Lying Scholars: Rumor, gossip and misinformation swirl around the James ossuary inscription

Biblical Archeology Review ^ | Hershel Shanks

[xzins]

Update—Finds or Fakes?

Lying Scholars

Rumor, gossip and misinformation swirl around the James ossuary inscription

Hershel Shanks

Israeli Scholars Charge IAA Committee with Bias
Fitzmyer Calls for Ossuary Re-Study

Intense scholarly disagreements are common in archaeology. Cases of deliberate lying, however, are rare. Is this such a case? If so, what is the motive?

When I returned from the Annual Meetings* in Atlanta last November, I penned my customary report for publication in the March/April issue.** (I have been doing this in the March/April issue for 22 years.)

For this year’s report, I described a conversation with two scholars who told me that they had seen the controversial James ossuary, now inscribed “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” in the shop of a Jerusalem antiquities dealer named Mahmoud in the mid-1990s or earlier. But when they saw it, on separate occasions, it bore only the inscription “James, son of Joseph.” No reference to Jesus!

One of the scholars was Joe Zias, a physical anthropologist and archaeologist who formerly worked for the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) but was let go during a budget squeeze in 1997. He has been without a full-time job since that time. I will not name the other scholar because he asked me not to.

In late January 2004, after my report on the annual meetings was written but before it was published in the March/April issue, Eric Meyers, a well-known Duke University archaeologist who had been president of ASOR and editor of its semi-popular magazine, Biblical Archaeologist,*** published an article on the Internet describing a conversation he had with Zias and the other scholar.# Apparently they were telling this same story to a number of people assembled in Atlanta. They told Meyers the same thing they told me, down to the same details, except that Meyers declined to name either Zias or the other scholar. In addition, Meyers noted that in August 2003, Zias (unnamed) had given a sworn deposition to the Israeli police swearing to having seen the ossuary in the antiquities shop—without “brother of Jesus” on it.

Apparently relying on his article, Meyers’s colleague Paul Flesher, of the University of Wyoming, told an Associated Press reporter that an Israeli archaeologist [the unnamed Zias] had “told Israeli police he saw the ossuary in an antiquities shop in Jerusalem with only part of the inscription in the early 1990s.” Thus the story was beamed around the world in an Associated Press (AP) story, datelined Laramie, Wyoming. “New evidence,” the story began, “by a prominent archaeologist [Zias, unnamed] should settle questions about the authenticity of a burial box purported to have been that of Jesus’ brother.”

If the ossuary inscription was seen in the mid-1990s without the words “brother of Jesus,” this was indeed damning evidence. If true, the words “brother of Jesus” must be a forgery added at a later time. There simply is no other explanation.

And, as Flesher told the AP reporter, this statement to the Israeli police “also debunks the ossuary owner’s claim he bought the box in the 1970s.”

Are the two scholars who reported the sighting in the antiquities shop telling the truth?

Though Meyers did not name either Zias or the other scholar, he gave us a hint as to the other scholar’s identity. Meyers tells us (accurately) that the other scholar is a “noted Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher in Jerusalem.” In my description of him in my Annual Meeting report, I mention that he speaks in “accented English.”

The evidence that this Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher seems to be lying comes from his own mouth. He has published rather widely on the ossuary. His principal point in these publications is that the inscription’s reference to Jesus cannot be to the New Testament Jesus, to Jesus of Nazareth.1 After all, Jesus was a common name during the first century, and there could well be other people named Jesus who had a brother James and a father named Joseph.

Yet in none of these writings does the “noted Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher” question the authenticity of the inscription—which is strange indeed! After all, the best evidence that the inscription does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth would be the fact that when the scholar (supposedly) first saw the ossuary, the inscription did not include the reference to Jesus!

But the situation is even worse for this unnamed Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher. Not only does he fail to mention what would be the most compelling reason why the inscription could not refer to Jesus (because it was supposedly only recently added), but he also affirmatively subscribes to the authenticity of the inscription as we now have it!

We have recently received references to several writings by this unnamed Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher regarding the ossuary inscription. We quote from them in English translation even though some of them were not originally written in English. In asking yourself how the scholar could say these things if he knew that the words “brother of Jesus” were recently added (because he saw the inscription in the antiquities shop without these words), remember that Meyers rightly describes this scholar as a Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher; in other words, he is an expert in scripts; he specializes in dating and deciphering them (including the Dead Sea Scrolls)—and in spotting forgeries! Yet the scholar seems to regard the James ossuary inscription in its entirety as authentic. Here are two quotations from this Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher’s writings:

Even if [the ossuary’s] owner contradicted himself several times about the time and the place of purchase, a priori there is no sufficient proof to doubt its authenticity, or then the forger would have to be an excellent paleographer, a specialist of cursive writing from the first century before Christ and the following centuries, much better than most of the decipherers of the Dead Sea manuscripts from my experience.

Moreover, it is far from being proven that the second part of the inscription was added by another hand as some have recently claimed ... A priori again, the same scribe engraved the entire inscription.

Yet the unnamed epigrapher now tells us that only recently were the words “brother of Jesus” added to the inscription.

In an English venue this noted Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher denies in the strongest possible terms that the inscription refers to Jesus of Nazareth. It is “absolutely impossible,” he says, to pinpoint the date of the inscription to the “decade preceding the fall of Jerusalem.” Moreover, if this were the New Testament James, it would be “expected” to be inscribed “James the Just” or “the brother of the Lord/Messiah,” not simply “brother of Jesus.” Our noted epigrapher then claims that “the specific relationship of James and Jesus in our ossuary is quite simply indeterminable ... The term ‘brother’ actually concurrently meant blood brother, half-brother, husband, uncle, nephew, cousin, friend, and companion.” As for the Biblical text, he says, “It was only popular hearsay that he [James] was thought to be the ‘son of Joseph.’” For these and other reasons, the inscription, in his view, cannot possibly refer to Jesus of Nazareth. But the one argument that he—this great epigrapher—does not make is that the inscription is a modern forgery. Yet he now claims to have seen the ossuary inscription without the reference to Jesus!

More recently this noted Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher published another article in English taking the same position as in his earlier English publications. Again, he fails to make any mention of having seen the ossuary at a time when the inscription did not include the key words “brother of Jesus.”

Elsewhere, to demonstrate this inscription cannot refer to Jesus of the New Testament, the epigrapher notes that in John 19:25-27, Jesus entrusts his mother to the Beloved Disciple. “If Jesus had had brothers, it would have been difficult to entrust her to someone other than her genetic brothers for whom (since Joseph must have died before Jesus’ active public life) it would have been a duty of filial loyalty.” In short, Jesus of Nazareth had no brothers. So this ossuary inscription cannot refer to him. But why not just say, “I saw this ossuary years ago without the reference to Jesus”?

The noted Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher provides what he calls a “simpler explanation” of the inscription: “A brother by the name of Jesus, not a son of James if he was married, had deposited the bones in the ossuary, hence the mention of his name.” Is this the statement of a person who had seen the ossuary without the mention of “brother of Jesus”?

Nor is there any doubt that the noted epigrapher claims to have seen the ossuary without the reference to Jesus, for he told the same story to both Meyers and me.

It is time for this “noted Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher” to identify himself and explain how it is possible that he could make these statements after having seen the ossuary inscription years earlier without the words “brother of Jesus.” If he is not disposed to come out of the shadows, his institution should urge him to. His identity is widely known in the academic community. This is not a matter that will easily go away.

But what about Zias? Is there reason to suspect his veracity? Though he has not written about the ossuary and its inscription, an obvious question arises: Why has he waited so long to come out with this clear “evidence” of forgery, especially as he is “certain,” according to Meyers’s account, that the ossuary he saw in the mid-1990s, without the reference to Jesus, is the same as the ossuary that now has that reference. (Moreover, at the time, Zias was an employee of the Israel Antiquities Authority, which would have had an interest in the ossuary inscription even without the reference to the “brother of Jesus.”)

