OSSUARY POSES PROBLEMS FOR CATHOLIC TEACHING

IntellectualConservative.com ^ | November 20, 2002 | J. Grant Swank, Pastor

[az4vlad]

Was Mary perpetually a Virgin? Are Catholics right to challenge people to be virgins for life like nuns and priests?

The box of bones is exciting as a "find." But for Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox theologians, it poses a real problem that could take some of the fun out of it.

These two branches of Christendom believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin. That is, obviously, she and husband Joseph never enjoyed God’s good gift of sex in marriage.

Of course, there is no biblical support for this. In fact, biblical support states that the two had sex. Matthew 1:25 states just that; that is, that after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph enjoyed conjugal relations. Further, Mark 6:3 lists Jesus’ four brothers’ names, and mentioned that He had "sisters."

So there you have it. And when you have it, you can’t have it both ways.

Yet why is this perpetual virginity such a big deal to Catholic and Orthodox? Could it be because celibacy is such a big deal for priests and nuns? So youths are then challenged to be virgins for life like unto the Blessed Mother.

However, once again, there is no biblical backing for this. Instead, the Scriptures state just the opposite regarding Mary.

(The Orthodox believe that Joseph had James by a first spouse. After she died, he married Mary, she birthing only Jesus, thus remaining virginal for life. This is legend with no historical foundation.

Catholics footnote their Bibles by stating that Jesus had no brothers and sisters but that such scriptural statements refer to His cousins. The trouble here is that, in Greek, the terms for "brothers" and "sisters" is not the same as the term for "cousin.")

Other articles by Joseph Grant Swank can be found in the Men's News Daily archive. Therefore, when Andre Lemaire, a specialist in ancient inscriptions at France’s Practical School of Higher Studies, writes in Biblical Archaeology Review that there is very probably an authentic reference to Jesus of Nazareth on an ossuary—the box of bones—it sets up a major problem for Catholics and Orthodox.

The find was in Israel. It would give us the oldest archaeological evidence of Jesus Christ as an historical figure. "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" appears in Aramaic (the language of Jesus) on an empty ossuary—the limestone burial box for bones. Lemaire speculates its date to be 63 AD. He banks that the writing style sets the inscription smack in the time of Jesus and James, leader of the Early Church in Jerusalem.

He states that only 20 Jameses would have had Joseph as father and Jesus as brother in the holy city at that time. Further, inscribing the name of both father and brother on an ossuary was "very unusual." Therefore, this Jesus must have had some unusual notoriety.

Two Israeli scientists with the Geological Survey, having seen through a microscopic exam of the box, inform that there is "no evidence that might detract from the authenticity."

Josephus, first century Jewish historian, scribed that "the brother of Jesus. . .James by name" was martyred by stoning in AD 62. If his bones were stored in a box, such could date to AD 63.

The ossuary’s anonymous owner had not known the value of his possession until Lemaire examined it last spring. Mr. Anonymous says he does not want to deal with pesty reporters or the cost of insurance and protecting the artifact. We might also add that his anonymity will also keep the packs of excited theologians from his door...

[Unam Sanctam]

The ossuary does not say "James, son of Mary." James could easily have been borne by an earlier wife of Joseph's. Therefore, the ossuary poses no problem to the Church's ancient teaching on the perpetual virginity of Our Lady.

[RnMomof7]

I view it as rather unimportant..So what if it was THE James's bones? So What if Jesus had only half siblings or no siblings or full siblings? None of those things affect Him, who He was or that He died for my sins..we need to keep our eyes on HIM

[Snuffington]

Leaving aside the sloppy scriptural exegesis in the article above, this post is a bit late. There have already been more than one other article posted here that pointed out significant problems with the accuracy of the inscription on this Ossuary.

Most importantly, the validity of the section that reads "brother of Jesus," seems to have been added over a century after the original inscription, and in a different hand. Some are considering this ossuary a hoax. It would behoove anyone taking it at face value to at least address the objections.

[Snuffington]

You have both posted articles on this topic. Here is another one for your perusal.

[sinkspur]

Are Catholics right to challenge people to be virgins for life like nuns and priests?

Grant is woefully deficient in his understanding of the English language.

The Catholic Church asks religious order priests and nuns to pledge vows of chastity, not virginity.

Diocesan priests pledge celibacy, which also includes chastity.

