by Giovanni Baptista Gaulli
An obviously anachronistic one:
Posted on 02/07/2006 10:41:13 AM PST by Between the Lines
Terrific post. Thanks!
MArk, the earlies gospel, was written in 70 AD?
Oh pleeeeeassee... the German skeptics who asserted that were discredited decades ago.
An Aramaic version of Matthew existed in AD 50, and probably served as a source document for Luke. But this version was heavily altered, so we'll let it slide that this wasn't counted.
Acts ends abruptly, with no mention of very significant events which happened just after the actions described in Acts, about 64 AD. The natural inclination, then, is to suppose that those events hadn't happened yet. And since they quite possibly include the execution of the author, his failure to record them is for obvious reasons.
Acts is the sequel to the gospel of Luke, so Luke probably was written a few years before 64 AD. The reason the German Skeptics favored a later date is that Jesus knew of the destruction of the Temple, which took place in 64 AD. Not only is this a presumption that Jesus couldn't foretell a future event, given the goings-on at the time, Jesus' suggestion would hardly have been an outlandish guess.
Luke is based on Mark, so Mark was probably written shortly before Luke.
John attests that it was written by the beloved disciple. Linguistic reasons for doubting that were disproven by the discover of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which revealed that the Essene sect to which John belonged were in fact incredibly devoted to the preservation of scriptures and the literary art of Greek. Scholars had said that John, being a mere fisherman, would have bene intellectually incapable of creating such a literary masterwork; turns out he probably was referred to Jesus by the Baptist because he was a literary master. But John was quite young at the time, and could very well have lived until AD 90. The gospel was apparently written by John himself. Perhaps it existed as several separate papyri which were collected together shortly after his death.
>> (now a familiar term, following the publication in this magazine of the ossuary inscribed “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”) <<
I'm surprised their willing to admit that. That story was an absolute disgrace. And the mistranslation was ridiculous.
(The actual inscription read James, of Joseph, of Jesus, and would normally be taken to mean James, son of Joseph, SON of Jesus. To claim it read "brother of" is so baseless, it borders on outright deception.)
More importantly, the Ossurary of James has been proved to be a fraud... the extended inscriptions having been added within the last ten years.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Incorrect on both accounts, see: http://ingermanson.com/mad_science/james_ossuary
1) It does say Jesus, son of Joseph, BROTHER of James
2) The trial came back with a verdict in 2012 of not guilty of forgery.
1) No. Jesus was assumed into Heaven, bodily. No-one alleges the bones to be Jesus’. However, I did misunderstand the criticism of the translation, but the original criticism is still valid. The ossuary says, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” The article leads people to suppose what is meant is “James, [who is the] son of Joseph, [and who also is] brother of Jesus.” However, what would have been understood in the original would be “James, [who is the] son of Joseph, [who in turn is the] brother of Jesus.” If the former was meant, it would have read, “James, brother of Jesus *and* son of Joseph.”
2) The trial in no way vindicated the assertion that the scratchings were authentic. The jury couldn’t possibly know whether the scratchings were made by Golan or some previous con man. The judge explicitly asserted that this acquittal “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago.” Since the article is written, the finding that the ossuary is a forgery has been challenged by some non-crackpots, such as Dr. Wolfgang Krumbein, but the weight of scholarly opinion remains that it is a forgery. However, again, even if it is not a forgery, it is hardly proof that James is the brother of Jesus, as pointed out in objection #1. Even if it did, you should be aware that Eastern Christianity holds that Mary was perpetually virgin, but that Joseph had other sons by a previous wife (in which case, one could plausibly read it to guess that Joseph was the brother of Jesus, and James was thus the nephew of Jesus; among Jesus’ “brothers” in the bible is a “Joses.”)
1) No. Jesus was assumed into Heaven, bodily. No-one alleges the bones to be Jesus’. However, I did misunderstand the criticism of the translation, but the original criticism is still valid. The ossuary says, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” The article leads people to suppose what is meant is “James, [who is the] son of Joseph, [and who also is] brother of Jesus.” However, what would have been understood in the original would be “James, [who is the] son of Joseph, [who in turn is the] brother of Jesus.” If the former was meant, it would have read, “James, brother of Jesus *and* son of Joseph.”
2) The trial in no way vindicated the assertion that the scratchings were authentic. The jury couldn’t possibly know whether the scratchings were made by Golan or some previous con man. The judge explicitly asserted that this acquittal “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago.” Since the article is written, the finding that the ossuary is a forgery has been challenged by some non-crackpots, such as Dr. Wolfgang Krumbein, but the weight of scholarly opinion remains that it is a forgery. However, again, even if it is not a forgery, it is hardly proof that James is the brother of Jesus, as pointed out in objection #1. Even if it did, you should be aware that Eastern Christianity holds that Mary was perpetually virgin, but that Joseph had other sons by a previous wife (in which case, one could plausibly read it to guess that Joseph was the brother of Jesus, and James was thus the nephew of Jesus; among Jesus’ “brothers” in the bible is a “Joses.”)
