Posted on 01/01/2014 3:47:12 PM PST by SeekAndFind
A 2,000-year-old burial box believed by some to contain the remains of James, the brother of Jesus Christ, is set to go on public display in Israel, after its owner was cleared of forgery.
Oded Golan, the Israeli antiquities collector who owns the limestone burial box, insists that "this is the oldest evidence that mentions the name of Jesus Christ," according to a report in The Guardian.
"There is no doubt that it's ancient, and the probability is that it belonged to the brother of Jesus Christ," he added.
Golan was cleared by the Israeli Supreme Court of having forged the inscription that mentions the name of Jesus after a 10-year investigation, though the Israeli officials who analyzed the evidence have been accused of vandalizing the box.
"It's not in the same condition as before the trial. The inscription was defaced, contaminated. They poured red silicon into the inscription and they let it dry and when they took it out they took the patina. It's ruined," Golan said.
"I have to evaluate the damage, see if it can be restored and if there is the possibility of carrying out further tests on the inscription in the future that will allow us to show its authenticity. The government said the second half of the inscription was forged – the words 'brother of Jesus' – and that's where the major damage has been done."
People will soon be able to see the inscription for themselves for the first time since it was briefly exhibited in Toronto in 2002. Despite the finding by the Israeli judges that the inscription was not forged, the authenticity of the box remains in question.
"Because of the differences in the depth and the clarity and the kerning (spacing) between the first half of the inscription that mentions James son of Joseph, and the second half, I'd be willing to wager that the second half was added in modern times," offered Prof Christopher Rollston of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem.
Others, however, such as Professor Gabriel Barkay of Bar-Ilan University, have said that it is an authentic inscription.
"The inscription is written in the Jewish script, it was done with a sharp instrument and I think it was done by the same hand. It is an authentic inscription," Barkay said.
The authenticity of the box could also be a point of controversy for the Roman Catholic Church, which disputes claims that Christ had brothers and sisters.
Golan will also offer expert opinions from the trial as part of evidence in favor of the burial box, though further details about the public display have not yet been available. The James Ossuary Trial Jerusalem blog, maintained by journalist Matthew Kalman, offers updated news on the fallout of the trial and the future of the disputed box.
And ... a followup article to my previous post ...
Jesus’ Brothers or Cousins?
By Reese Currie
In articles such as The Truth About Mary, we have quoted verses such as Matthew 13:55 to demonstrate that Mary was not a perpetual virgin because Jesus had brothers. In that same article, we dispelled the argument sometimes advanced by Catholics that these were merely Joseph’s children from a prior marriage, by demonstrating that there was no evidence of other children present during the flight to Egypt.
At the end of that article, there was a question about another Catholic claim, that the Greek word for “brother” is not specific enough and could mean “cousin.” My only response to that was that the Greek word adelphos can only mean brother.
Recently, I had a query from another Internet friend that put a finer point on this question. Apparently the claim is that in Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin,” so the word for “brother” was used instead. I answered that question privately, but it occurred to me that it might be of benefit to all of our readers to summarize some of the stronger points made in that discussion.
The first thing I want to make plain is that the underlying text of the Bible is not Aramaic. God did not choose Aramaic for the language of the Old or New Testaments.
There is a part of Daniel (specifically Daniel 2:4b through 7:38) that is actually written in the eastern Aramaic dialect (as opposed to the western Aramaic dialect that was theoretically spoken in Israel in New Testament times). With that one exception, the Old Testament language is Hebrew.
Interestingly, the portions of Daniel that focus on Gentile nations are in Aramaic, while the portions that focus on Israel are in Hebrew.
All of the apocryphal books (which Catholics refer to as “deuterocanonical,” and were written in the intertestamental period) are in Greek.
Finally, the entire New Testament is in Greek. That is the very precise language God chose for the New Testament.
Now, Greek does indeed have a word for “cousin,” anepsios, which is used in Colossians 4:10 to describe the relationship between Barnabas and Mark. Paul, who wrote Colossians, and evidently knew the word for “cousin”, did not apply it to James, the Lord’s “brother”, in Galatians 1:19. Matthew and Luke also wrote their gospels in Greek, and they certainly had a word for “cousin” at their disposal. They didn’t use it because it was inaccurate: these were Jesus’ real brothers.
