Jesus' brother, James

[daveleau]

How do those that do not believe that Jesus had brothers deal with the finding of James' burial box that says "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"?
There is no scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. There are plenty of contradictions that pertain to traditions (Peter and Mary) and cults (Mormon ideas regarding Indians and the original text that was supposed to have been the Book of Mormon). How does this affect you, if you hold beliefs that are contrary to these findings regarding James ossuary? (The only likeness I hold between the cult of Mormon and the RCC/ Orth churches, is that they have both had scientific contradictions. I do NOT hold the belief that RCC/ Ortho are cults. I am not stating anything other than the fact that both have had scientific refutations that have stood, unlike scientific refutations of the Bible that have never stood realistic scrutiny.)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0418_030418_jesusrelic.html

"If Jesus is only the son of Mary, not of Joseph, which is what the Biblical record claims, and if James is only the son of Joseph but not of Mary, then they have no blood relationship. In other words, the box inscription counts against both the Roman Catholic cousin theory and the Orthodox theory that they are children of Joseph by prior marriage."

 

[Wisdom's Child]

You are bringing up questions raised by the existance of a relic that has yet to be determined as genuine.

The inscription on the Box most likely is a Midaeval Forgery done by some random "Crusading Pilgrim" eager to posess a "Holy Relic" for whatever purpose.

Until the inscription on the Box is scientifically authenticated your question is only a "What If..."

Also consider the fact that both "James" and "Jeshua/Jesus" are rather common names in the region, and that within a century or two either way the possibility of two brothers in a family having those names are rather good.

As for how it affects me? It doesn't....

 

[rglencheek]

I think Joseph had a wife before Mary, and he married her as a ceremonial function to keep her a virgin, as according to some ancient documents, Mary was a temple virgin devoted to worshipping God. James and hisother siblings would have been what we call step-brothers/sisters, and refered to as simply brothers/sisters back then in Isreal.

 

[Philip]

How do those that do not believe that Jesus had brothers deal with the finding of James' burial box that says "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"?

I see three things that you must address first:

1. Establish that the ossuary and its inscription are legitimate. (The mounting evidence is that the inscription is not original.)

2. Establish that these James, Joseph, and Jesus are indeed the ones mentioned in the Bible. (James, Joseph, and Jesus were among the most common names of Jewish men at the time.)

3. Establish that word "Brother" necessarily exclude "step-brother" or "cousin".

Until this is complete, your question is without basis.

BTW, your articles are from 2002. You might want to check some more recent information:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/

 

[KennySe]

How do those that do not believe that Jesus had brothers deal with the finding of James' burial box that says "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"?

I have followed this story through magazines and online news articles.

And I saw that someone has authored a book on this subject. (I saw the book at the bookstore "Books-A-Million" and I chuckled as at that same bookstore was a magazine with an article debunking the inscription as a forgery.)

EDIT: The link won't work on CF.

Here is the beginning of the article from IsraelInsider, in which one could do a websearch on key portion and get a link to read the entire article.

http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article^l1601&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&

Final report on the James ossuary
By Rochelle I. Altman November 6, 2002

Appended is my final report on the James Ossuary inscription. The report concentrates solely on the evidence of the writing system. As the evidence requires extensive discussions of background material, in order to keep this report within reasonable limits, people are referred to known experts in their fields on linguistic determination*, materials, and textual evidence.*​

But let's look at the inscription: "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus"

1) These are common Hebrew names in 1st century A.D.
What is there to conclude that these" James, Joseph, Jesus" are the three ASSumed Biblical persons?

2) "Jesus" is the brother of whom? "Joseph" is the most logical answer.

"If Jesus is only the son of Mary, not of Joseph, which is what the Biblical record claims, and if James is only the son of Joseph but not of Mary, then they have no blood relationship. In other words, the box inscription counts against both the Roman Catholic cousin theory and the Orthodox theory that they are children of Joseph by prior marriage."

If "If" was a skiff I'd be fishin'.

Fact: Here's an ossuary from the 1st century.
Fact: It has an inscription on it.

Evidence suggests that the inscription was made in two parts.

No evidence suggests this it the Ossuary of James, Bishop of Jerusalem.