... and of course, the bible DOES say “James, the brother of Jesus.” Western Catholics have insisted for many centuries that “brother” refers more generally to kinfolk, including cousins.
Greek Catholics and the Orthodox argue for the perfection of the Greek and insist that if the Greek says, “adelphos,” the original text must have meant “brothers,” even though there was no Hebrew word for “cousin.” The translators, they insist, would have known to use Xathelphos, even though they could not know that solely from any Hebrew text. IN fact, the Greek versions of the birth of Mary supposes Joseph to be an elderly widower. The tradition of Joseph as elderly survives in some Western tradition, even though it would be strange for him to be marrying for the first time at an old age.
by Giovanni Baptista Gaulli
An obviously anachronistic one:
Documentation please.
Catholics insist on a lot of things that are not true. The Greek word for cousin is ἀνεψιὸς (anepsios) as used in Colossians 4.
Colossians 4:10 My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas.
The Greek word for brother used in Matthew 12:46 and other places referring to Jesus siblings is ἀδελφοὶ (adelphoi). It's also used here.
Mark 12:20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children.
Do you seriously think that when the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of scripture that He was unaware of the difference in the two words? The Holy Spirit chose the Greek for a purpose. Simply repeating the Catholic Church attempts to justify the perpetual virginity of Mary only make people to appear cultish.
The Catholic church is repeating the testimony of the Church fathers that the Blessed Virgin remained ever-virgin. THAT’S the Catholic doctrine.
Anepsios is a Greek word with no Aramaic equivalent. Colossians was written in Greek, by someone who spoke Greek, writing to Greeks. Mark is quoting Jesus, who spoke Aramaic.
Greek Orthodox doesn’t like the notion that there could be any distinction between the gospels’ translations into Greek and native Greek. Therefore, they resolve the notion that Mary was ever-Virgin and Jesus had “adelphoi” by insisting that Joseph was a remarried widower; therefore Jesus would have older half-brothers. Catholics find no historical basis for this, so it’s not their preferred way of resolving this, but they do not regard the Greek notion as heretical. They do regard the notion that Jesus had younger brothers as contrary to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
You’ll notice, in fact, that many of these Catholic painters retain the notion that Joseph was elderly, in deference to the Greek notion that he was a widower.
Not guilty of forgery means that they could not ascertain that the accused was the forger:
Authenticity of the inscription has been challenged. The Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) determined in 2003 that the inscriptions were forged at a much later date.[5][6] In December 2004, Oded Golan was charged with 44 counts of forgery, fraud and deception, including forgery of the Ossuary inscription.[7]
The trial lasted seven years before Judge Aharon Farkash came to a verdict. On March 14, 2012, Golan was acquitted of the forgery charges but convicted of illegal trading in antiquities.[8] The judge said this acquittal “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago”.[9]
“James the Lord’s brother.” (Eusebius, Book 2, Chapter 1:3)
or this?
“Jude…the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.” (Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 20:1)
Then we even have secular historians.
“James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ” (Josephus, Antiquities XX, 200)
>>Therefore, they resolve the notion that Mary was ever-Virgin and Jesus had “adelphoi” by insisting that Joseph was a remarried widower<<
Oh?
Against this doctrine (Mary’s lifetime virginity) the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. (¶500, Page 126, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994)
Wait,,,,,,what??? So now Joseph was married to two Mary's at the same time? Or did he divorce the "other Mary"? Or was this "other Mary" of Matthew ......wait, are you sensing what I'm sensing here? Oh what a tangled web they weave.
>>They do regard the notion that Jesus had younger brothers as contrary to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.<<
I'll bet they do!! And they don't even care what scripture has to say on the subject.
>> Wait,,,,,,what??? So now Joseph was married to two Mary’s at the same time? Or did he divorce the “other Mary”? Or was this “other Mary” of Matthew ......wait, are you sensing what I’m sensing here? Oh what a tangled web they weave. <<
You throw in that bit about divorce or bigamy and purposely mix the Greek and Roman views to make it seem like I’m holding an absurd position, but I already explained that the Greek notion is that he was a widower, not a divorcee, not a bigamist.
However, what you point out is one reason why Catholics tend to reject the notion that James was Jesus’ half-brother: the bible clearly lays out that the James, Jude, Joses and a fourth (I forget right now what his name was) were, in fact, sons of a different woman named Mary, who in fact, seems to have been married to (or possibly from) Alphaeus. The fact that four of Jesus’ followers (and, in fact, two of his closest) were brothers and would have the same names as his four brothers and their mother would have the same name as his mother seems a little far-fetched. (Although, because a non-bibilical prophesy that the Messiah would be born of a woman named “Mary,” a crazy proportion of Jesus’ mother’s contemporaries are named, “Mary,” so that part isn’t as unlikely as it may seem.)
Moreover, this other Mary seems to be Joseph’s sister-in-law, which would entirely validate the notion that they were cousins of Jesus.
Only if you purport that the Holy Spirit didn't know what He was talking about when He called them Jesus brothers rather than cousins.
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.