The original article on the ossuary inscription, by Sorbonne epigrapher André Lemaire, appeared in the November/December 2002 BAR.## One would have thought that Zias would immediately have called this damning evidence of forgery to someone’s attention. The matter was controversial almost from the start. Through it all, however, Zias apparently chose to remain silent—until late 2003. Why? He, too, should explain himself.

Something else seems strange: The antiquities dealer supposedly told Zias that the ossuary was his “retirement pension,” an apparent reference to the extraordinary price it would fetch on the market. (Zias told both Meyers and me of the antiquities dealer’s reference to his pension, as we each reported.) But simply inscribed “James, son of Joseph” it would not be worth such a large amount. Both names—James and Joseph—were common at the time. Thus inscribed, the ossuary would hardly represent a retirement fund. Was the antiquities dealer telling Zias that the ossuary inscription would be changed—forged—to add something that would vastly increase its value? It would seem strange indeed that the antiquities dealer would tell Zias, then an employee of the Israel Antiquities Authority, that the ossuary inscription was about to be forged. But what else could the antiquities dealer have meant? Or did he not say it?

Something else: The whole theory that a forger added the words “brother of Jesus” to an authentic inscription with the words “James, son of Joseph” is not believable. For a few hundred dollars, a forger could buy a readily available uninscribed ossuary on which he could engrave whatever he wanted. There would be no need to start with a relatively expensive ossuary inscribed “James, son of Joseph.” Even more important, a forger who started with an authentic inscription would have to try to imitate the style of the inscription that was already there—not an easy thing to do. Why undertake such a difficult project? Simply start with an uninscribed ossuary and avoid the problem.

So the whole theory that the forger started with an authentic inscription that read “James, son of Joseph” is suspect, unrealistic and unconvincing.

In his Internet article, Meyers also writes that Zias (unnamed) told him that a lawyer for the owner of the ossuary offered it for $2 million to the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem in 2001. Oded Golan, the ossuary’s owner, has long claimed that he didn’t understand the significance of the inscription until Lemaire made him aware of it in April 2002. If Golan had offered the ossuary to the Christian Embassy in 2001, he is a bare-faced liar because he knew of its significance earlier. Again, on its face, the evidence is damning. One would think that before going on the Internet with such damning evidence, especially from an unnamed source, Meyers would check it out. After all, it would be simple enough to call the International Christian Embassy.

But he didn’t, so I did. Malcolm Hedding, the executive director of the International Christian Embassy, told me that his records showed that at 11:00 a.m. on November 28, 2002 (not 2001), he was visited by a certain Uri Ovnat, who showed Hedding Lemaire’s article in BAR (which had come out in late October 2002, a month earlier, and had created a storm of publicity) and urged Hedding to buy it. Ovnat is not a lawyer and, Oded Golan, the owner of the ossuary, says, Ovnat was not authorized by him to offer it to anyone, let alone to the International Christian Embassy. Ovnat’s card, which he left with Hedding, says he is the head of a marketing business called International Marketing Development Enterprises, Ltd.

I called Ovnat to get his side of the story. He said he knows Golan and had worked with him on a proposed Internet project three years earlier. Nothing came of it, however. When the publicity came out following the publication of Lemaire’s article in BAR, he called Golan and asked Golan “if I could help.” Golan claims that Ovnat visited the International Christian Embassy on his own. Hedding immediately told Ovnat that they had no interest in this kind of thing, and that was the end of it. Ovnat says he never spoke to anyone else about the ossuary.

What this episode demonstrates, I’m not sure—except the kinds of unsubstantiated rumors that are swirling around the ossuary.

Both Zias and the unnamed Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher in Meyers’s Internet article have a lot of explaining to do. Let’s hear from them.

Postscript: Mahmoud Found

As we go to press, after weeks of trying I finally located and talked to Mahmoud, the owner of the antiquities shop where Zias and “the noted Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher” said they had seen the ossuary in the mid-1990s without the reference to Jesus.

Mahmoud’s full name is Mahmoud Abushakra. He has closed his shop on the Via Dolorosa, married a German woman and moved to a small village of 1,200 people in Saxony, Germany. When I reached him by phone he was absolutely clear that this ossuary had never been in his shop. He said he did not know and had never heard of either Joe Zias or the “noted Hebrew/Aramaic epigrapher” (whom I named for him).