*IF* the ossuary had had a + cross inscribed on it like other First Century tombs of Christians, that would have been evidence that the "James" inside was a follower of Christ (as opposed to this 'James" being a devout Jew and non-follower of the Nazarene)

 

[Liberius]

James can't be Jesus's brother because Mary herself said she would always be a virgin.
When Gabriel tells Mary she will concieve, she asks how that can be because she is a virgin. This means that even in the future, she will still be a virgin, because Gabriel didn't say she had conceived, but that she will conceive.

 

[daveleau]

That makes no sense. I've never heard that argument from any Catholic or Orthodox person.

Joseph was told not to lie with Mary until after she had given birth. No where is the perpetual virginity of Mary or her sinlessness alluded to in Scripture. It all comes from extra-Scriptural writings and church traditions over the centuries. These are non-cannonical writings that the early church fathers did not think were worthy of being included, nor inspired by the revelation of God. Matt 1:24,25.

 

[Serapha]

How do those that do not believe that Jesus had brothers deal with the finding of James' burial box that says "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"?
There is no scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. There are plenty of contradictions that pertain to traditions (Peter and Mary) and cults (Mormon ideas regarding Indians and the original text that was supposed to have been the Book of Mormon). How does this affect you, if you hold beliefs that are contrary to these findings regarding James ossuary? (The only likeness I hold between the cult of Mormon and the RCC/ Orth churches, is that they have both had scientific contradictions. I do NOT hold the belief that RCC/ Ortho are cults. I am not stating anything other than the fact that both have had scientific refutations that have stood, unlike scientific refutations of the Bible that have never stood realistic scrutiny.)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0418_030418_jesusrelic.html

"If Jesus is only the son of Mary, not of Joseph, which is what the Biblical record claims, and if James is only the son of Joseph but not of Mary, then they have no blood relationship. In other words, the box inscription counts against both the Roman Catholic cousin theory and the Orthodox theory that they are children of Joseph by prior marriage."

Hi there!



The more current information is from 2004 and it is an allegation that the committee that was assigned to research the evidence, in fact, did not research the evidence.

The ossuary box is authentic, there is no question on that, and the first inscripton is authentic, there is no question on that. The problem arises with the second part of the inscription, "brother of Jesus".



http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/bswbOOossuary_storm.html

As we go to press, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has released its long-awaited final report. What has become clear is that there is no final report—no document subscribed to by all committee members explaining the decision that both the James ossuary inscription and the Jehoash inscription are modern forgeries. Instead, the “final report” consists only of individual statements by committee members commenting on the inscriptions from the viewpoint of their expertise.

Now, concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. If Mary did not have a physical relationship with Joseph, then their marriage was never consumated. A part of the Jewish marriage ceremony in the first century included a time when the couple was alone to consumate their marriage. IF the marriage was never consumated, then it was never valid. Do you think that both Mary and Joseph lived a false life in front of their families, friends, and even before Christ?


~serapha~

 

[KennySe]

That makes no sense. I've never heard that argument from any Catholic or Orthodox person.

Then you haven't been around the old IDD board or around the currect General Theology board.
(You can pose questions on the OBOB and TAW forums if you wish.)

And you should read Saint Jerome's tract of A.D. 383, "Against Helvidius".
He addresses all the scriptures on the subject.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-06/treatise/mary.htm

(FYI, Saint Jerome is the Christian scholar who translated the original TextS of the various scrollS from their original languageS into Latin in A.D. 405, called "The Vulgate")

 

[daveleau]

Honestly, I do not hold to any tradition or extra-Scriptural writing. The Bible does not say that she was a perpetual virgin. It says that she was a virgin at least until Jesus was born and that Jesus had 4 brothers and 2 sisters. It simply does not make sense that Jesus' earthly father (or guardian really) would have had a family beforehand. It would mean that either his wife had died or his wife had committed adultery and he had divorced her. Anything else would have been outside of Scriptural Law laid out in the Torah. I do not think God would have had Mary, the chosen one to birth His Son, marry a man who was in sin or had been with other women. Maybe it happened, I do not know. Only God knows, and those who were around at that time. As for the cousin debate, looking at the Greek manuscripts shows that the 4 brethren and 2 sisters were siblings from the womb. These could not be cousins, but half siblings.