Certainly, many priests and nuns are not virgins, which means nothing at all.

[RobbyS]

First of all, it is a box, not a box of bones. Secondly, the inscription may or may not be authentic, the part containing the name of Jesus may be an add-on.

[xzins]

This is true, grant. It doesn't say "James, son of Mary."

The ossuary poses a problem to the "cousin" theory. But the catholics have long proposed that Jesus' brothers could have been related by a different wife of Joseph. Since multiple marriage were permitted in that day, that is possible. It's also possible that Joseph's first wife died before Joseph married Mary.

Beyond that is the fact that the ossuary hasn't been verified yet.

I don't care to treat these kinds of things as "holy relics." I prefer to treat them as archeological finds. They will then have a degree of certainty.

[Salvation]

**the ossuary poses no problem to the Church's ancient teaching on the perpetual virginity of Our Lady.**

Exactly!

[FormerLib]

Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph did not have relations with Mary before she bore a son, not that they had relations. This man is a deciever and all true Christians should ignore his words.

[crazykatz]

BUMP!!

Night-night!!

[Dajjal]

Doctrinally, I am not at all troubled by the allegation that someone named Jakob circa first century had a father named Joseph. I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the extra scratchings. But even if they are authentic, all they mean is that a century or two later, somebody thought that Jakob had a brother or cousin named Joshua. Not much to go on.

[Tantumergo]

"Of course, there is no biblical support for this."

Grant Swank seems to be ignorant of his own Protestant tradition, as Luther, Zwingli and Calvin all argued vehemently for the case of Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

Zwingli in particular considered the case to be closed by the type of Mary that he saw in Ezekiel 44,1-4:

"1 And he brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary, which looked towards the east: and it was shut.
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut
3 For the prince. The prince himself shall sit in it, to eat bread before the Lord: he shall enter in by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.
4 And he brought me by the way of the north gate, in the sight of the house: and I saw, and behold the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord: and I fell on my face."

He saw the temple as a type of Mary, and her womb as the gate through which the Lord God of Israel entered into His creation. After this: "no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut."

As classical Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox all had (at one time) a common belief in this doctrine, I can't see that it serves Jesus' will for His followers to now make this a bone of contention! (Forgive the pun!)

What we can hold in common that does not threaten our respective different beliefs, we should make strenuous efforts to continue holding in common. (IMHO)

[heyheyhey]

OSSUARY POSES PROBLEMS FOR CATHOLIC TEACHING

No, not the Ossuary but the rock from Mars.

[drstevej]

***Grant Swank seems to be ignorant of his own Protestant tradition***

The first five words would be sufficient.

As to the ossuary, time for peer review of the Biblical Archaeology Review Article is needed. Grant Swant is no scholar in this area or other areas he has spammed his 2000 articles about.

***What we can hold in common that does not threaten our respective different beliefs, we should make strenuous efforts to continue holding in common. (IMHO) ***

Here, I disagree. There is no biblical reason to hold to Mary's perpetual virginity. Regardless of support of early reformers, Protestants do not believe in setting doctrine via post-biblical nose counting. We do not believe in Reformer infallibility.

I feel no obligation whatsoever to affirm Mary's perpetual virginity, because there is no biblical basis for it. Whether Mary remained a virgin and there were kids who were step brothers or the 'brothers' were are really cousins is immaterial to me. There is some flexibility in retational terminology in the Bible.

Other extra-biblical Marian doctrines have far greater impact in distorting the gospel, but the ossuary does not address these issues.

BTW, Zwingli's typology of Ezek. 44:1-4 as a reference to MAry is not his finest moment of exegesis. Hardly a slam dunk passage. (Could you provide the reference for this in Zwingli's works? I'd love to read his exegesis of this text and see how Jesus ate bread in Mary's womb.)

[LadyDoc]

First, many sources wonder if the box, although genuine, had the inscription altered at a later date. The inscription is not similar to other osseory boxes, and such boxes are common, and the business of producing relics is an ancient and vigourous industry in that area.

Second, in the passages where Jesus' "brothers" interact with him, they are trying to boss him around. In traditional societies, after the father dies, the oldest brother takes the father's place in authority. For younger brothers to try to force an older brother into giving up preaching in such a public manner would be unacceptable. And if he had younger brothers and sisters, Mary would have been breast feeding and caring for a bunch of kids, and unable to take off and search for him in Jerusalem.

Third, if he had brothers, why did Jesus give Mary to John to take care of? Again, culturally the mother is cared for by the oldest surviving son. She would not go to live with a stranger.

Finally, Catholics believe that these brothers were cousins, partly because James is named as having different parents than Jesus. With extended families, cousins are brothers, and indeed, be brought up in the same household.

Orthodox hold the tradition that these brothers are from Joseph's first marriage, which would explain the fact that the brothers tried to boss Jesus around and wouldn't take care of Mary. Indeed, Islam also holds that Mary was a virgin. So the ancient traditions go back quite far.

I'm basing my arguments on anthropology, but I'm sure that more theological types will find early Church fathers who discussed the problem.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

J. Grant Swank is an idiot.

[LiteKeeper]

Please explain Mt 13:55-56. And not that the brothers and sisters were His followers. That one doesn't fly.

[Catholicguy]

Subject: Mary & Protestantism (The Reformers vs. the Fundamentalists)

One of the great ironies of modern Fundamentalists' claims to be the heirs of the Reformers is that the Reformers themselves NEVER rejected the Virgin Mary the way modern Protestantism (both liberal and Evangelical) does. While they disagreed with the Catholic Church's invocations of Mary and the saints on Christological grounds, NONE of the Reformers ever suggested that the Church's Marian doctrines were derived from "Isis" or "Venus" worship. (This latter Fundamentalist notion is purely a modern fiction which goes back no further than the late 1800's, if even that far. And --quite ironically-- it seems to have been used by Neopagans and Feminists to justify "Goddess" worship and by Feminist "theologians" to rationalize their own ideology.)

Mary & Protestantism: The Reformers vs. the Fundamentalists

Here are some examples of what the Reformers actually believed and practiced vis-a-vis the Virgin:

(1) Luther was radically Christocentric and opposed to the idea of any mediators between God and man except Jesus Himself, and therefore didn't pray to Mary (or the saints) in this context, he was never-the-less devoted to Mary: He often referred to her as the Mother of God, as did most of the Reformers; instructed that the Magnificat be included in Lutheran liturgy; retained the Marian feast days on the Lutheran Church calendar; preached many Marian sermons; and wrote hymns of praise to Mary --as did other Reformation hymnists. He believed in the Immaculate Conception, Mary's perpetual virginity (this last view was also held by nearly all the Reformers), and --according to some Luther scholars-- the Assumption.

(2) Lutheran churches retained Marian statues and images, and even offered limited devotions to Mary (such as the Ave Maria and the Magnificat), for about 100 years after Luther's death. Lutheran teaching, following Luther's lead, also promoted the Virgin as an example and model of Christian virtues for as long, if not longer.

(3) Calvin was not devoted to Mary as was Luther, but always referred to her with respect and honor, consistently calling her "the Holy Virgin" or "the Virgin," (rarely only as "Mary.") Unlike Luther, he didn't accept the Immaculate Conception (but instead considered her free of most sin) or the Assumption, and was undecided on her perpetual virginity (his position was that it was a matter of speculation since Scripture was silent on the issue). Yet, like Luther, he considered the Virgin Mary to be the model Christian who should be emulated and respected by all.

(4) Zwingli endorsed the Ave Maria, and embraced the Virgin's perpetual virginity, but seemed undecided on both the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception; yet he often referred to her as sinless, especially while she was bearing the Christ Child. Like Luther, he had no objections to images of Mary.

(5) The English Reformers retained belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, and most in her Immaculate Conception. Some continued to favor prayer and devotion to the Virgin, but didn't make them an official part of Anglicanism. Partly because of lack of consistent ecclesiastical support and teaching, and partly because of the gradual influences by the Enlightenment on Protestant thinking in later centuries, Protestant Marianism eventually disappeared altogether. But contrary to modern Fundamentalist fantasy passed off as "history," honor, respect, praise, and even devotion, to the Virgin Mary was originally an integral part of classical Protestantism.

<> The further in time one is removed from the original reformers, the less is believed. I suspect that in a nother century or two, folks will never even mention Mary<>

[RnMomof7]

Well Tonto as I have said before my faith is on the Rock that is Christ..His mothers virginity is a non essential . Believing one way or the other will not save or damn anyone.

I do like the tradition..but scripture indicates otherwise..

I do not like elevationg Mary to the platform of godess which too many seem to do around here..