But supposing the word “cousin” had not been available to them; would they have used the word “brother” instead? This would not fit the Biblical pattern. I do not know if there is a Hebrew word for “cousin”; if there is, it isn’t used in Scripture. Nevertheless the Old Testament writers still did not fail to differentiate between brothers and relatives who were not brothers.
For instance, Ezekiel 11:15 starts off with, “Son of man, your brothers, your relatives, your fellow exiles and the whole house of Israel...” (NASB). In this verse a “relative” is distinguished from a “brother.”
If you’re like me, and you believe the Bible when it says, “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16a, NASB), you’d have to ask yourself this question: If when God inspired Ezekiel, He was careful to ensure that cousins and other relatives were not referred to as brothers, why in heaven would He let Matthew and Luke refer to cousins as brothers in Greek when Greek actually has a word for “cousin”? That just does not follow logically.
Whenever theologians play these word games to make it appear that the obvious sense of the Scripture is not correct, I am reminded of the verse, “Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers” (2 Timothy 2:14, NASB).
So I hate to participate in these word games at all, but when cultists use them to try to subvert people from the truth, I suppose it has to be answered. I believe the above arguments destroy any notion that the word “brother” is applied in any way erroneously to Jesus’ actual brothers. But there is one other thing I’d like to touch on, which is the outdated assumption that people in New Testament-period Israel primarily spoke Aramaic, an idea that was strongly enforced by Catholic Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ.
In the early 20th century, scholars had come to a consensus that the Hebrew language fell out of use as a spoken language in the 4th century BC, having been supplanted by Aramaic. This theory is outdated. There is mounting archaeological evidence that Hebrew was still in use as a spoken language in New Testament times. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, in its 1958 edition, said Hebrew “ceased to be a spoken language around the fourth century BC,” but in its 1997 edition reversed that, admitting that Hebrew “continued to be used as a spoken and written language in the New Testament period.”
One theory is that Israel was a trilingual state, with Hebrew as the main tongue, Aramaic used for communication with others in the middle east, and Greek used for communication with others in the eastern Roman Empire. Israeli scholars are now convinced that Hebrew was the mother tongue in use in Israel in Roman times.
This makes sense Biblically. For instance, on the cross, Jesus said, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” But the people standing there didn’t know what it meant. If Aramaic was the language in general usage, wouldn’t they have known what it meant? (See Mark 15:33-34).
Also, when Jesus spoke Aramaic, it would be transliterated in the Greek and then translated; for instance, at Mark 5:41, “Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, “Talitha kum!” (which translated means, ‘Little girl, I say to you, get up!’)” (NASB). Why bother to take special note of that if Jesus was always speaking in Aramaic?
In Luke 4:14-30, Jesus reads from a scroll of Isaiah, which at that time, was only available in Hebrew and in a Greek translation; presumably Jesus read the Hebrew. Everyone seemed to understand His Hebrew on this occasion, but few if any understood His Aramaic words on the cross.
In John 19:20, Pilate wrote his sign for the cross in three languages, Hebrew, Latin and Greek. Certain Bible versions translate the “Hebrew” as “Aramaic”, most notably the NIV; and while the NRSV translates it as “Hebrew,” it has “Aramaic” as a marginal note. The actual word being translated, Hebraisti, means “the Hebrew or Jewish language” which can technically mean either Hebrew or Aramaic. But there seem to have been no Aramaic speakers present at the foot of the cross, or if there were, they were in such minority as to be unwilling to correct the scoffers who thought Jesus called for Elijah. It is highly unlikely that Gentiles standing under the cross would even be able to make a connection to Elijah, not likely being versed in the Old Testament, so one must assume the people misinterpreting the Aramaic were Jews, who must therefore have been primarily speakers of Hebrew or Greek.
Speaking of those standing at the foot of the cross, this brings up another Catholic “cousins” argument; if those men who surrounded Mary were her sons, why did Jesus entrust her care to John while dying on the cross?