I read the first few short sentences of that writing in the link and found several egregious breaks with Scripture, so I stopped reading. We are not supposed to follow the teachings of those who translates Scripture to suit their own ideology, especially when their teaching is to bring about the breaking of one of the 10 Commandments (idolatry). Jesus said there is none who is righteous, no not one. So, there is no way that Mary was sinless. To say so, goes against the direct spoken word of Christ, Himself, recorded in the Gospels. To say that Mary was a perpetual virgin goes against the Divine Revelation of the writers of the Gospels, which is the Word of God.

I am not condemning you for holding that belief. I am not one who thinks Catholics are not saved. They teach the central dogma of Christianity correctly. Much of the rest is simply Satan's hand influencing those who started the church. I pray that those who hold this belief have their eyes opened. I too, hope my eyes are opened to any flaws I have in my beliefs. They are there, but as long as I stick to Scripture and follow Scripture alone, I have a better chance of defeating the devil when he tries to insert bad theology. The divisions and bad interpretations and misconstrued translations that have led to the great contrasts between Christians are the work of Satan. We must hold true to Scripture and Scripture alone to ensure he can not ensnare us and cause such divisions. If we look outside for any references or help in our learning, we must ensure it does not contradict Scripture, as that link does repeatedly. It doesn't matter how old a church is or how old a writing is. What matters is how closely to Scripture it is bound.
God bless you and keep you,
Dave

 

[prodromos]

Dear daveleau,

imagine if you will, a young maiden named Mary who is betrothed to be married to a man named Joseph. Along comes an Angel and announces that she is to conceive a child.

Ask your self the following;

1. How are babies usually conceived?
2. Is Mary aware of the usual means of conception?
3. How would a girl, betrothed to be married, normally understand the Angel's announcement?

My answers would be;

1. Through sexual intercourse between a husband and wife
2. Yes. She makes that much clear in her response.
3. "Oh goody! Joseph and I are going to have a child!"

Mary's response is different however.
Luke 1:34 But Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I know not a man?

In that simple question, Mary makes it clear that she fully understands how children are usually conceived, but she also makes it clear that sexual intercourse is not an option open to her, otherwise she would not have asked the question but simply would have assumed that she would conceive by Joseph her husband (betrothed).

John.

 

[TasManOfGod]

I think that if Mary was still a virgin after the birth of Jesus than that is a bigger miracle than His conception
However in view of this verse I hardly think that is very likely
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

and with Strongs:

Mat 1:25 And2532 knew1097 her846 not3756 till2193 she(3757) had brought forth5088 her848 firstborn4416 son:5207 and2532 he called2564 his846 name3686 JESUS.2424

G1097 γινώσκω ginōskō ghin-oce'-ko

A prolonged form of a primary verb; to "know" (absolutely), in a great variety of applications and with many implications (as shown at left, with others not thus clearly expressed): - allow, be aware (of), feel, (have) known (-ledge), perceive, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand.

G2193 ἕως heōs heh'-oce

Of uncertain affinity; a conjugation, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place): - even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-) til (-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while (-s).


G5088 τίκτω tiktō tik'-to

A strengthened from of a primary word τέκωtekō (which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses); to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literal or figurative: - bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail.

Is it to be seriously considred that Joseph and Mary pledged themselves to marriage knowing that copulation would not be part of that marriage. I can think of two Scriptures that would be in contavention if that was so:


Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

 

[JJM]

Honestly, I do not hold to any tradition or extra-Scriptural writing. The Bible does not say that she was a perpetual virgin. It says that she was a virgin at least until Jesus was born and that Jesus had 4 brothers and 2 sisters. It simply does not make sense that Jesus' earthly father (or guardian really) would have had a family beforehand. It would mean that either his wife had died or his wife had committed adultery and he had divorced her. Anything else would have been outside of Scriptural Law laid out in the Torah. I do not think God would have had Mary, the chosen one to birth His Son, marry a man who was in sin or had been with other women. Maybe it happened, I do not know. Only God knows, and those who were around at that time. As for the cousin debate, looking at the Greek manuscripts shows that the 4 brethren and 2 sisters were siblings from the womb. These could not be cousins, but half siblings.

