Interpretation Of Scripture.)
Disputing the authenticity of the Ossuary is a losing proposition. Y'all should give the "Brady Bunch Scenario" another try. ;-)
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.