I think that this argument reads an assumption into the text, that the purpose of Jesus’ comments were to entrust Mary to John’s care, when that’s not necessarily clear from what is really being said.
Let’s look at what this says precisely. In the NASB, John 19:26, 27 says, “When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’ Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.”
Note that the “household” is italicized; that means the word is not actually in the Greek. The Greek in this case is somewhat obscure; all it really states is that John “took her into his own.” His own what? House? Family? Heart? It’s not abundantly clear. It is highly doubtful to me that this meant John’s actual physical home, because whatever transition took place, it happened “from that hour.” John’s home was in Galilee and this took place in Jerusalem. There is no way that John could take her into his physical home “from that hour.” So I think the proper interpretation is, “from that hour, John took her as his own mother” or “from that hour, John took her into his own family.”
Note that 40 days later, John is found in the upper room in Jerusalem, and he is not Mary’s sole caretaker. Mary is indeed there with him, but so are Jesus’ brothers. Acts 1:13,14 says, “When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers” (NASB).
So, if Jesus’ idea was to take Mary out of the care of His brothers and place her into John’s care, obviously His wishes were not respected. Also, there is not a word in Acts to indicate that Mary dwelt in John’s home. One must assume, then, that this isn’t what the incident at the cross meant at all.
What was really being done here? The Catholic argument indicates that Jesus is committing his mother into John’s care, but what if Jesus is actually expressing His kinship and brotherhood to John by having Mary adopt him? Or is He giving Mary John as a son to replace Himself? (It could even be both.)
If Jesus’ main directive is for John to do something, for instance, “John, look after my mother,” why does He address Mary first? Isn’t He really asking her to do something in relation to John first, and John to do something in relation to Mary second? In a sense, then, He is saying to Mary, “Be his mother,” then saying to John, “accept her as your mother.” From that moment, John “took her into his own,” that is, as his own mother or into his own family. But there’s not a shred of evidence from Scripture that John took her into his actual home, nor that Jesus’ brothers were relieved of her care.
There is no need for all this wrangling to support an erroneous theological position concocted in the dark ages by dualistic philosophers that had taken control of the Roman Catholic Church. The Bible says what it means and means what it says: Jesus did indeed have brothers. His mother lost her virginity sometime after He was born. That’s why the Bible very clearly states that Joseph “kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son...” (Matthew 1:25, NASB). That means Joseph didn’t keep her a virgin forever, but until some time after she had given birth to Jesus. The fact that Mary indulged in sex with her husband after Jesus was born does not in any way diminish from who she was; but to claim that her having sex diminished her, as Roman Catholicism does, is an insult to Jesus’ mother!
Jesus’ Brothers or Cousins? is Copyright © 2006 by Compass Distributors to preserve content; permission is granted to reprint.
Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
http://www.compassdistributors.ca/topics/cousin.htm
The New Testament was written in Greek and not Hebrew. It did distinguish between the two. In other words the BIBLE which talks about Jesus and his life here was WRITTEN IN GREEK and Greek is very clear and explicit on the matter.
A better question is ... “How do they say brother and cousin in Greek? ... since the Bible that talks about Jesus’ life was written in GREEK. ... :-) ...
Now the box may not have the remains of Jesus’ brother, but that aside, we do know that Jesus had brothers and sisters, of the biological kind ... :-) ...
See Post #14 and 21 ...
Martin Luther, Calvin and Swingli...all reformers of the church...apparently didn’t get the memo...so it must have developed after their time...
Calvin also up held the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:
I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p.
Joseph had been married before and then this could be a half brother of Jesus. Also, the legend has it that Joseph was 92 years old when he took Mary as his wife. But don’t ask me to prove it. I Wasn’t there at the time.
“Martin Luther, Calvin and Swingli...all reformers of the church...apparently didn’t get the memo...so it must have developed after their time...”
It was enough that Luther recovered the Gospel . It is unrealistic to think he could have restored truth in all areas.
In other words, despite doing the most important thing, there were also lesser areas where he remained wrong. All told, fantastic result.
I never studied ancient Greek so I’ll take the word of an old archaeology professor that terms of relationship are not necessarily exactly translated.
Even if it were true that Jesus had brothers and sisters as we know that term, we do know he had many more disciples who called themselves his brother. The odds would be that the ossuary belonged to the latter group.
RE: There is no Hebrew word for cousin or nephew.
See here:
http://www.dictionary.co.il/hebrew_word.php?topic=h2601&image=h26/h2601005&name=Cousins
and here:
http://www.dictionary.co.il/hebrew_word.php?topic=h2601&image=h26/h2601020&name=Nephew
Also, go here:
Type the word “cousin” or “nephew” in English and choose Hebrew for the translated word.
You’re not being serious and you should learn some history.
Tsar Nicholas II was the wealthiest ruler of his time and also the head of the Russian Orthodox Church which stemmed from the Greek Orthodox Church which was founded before the Roman Catholic Church. Both the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches are the most faithful to tradition in that the divine liturgy has never changed in over two thousand years.
Orthodox priests wear Levitical robes and practice all rites since the time of the apostles including St. Paul. Most Orthodox and Roman Catholics know they were united at one time and they are working on reuniting today. The Orthodox are also known as Eastern Catholics.
The Russian Tsar had monasteries and churches throughout the world and there still exist Russian Orthodox Churches throughout the world today.
The Russian Tsar was and is legally still the titleholder of most of the holy sites in the holy lands. For example, Tsar Nicholas II was the owner of the Temple Mount, the Mount of Olives including the Garden of Gethsemane, the Patriarchs Tomb at Hebron and so many many others. Each of these sites had either a monastery or church that was cared for and overseen by Orthodox priests and nuns. For example, the Church of Mary Magdalene at the Mount of Olives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Mary_Magdalene
Ownership of all sites, churches, monasteries came into question after the Russian revolution. The Orthodox Church responded to communists by forming the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia or ROCOR.
The point is that throughout the Orthodox and Roman Catholic communities today there is a cultural tradition to refer to families as they were in Israel at the time of Jesus. Especially in Russia where so many faithful had to practice underground, they were drawn very close together and they called each other brothers and sisters when they related not only as siblings but as cousins. This was the way it was done in the Holy Land and was faithfully continued in Orthodox Christianity.
There is a great difference between the Tsar’s Russian which is still spoken in Russian Orthodox Churches today and the Soviet Russian.
Siblings and first cousins are referred to as brothers and sisters.
Nephew
The Bible was actually written in three different ancient languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Yes, very good example.
You are correct...my error
Excessive bloviation yellow flag!!
“Especially in Russia where so many faithful had to practice underground, they were drawn very close together and they called each other brothers and sisters when they related not only as siblings but as cousins. “
I call fellow believers brother and sister. This isn’t unique to Russia. It simply ignores the facts under discussion... And Russia remains outside the Holy Land.
Russians have a word for cousin and they can tell a cousin from a sibling. I know this because my daughter is Russian.
Greek also has a word for brother, sister, and cousin. The NT does not use the word for cousin. It could have., but Greek is precise. God inspired the two Apostles to choose the Greek word for brother.
Uh, no. Mary had no other children. If she had had other children, there would have been NO NEED for Jesus to have entrusted the care of his mother to the Apostle John. However, it is possible that Joseph had been married before and had children from a 1st wife. However, these would be step-brothers/sisters to Jesus. Aramaic has no word for cousin either, so don’t even go there.
Despite the lack of a word for cousin in Hebrew, the OT easily differentiates siblings for cousins.
And the passages in question are written in Greek.
Unfortunately Luther, Calvin and Swingli weren’t tasked with the writings of the infallible and inerrant Word of God, as the Bible writers were.
I’ll go with the Word of God as the final authority, as well as God’s choice of using Greek for His inerrant and infallible word, in telling the account of Jesus.
It’s not the first time that Bible commentators have been wrong. And many times those same commentators are extremely offensive when they get way off base in things they write - just like Martin Luther was so wrong and offensive about his Jew-hatred and ANTI-SEMITISM.
On the other hand, we can always depend on the inerrant and infallible Word of God.
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.