Moreover, if he had had the ossuary in his shop, it would be impossible for the Israel Antiquities Authority not to know about it. Antiquities dealers in Israel must keep an inventory of everything in their shop, he said, and it is checked by the Antiquities Authority every year.

Mahmoud said that some time ago he had been called by Amir Ganor, chief of the IAA robbery unit, who said he must ask Mahmoud about the possibility of his having had the ossuary even though he knew that he did not, but that they were checking with all the antiquities dealers in Jerusalem. In telephone calls and e-mails with Ganor, Mahmoud confirmed that the ossuary had never been in his shop.

I then telephoned Ganor in Jerusalem, who confirmed that Mahmoud had told him that he never had the ossuary in his shop. I asked Ganor, “Do you believe him?” “Yes,” he said. “He is a very good dealer.”

---

* Of ASOR (American Schools of Oriental Research), SBL (Society of Biblical Literature), AAR (American Academy of Religion) and NEAS (Near East Archaeology Society).

** Hershel Shanks, “A Tale of Two Meetings,” BAR, March/April 2004.

*** Now called Near Eastern Archaeology.

# Eric Meyers, “More Evidence: Ossuary a Fraud?” at www.bibleinterp.com.

## “Burial Box of James, the Brother of Jesus.”

---

1 Some say this scholar has theological reasons for his position; according to scholars we have spoken to, he believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary, a belief he fears may be undermined if the ossuary inscription is authentic and refers to Jesus of Nazareth. But this is no reason to lie about having previously seen the inscription. In any event, Father Joseph Fitzmyer, who comes from the same religious tradition as the scholar in question, has no such fear. He, too, doubts that the reference to “Jesus” on the ossuary is to Jesus of Nazareth, but notes that the word for “brother” in the New Testament does not necessarily mean blood brother; it can mean cousin and even compatriot, Fitzmyer says.

[xzins]

interesting update.

[SunkenCiv]

Recently bumped an old topic on the James Ossuary, see the GGG page:

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.

[gentlestrength]

In archaeology there are minimalists who want to accept evidence, even if small, to show the credibility of the Scripture. There are maximalists who refuse to accept any evidence until it proves the case in full. Maximalists tend to be the liberals. That does not mean that all conservative claims only have minimal evidence, just that conservatives do accept the clear evidence they find.

The ossuary has points on both sides and in their magazines such as Biblical Archaeology Review, you'll get answers back and forth as to what the other said the previous months.

[Varda]

Thanks for posting this. The experts on the side of the authenticity of the ossuary are some of the best in the world. It will be interesting to watch the academic swordplay and I'm glad Hershal Shanks won't let this drop. I happen to believe the most likely explanation for the ossuary inscription is that James son of Joseph was a disciple of Jesus.

[xzins]

I'm trying to reconcile the contradiction that Shanks points out....that if these men saw the ossuary without the inscription then why not say that instead of using other criteria to discredit it.

I'm also interested in the science that distinguished the "of Jesus" part from the remainder of the inscription. I understand there was a disconformity in the patina or something like that....the first portion was inscribed at an earlier, unspecified time.

I've wondered if it could have been because of relocating the ossuary; that it had been originally inscribed as james of joseph and a particular generation knew precisely who was meant. As time went on, and the necessity to move the ossuary became apparent, that the "of Jesus" was added to clearly identify WHICH "james of joseph" they were talking about.

My favorite theory is that Joseph had a deceased wife prior to his betrothal to Mary, and that he'd had children by her. This would explain Joseph's absence (he was older) for the remainder of the gospels; Jesus having brothers; and Jesus needing to put Mary into John's care. It also explains why James was given the lead in the early church seeing that Jesus was only in his early 30's at time of death, and that would have made his YOUNGER brother James quite young to be put in leadership over others who had followed Jesus far longer. IF, however, James was an older, half-sibling, then his elevation to a leader role would be more likely.

These are all simply opinions.....none of this would go into my "statement of faith."

[DallasMike]

My favorite theory is that Joseph had a deceased wife prior to his betrothal to Mary, and that he'd had children by her.

