Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Polycarp
1. Jewish scholars reacted negatively before they knew anything. That indicates a religious based hostility to the ossuary that precludes their ability to fairly evaluate it.

2. Even IF the 2nd part of the inscription were demonstrated to be dated 200 years after the first, that would not invalidate the ossuary. In order to maintain exact accountability of a relic, a devotee added the words to keep the box preserved and properly handled and appreciated.

3. The son of Joseph, brother of Jesus inscription does NOT invalidate the catholic position of the virginity of Mary. It might invalidate the notion that James was his cousin. It probably indicates an additional marriage for Joseph.
18 posted on 11/06/2002 11:55:01 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: xzins; berned
Important points. Thanks.

From Burial Box of St. James Found? By James Akin, a well known Catholic apologist:

Some non-Catholics were quick to tout the box as evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary, however this does not follow. The ossuary identifies its James as the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus, it does not identify him as the son-much less the biological son-of Mary. The only point that Catholic doctrine has established regarding the "brethren of the Lord" is that they are not biological children of Mary.

What relationship they did have with her is a matter of speculation. They may have been Jesus' adoptive brothers, stepbrothers through Joseph, or-according to one popular theory-cousins. As has often been pointed out, Aramaic had no word for "cousin," and so the word for brother was used in its place. This inscription is in Aramaic, and so there would be little surprise if it were being used in that way.

While the inscription does not establish the brethren of the Lord as biological children of Mary, it does have an impact on which theory may best explain the relationship of the brethren to Jesus. If James "the brother of the Lord" were Jesus' cousin then it would be unlikely for him also to have a father named Joseph. This would diminish the probability of the cousin theory in favor of the idea that this James was a stepbrother or an adoptive brother of Jesus.

The stepbrother hypothesis is, in fact, the earliest one on record. It is endorsed by a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which dates to the year 120, within sixty years of James' death (James died in A.D. 62). According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was an elderly widower at the time he was betrothed to Mary. He already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a virgin consecrated to God. The stepbrother hypothesis was the most common explanation of the brethren of the Lord until St. Jerome popularized the cousin hypothesis just before the year 400.

The stepbrother hypothesis is also supported by the fact that Joseph apparently was significantly older than Mary, as he appears to have died before our Lord's public ministry began.

Bottom line: If the ossuary of James bar-Joseph is that of James the brother of the Lord, it sheds light on which of the theories Catholics are permitted to hold is most likely the correct one, but it poses does nothing to refute Catholic doctrine. If authentic, as seems probable, it is to be welcomed as further archaeological confirmation of the life of our Lord.

21 posted on 11/06/2002 12:02:40 PM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson