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
You too, dear. You're no more to blame for you un-scriptural beliefs than the liberals who were brainwashed by the media.
A better way to put this would be that he pulled it out of context.
""In Egypt there was a community of women who, associated with the Essene spirituality, observed continence. These women, the Therapeutae, belonging to a sect described by Philo of Alexandria (De Vita Contemplativa, 21-90), were dedicated to contemplation and sought wisdom. "
Were these woman married? If not it has nothing to do with Mary
"It does not seem that Mary ever knew about these Jewish religious groups which practiced the ideal of celibacy and virginity. But the fact that John the Baptist probably lived a celibate life and that in the community of his disciples it was held in high esteem would support the supposition that Mary's choice of virginity belonged to this new cultural and religious context. "
I want to get this straight. He admits Mary knew nothing of this group. He also assumes that John was celibate. Now since his assumption of John's celibacy seems to be in vogue surely Mary followed.
Great reasoning
I love the sentence about John. He uses the words "fact" and "probably" in the same sentence. Was it a fact or probably? Was it probably a fact or in fact it was probably?
"...Thus it should be maintained that Mary was guided to the ideal of virginity by an exceptional inspiration of that same Holy Spirit who, in the course of the Church's history, will spur many women to the way of virginal consecration. "
You think JP could give us a rough idea how many married woman the Holy Spirit inspired to this life of virginal consecration?
I'm not going to bother refuting the rest of this garbage.
Jp makes an assumption and from this assumptiuon gives his take on the assumption.
The sad part is that he does this in the context of interpreting scripture.
" 1 Cor 7:5-6 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. (NIV) "
Paul is not talking about a lifetime of abstinence in this passage as JP has tried to make it. He is using it in the context of a fast. The rest of the verse, which he happened to leave out, says to come together again. How does he get a lifetime of virginity from this verse?
Someone in the Vatican should take the paper and pencil away from this guy and limit his duties to waving at the crowds from his balcony.
"You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." "
"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" Does Mary's response sound a bit strange to you considering that she was getting married? "
Yes it does. I'm sure any engaged to be married virgin, who has an Angel appear telling her she is going to bear God's Son, wouldn't question it at all.
I'm sure if we asked JP to explain he could find us a group of Essene woman who spent their whole life preparing to conceive God's Son
BTW I'm still waiting for your explanation on Luke 2:22-24 on Mary being without sin.
You can't expect all the heresy that Luther obtained as a Catholic to disappear overnight. That's alot of catholicism to beat out of someone in one lifetime.
As for the others Prots can be deceived. Scott Hahn would be one contemporary Prot that would come to mind..
So if your tradition claims Peter traveled in spaceships and I can't find a verse that refutes the claim it becomes true?
Alot of Mormon beliefs can't be refuted with scripture does that make them true.
In 2000 years, if the Lord doesn't come back, the Mormons will be able to claim they have had the truth and a long list who believe it. Does this make their beliefs true?
If we don't use the bible as the guide what do we use? Tradition doesn't cut it. All false religions have tradition.
And it was under blue sky and Mary was under blue sky.
And there was sand on the ground under it. Mary had sand on the ground under her.
And the priest name was Aaron. The priest at Mary's parish was named Aaron.
RNm, I don't see how you can't make the connection.
This Ark theory was put out by one of the RC apologists, can't recall his name. It is laughable what this guy comes up with.
Muslims may find whatever they may. The religion of the finder is not the issue. The existence of the finder is along with all the rest of the curious inscrutable mystery about the source of the alleged artifact. H. L. Mencken should only be alive to write about the purposeful gullibility of the likes of you.
You seem to claim to be more of an expert on the Catholic Catechism than I, an internet street fighter, may be, and I will leave it to others more learned than I to respond as to whether a Muslim may be saved. My suspicion is that more people by far are saved than is imagined by the usual YOPIOS simplistic readings of Scripture.
We Catholics are quite aware of what Scripture is since after all, we gave it to your predecessors in heresy about five hundred years ago and then they passed it to you after truncating those books that contained the truths with which the reformers disagreed. The corruption of the meaning of Scripture according to YOPIOS and TOPIOS of other reformed Christians (each in his or her own favorite flavor of the week) continues apace with each passing year You are stuck relying on your own poor powers of understanding since you are bound by the traditions of reformed men to reject the pope provided for you to give authoritative explication and the accumulated wisdom of twenty centuries effort by those more learned and saintly than thee or me which is to be found in the Teaching Magisterium (which you reject) of Christ's own Church (which you also reject and which rejection defines you.)
Of what possible relevance are the Dead Sea Scrolls?
No one or virtually no one in the "archaeology-science community" has seen or had access to the empty magical mystery box of the desert sands. Thus, it comes as no surprise that scientists will not question the "veracity" (no less) of the MMBODS. They likewise have expressed no questions as to the second and third suns in our solar system (since they do not exist) or as to the mating habits of the mugwump since neither of those look worthy of attention either.