The killer to this theory is that kingship passed to the firstborn male. If Joseph had had another son before Jesus, then that son would have been king through the line of David instead of Jesus.

The best thing is to accept the Bible, contemporary church accounts, and contemporary secular accounts for what they say: Mary and Joseph had other sons and daughters after Jesus was born. The notion of Mary's perpetual virginity was a later invention.

[Question_Assumptions]

I really enjoy reading Biblical Archaeology Review, Bible Review, and Archaeology Odyssey. I don't always agree with their interpretations or editorial positions but they aren't afraid to print articles by both sides of heated debates so the reader can make up their own mind. I subscribe to all three and highly recommend them if you are interested in archaeology and/or the history of Judaism and Christianity. Interesting stuff.

[Question_Assumptions]

My favorite theory is that Joseph had a deceased wife prior to his betrothal to Mary, and that he'd had children by her.

There is actually a fairly detailed story about exactly this in non-canon material and I believe this is the theory held by the Eastern Orthodox church, among others.

[farmfriend]

I find this whole thing fascinating really.

[xzins]

Good point.

I've never really considered the geneologies in Matthew & Luke to be firstborn son to firstborn son after the captivity, but rather to be in the geneological lineage of.

It always struck me that the prophecies didn't require the Messiah to be the legal heir of David's throne, but rather simply a descendant of David. I'll have to study it, because I've never really put much study into it. After all, ANY descendant of David is at some point in line to be king. It always struck me that if Joseph had been the direct-line heir to the throne, that he would've been far more famous than the scriptures appear to make him out. Just a carpenter in the north seems unlikely GIVEN the extenisve genological records kept by these folks.

There's always the possibility, of course, that Joseph took an additional wife when it became evident to him that Mary had been set apart by God. That would've made James to be Jesus' younger brother....but I doubt that.

I know I'm operating from the assumption that Mary and Joseph did not have sexual relations, but I've leaned in that direction since the father of Mary's child was still living.....and that might have (would have?) affected Joseph.....in my view.

[conservonator]

The best thing is to accept the Bible, contemporary church accounts, and contemporary secular accounts for what they say: Mary and Joseph had other sons and daughters after Jesus was born.

Can you point to sources for this statement?

[DallasMike]

It always struck me that if Joseph had been the direct-line heir to the throne, that he would've been far more famous than the scriptures appear to make him out.

I've always wondered about that, too, and have asked about it in Bible studies, etc., but you're the only other person I've known to bring it up!

See this article for a different view, which argues that Jesus could not have been king through Joseph because Joseph was a descendant of King Jeconiah, who had a curse pronounced upon him in Jeremiah 22.

[DallasMike]

Can you point to sources for this statement?

Certainly!

In the Preface to the Book of Recognitions of Sr. Clement, Jerome refers to a letter (or a copy thereof) which he had in his possession that was written by Clement of Rome. Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul and Catholics hold him to the be the second pope. Clement was martyred in approximately 80 AD so the letter describing James as the Lord's brother had to be written before that time:

There is a letter in which this same Clement writing to JAMES THE LORD'S BROTHER, gives an account of the death of Peter, and says that he has left him as his successor, as ruler and teacher of the church;. . . But it is time that we should pay attention to the beginning of Clement's own narrative, which he addresses to James the Lord's brother. (emphasis added)

Cyril of Jerusalem lived from 315 to 386 and writes in his Catechetical Lecture XIV:

But now is Christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that are asleep; — And He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; (for if thou believe not the one witness, thou hast twelve witnesses;) then He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; (if they disbelieve the twelve, let them admit the five hundred;) after that He was seen of JAMES, HIS OWN BROTHER, and first Bishop of this diocese. Seeing then that such a Bishop originally saw Christ Jesus when risen, do not thou, his disciple, disbelieve him. But thou sayest that His brother James was a partial witness; afterwards He was seen also of me Paul, His enemy; and what testimony is doubted, when an enemy proclaims it? I, who was before a persecutor, now preach the glad tidings of the Resurrection. (emphasis added)

John Chrysostom lived from 347 to 407 and his Homily LXXXVIII clearly referred to Jesus' mother, Mary, as also being the mother of James:

And many women were there beholding afar off, which had followed Him, ministering unto Him, Mary Magdalene, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES, AND JOSES, and the mother of Zebedee's sons." . . . And these first see Jesus; and the sex that was most condemned, this first enjoys the sight of the blessings, this most shows its courage. And when the disciples had fled, these were present. But who were these? HIS MOTHER, FOR SHE IS CALLED MOTHER OF JAMES, and the rest. (emphasis added)

Clement of Alexandria died in the year 215. In the fragments we have of his Comments on the Epistle of Jude, he wrote:

Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, the brother of the sons of Joseph, and very religious, whilst knowing the near relationship of the Lord, yet did not say that he himself was His brother. But what said he? "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ," — of Him as Lord; but "the brother of James." For this is true; he was His brother, (the son) of Joseph.

The Canons of the Council of Trullo (which, I admit, many don't consider binding on the entire Catholic church), pronounced:

. . . For also JAMES, THE BROTHER, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, OF CHRIST OUR GOD, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory has spread through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy with water and wine. (emphasis added)

Eusebius wrote The Church History of Eusebius around the year 225, and says:

Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

Josephus' Antiquities was written about 90 AD and says:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned

Finally, scholars have constructed this "family tree" of Jesus using the sources that I mentioned as well as other early church documents:

[gbcdoj]

In the Preface to the Book of Recognitions of Sr. Clement, Jerome refers to a letter (or a copy thereof) which he had in his possession that was written by Clement of Rome. Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul and Catholics hold him to the be the second pope. Clement was martyred in approximately 80 AD so the letter describing James as the Lord's brother had to be written before that time:

The Recognitions and that letter are fake - an invention of heretics. St. Jerome wrote an entire book against Helvidius, who denied St. Mary's perpetual virginity - he hardly meant to contradict himself.

John Chrysostom lived from 347 to 407 and his Homily LXXXVIII clearly referred to Jesus' mother, Mary, as also being the mother of James:

Nope.

And when he had taken her, "he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son."He hath here used the word "till," not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man ... How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, V)

The Canons of the Council of Trullo

It's quite improbable that they mean what you think. By the time of Trullo, denying Mary's virginity would have been considered "sacrilege" (Ambrose, De instit. virg., V, xxxv) and "madness" (Origen, in Luc., h, vii):

ANTIDICOMARITAE appellati sunt haeretici qui Mariae virginitati usque adeo contradicunt ut affirment eam post Christum natum viro suo fuisse commixtam. (St. Augustine, De Haeresibus, 56)

[A.A. Cunningham]

The best thing is to accept the Bible, contemporary church accounts, and contemporary secular accounts for what they say: Mary and Joseph had other sons and daughters after Jesus was born. The notion of Mary's perpetual virginity was a later invention.

The Bible, a Catholic document, confirms that the Blessed Mother gave birth to only one child, Jesus Christ. The Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph had no children together. Even people like Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, etc. believed in and taught of the Blessed Virgin Marys' perpetual virginity. Revisionists have attempted to diminish this fact by abridging, editing and misinterpreting Scripture, to fit their agendas.

[conservonator]

Interesting, on the other side of the street we have:

"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).

"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).

"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).

 

Origen

"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

 

Hilary of Poitiers

"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

 

Athanasius

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

 

Epiphanius of Salamis

"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

 

Jerome

"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).

 

Didymus the Blind

"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

 

Ambrose of Milan

"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

 

Pope Siricius I

"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

 

Augustine

"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

 

Leporius

"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

 

Cyril of Alexandria

"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

 

Pope Leo I

"His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

 

Council of Constantinople II

"If anyone will not confess that the Word of God ... came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her, let him be anathema" (Anathemas Against the "Three Chapters" 2 [A.D. 553]).

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."

St. John Chrysostom Homily V. Matthew Chapter 1, Verse 25 And Matthew Chapter 1, Verse 23

...5. "Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him." Seest thou obedience, and a submissive mind? Seest thou a soul truly wakened, and in all things incorruptible? For neither when he suspected something painful or amiss could he endure to keep the Virgin with him; nor yet, after he was freed from this suspicion, could he bear to cast her out, but he rather keeps her with him, and ministers to the whole Dispensation. "And took unto him Mary his wife." Seest thou how continually the evangelist uses this word, not willing that that mystery should be disclosed as yet, and annihilating that evil suspicion? And when he had taken her, "he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son."5 He hath here used the word "till," not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, "till"? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, "The raven returned not till the earth was dried up."6 And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, "From age until age Thou art,"7 not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, "In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,"8 it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord9 commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, "For neither did His brethren believe in Him."10

[DallasMike]

Interesting, on the other side of the street we have:

All of the sources that you cited are quite late, except for the Protoevangelium of James. That bolsters my argument that the perpetual virginity was a later invention that was not held by the early church.

Note that the Catholic Encyclopedia describes the Protoevangelium of James as "based on the canonical Gospels which it expands with legendary and imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile or fantastic ..." Not exactly a good book to base a doctrine upon.

[conservonator]

Not exactly Mike, most are roughly in the same time period as the bulk of your quotes.

I also cited St. John Chrysostom, who I believe you cited as well.

I wold also point out that a host of "beliefs " regarding the divinity of Christ, the nature of God etc were making the rounds during the very early Church so finding some one who held an opinion at odds with the true Church isn't that surprising.

If the early church believed that Mary had other children, why do the two churches that trace their roots back to Christ and the apostles not hold the same view as the reformers? Why is this an issue for non-Catholics and non-Orthodox?

[DallasMike]

The Bible, a Catholic document, confirms that the Blessed Mother gave birth to only one child, Jesus Christ.

No, it doesn't.

Matthew 13:55:  "Is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?"

Matthew 27:56:  Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mark 3:31:  His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him.
32 A crowd seated around him told him, "Your mother and your brothers (and your sisters) are outside asking for you."
33 But he said to them in reply, "Who are my mother and (my) brothers?"
34 And looking around at those seated in the circle he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.
35 (For) whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother."

Note that Jesus is going from the narrow, literal sense (his actual mother, brothers, and sisters) to the expanded, figurative sense (everyone doing the will of God is a mother, brother, or sister). If the visitors had not been Jesus' literal mother, brothers, and sisters, then the point would be meaningless.

Mark 6:3:  "Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

John 2:12:  After this, he and his mother, (his) brothers, and his disciples went down to Capernaum and stayed there only a few days.

Note here that John differentiates Jesus' brothers from his disciples and thus was not using the term brothers in the figurative Christian sense.

The Bible was given to the entire church by God and is not a "Catholic document" any more than it is a "Protestant document."

I've written about the Aramaic-has-the-same-word-for-brother-and-cousin argument so many times that I don't want to do it all over again. To summarize, the entire New Testament, with the possible exception of Matthew, was written in Greek. The apostle Paul mentions the brother(s) (adelphos -- literally "sharing of the womb") of the Lord in both Galatians and Corinthians, and there is absolutely no doubt that he was writing in Greek, which was probably his primary language. He described Barnabas as the cousin (anepsios) of Mark, so he was certainly familiar with the distinction between adelphos and anepsios.

The Bible also uses another Greek word -- suggenes -- (note the word "gene" in the word, the root of our word genetic) -- to describe a close relative. Luke 1:36 says, "Even Elizabeth your RELATIVE (suggenes) is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month."

Note also that Josephus, a Jew writing in Greek, used anepsios several times in his works, but uses the term adelphos when referring to the "brothers of Jesus." Like Paul, Josephus was using the correct word for the correct relationship.

If you ever hear somebody say that Aramaic and Ancient Greek didn't have a word for cousin (or something along that line) then you can correct them because they're wrong. The New Testament was written in a language that had separate words for cousin or close relative and used them where it was appropriate. Where it was appropriate to use the word brother -- adelphos, or "sharer of the womb" -- then the Bible used it.

Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born but had additional children afterwards. The idea of perpetual virginity was unknown to either the early church or to early secular writers.