DO you believe in dinosaurs? IS the world roughly and merely 6,000 years old as fantasized by the hilarious buffoon and computer of the cumulative years of the Genesis begats and "Bible scholar" Bishop Usher of the imposed Anglican "Church of Ireland"? If so, please refrain from using the word "science" to support the fantasies emanating not from Scripture but from YOPIOS.
Scholar in Aramaic that you must be to make the claims you make as to that troublesome word for "brother", please prove it by giving us your Aramaic translation of: "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog." You may substitute hyena for fox in case Aramaic lacks a word for fox.
Perhaps you can explain how your dependence on the translation skills and integrity of others is not reliance on the traditions of (reformed) men.
You really ought to study on the distinction between desperation and sarcastic derision.
Why is it so hard to image that Joseph and Mary had a marriage beyond the birth of Christ? That they had children? That Jesus had a brother.
OK. Let's put it into context:
1 Corinthians 7Where did Paul get this idea of "depriving each other for a time by mutual consent" if not from the Essene practice or something similar? Note also that Paul " wish[es] that all men were as I am." Certainly this casts consecrated virginity in a positive light, especially considering the fact that at the time of Mary's consecration she was a Jew.Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Church tradition has always held that Joseph was much older than Mary at their marriage. Scripture seems to indicate that Joseph died before Jesus public ministry thus giving credibility to this tradition. Another ancient tradition is that Joseph had children by a previous marriage and would therefore be more willing to accept marriage to a consecrated virgin.
""In Egypt there was a community of women who, associated with the Essene spirituality, observed continence. These women, the Therapeutae, belonging to a sect described by Philo of Alexandria (De Vita Contemplativa, 21-90), were dedicated to contemplation and sought wisdom. "
Were these woman married? If not it has nothing to do with Mary
Why? How can you be certain that both groups of Jews, the Essenes and Therapeutae, which shared such similar practices would be unknown to each other, especially considering the fact that Mary's cousin's son, John the Baptist, was most likely an Essene?
The Essenes had a monastery in Qumran where some of the members lived lifelong celibacy. There were also married couples associated with them who abstained from sexual relations for short or long periods of time in order to devote themselves more fully to prayer. Paul makes a reference to that practice (which had Old Testament roots) in his first letter to the Corinthians (7:5). Joseph and Mary who were pious Jews may have been influenced by the Essene milieu. For that reason when the angel told Mary she would conceive and give birth to a son, she did not say, "Oh, Joseph and I are going to have a child." No, what she said was, "How is this possible since I have no relations with a man?" Or as another translation say, "since I am remaining a virgin."
Luke 2Mary was a virgin and was therefore not bound by the law. She obeyed the practice out of humility, just as Jesus was baptized out of humility.When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.
Of the Purification of Mary
St. Alphonsus Liguori
[The Presentation in the Temple]In the old law there were two precepts concerning the birth of first-born sons: one was, that the mother should remain as unclean, retired in her house for forty days; after which she was to go to purify herself in the temple. The other was, that the parents of the first-born son should take him to the temple, and there offer him to God. On this day the most Blessed Virgin obeyed both these precepts. Although Mary was not bound by the law of purification, since she was always a Virgin and always pure, yet her humility and obedience made her wish to go like other mothers to purify herself. She at the same time obeyed the second precept, to present and offer her Son to the Eternal Father. "And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord" (Luke 2:22)...
Berned, you obviously do not comprehend that your slam dunk drivel has been destroyed on the basis of true scholarship and intellectual rigor.
But that is not surprising at all.
Well done, Black Elk.
Your note # 88 is genuinely one of the most pathetic "comebacks" I've ever seen on these religion threads. You are so out-gunned in this discussion that you are forced to LITERALLY blather.
I urge serious seekers of truth to read your post to me in # 72, then my reply to you in # 79, then your "comeback" in # 88 (which is about as coherent as Scott Ritter defending Saddam Hussein).
This is the natural outcome 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.) The Vatican committed to thier ridiculous LIE about Mary being "ever-virgin". God saved the James Ossuary for this moment in time. It has now "ever-debunked" the Vatican's lies.
Do Catholics believe that Jesus' mother Mary loved her son Jesus enough to VISIT Him at His tomb after He died? Or didn't she care enough about Him to bother even going to His tomb?
If so, show the Bible passage which SPECIFICLY states that Jesus' mother, Mary bothered to visit His tomb as He lay dead.
Or didn't she care enough?
Oh REALLY???????
Please post the Bible verses to back up what you say.
Umm... Serious students of the Bible don't say "Page 1087" because, see, different companies publish different Bibles and the page numbers are different from Bible to Bible.
Rather, we say, (for example) John, 3:16. It's known as giving "chapter and verse".
Please tell me what chapter and verse you refer to.
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.