I find this very likely. Think about it. If Joseph had another wife whom lets say died. Then wouldn't he more inclined to feel sympathy when told Mary was pregnant? Before the angle came to him he was willing to not expose Mary and just let the marriage not happen out side the public eye so that she wouldn't be stoned. Could this feeling not be brought on by the previous loss of his wife? Or lets say she (first Wife) did commit adultery and was stoned then maybe that the experience was something he didn't wish to go through again. I don't know it seems logical to me that way. Maybe Joseph was chosen for that very reason.

 

[Nickolai]

Honestly, I do not hold to any tradition or extra-Scriptural writing. The Bible does not say that she was a perpetual virgin. It says that she was a virgin at least until Jesus was born and that Jesus had 4 brothers and 2 sisters. It simply does not make sense that Jesus' earthly father (or guardian really) would have had a family beforehand. It would mean that either his wife had died or his wife had committed adultery and he had divorced her. Anything else would have been outside of Scriptural Law laid out in the Torah. I do not think God would have had Mary, the chosen one to birth His Son, marry a man who was in sin or had been with other women. Maybe it happened, I do not know. Only God knows, and those who were around at that time. As for the cousin debate, looking at the Greek manuscripts shows that the 4 brethren and 2 sisters were siblings from the womb. These could not be cousins, but half siblings.

Well being that joseph was in his 80's when he was betrothed to Mary, I find it hard to believe that hat was his first marriage.

and your translation of Adelphos is a little extreme. In the modern day US you must hear all kinds of slang words that don't follow their definition. many people call close friends cousins here. Is it so hard to believe that they didn't always follow the definition when using a term back then?

And you say that only God knows if she was ever-virgin. That's not true only until recently the only thought taught in christianity was that she was ever-virgin. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all believed in the perpetual-virginity. and it's something that the Church has taught for 1400+ years.

Do we know better than them?

I also find it hard to believe that you don't hold any traditions. Do you not believe in Sola Scriptura? that's not in the scripture. It's a tradition created by Luther.

 

[BBAS 64]

How do those that do not believe that Jesus had brothers deal with the finding of James' burial box that says "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"?
There is no scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. There are plenty of contradictions that pertain to traditions (Peter and Mary) and cults (Mormon ideas regarding Indians and the original text that was supposed to have been the Book of Mormon). How does this affect you, if you hold beliefs that are contrary to these findings regarding James ossuary? (The only likeness I hold between the cult of Mormon and the RCC/ Orth churches, is that they have both had scientific contradictions. I do NOT hold the belief that RCC/ Ortho are cults. I am not stating anything other than the fact that both have had scientific refutations that have stood, unlike scientific refutations of the Bible that have never stood realistic scrutiny.)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0418_030418_jesusrelic.html

"If Jesus is only the son of Mary, not of Joseph, which is what the Biblical record claims, and if James is only the son of Joseph but not of Mary, then they have no blood relationship. In other words, the box inscription counts against both the Roman Catholic cousin theory and the Orthodox theory that they are children of Joseph by prior marriage."

Good Day, Dave

The historic vailidity of this Box is hard to identify. It could in fact be what you seem to be portraying it to be or it could not. I do not think any one can say one way or the other with in the relam of history all fall shory.

My .02 cents,

Bill

 

[Symes]

Is it to be seriously considred that Joseph and Mary pledged themselves to marriage knowing that copulation would not be part of that marriage. I can think of two Scriptures that would be in contavention if that was so:


Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

It is very hard to imagine a couple being married and then in this case Mary remaining a virgin. There is nothing in Scripture to even suggest that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life.

I have to agree with the above quote.

 

[Symes]

I also find it hard to believe that you don't hold any traditions. Do you not believe in Sola Scriptura? that's not in the scripture. It's a tradition created by Luther.

What is in Scripture is that we should not teach anything that can not be supported by Scripture. Mary remaining a virgin cannot be supported by Scripture.

 

[Nickolai]

What is in Scripture is that we should not teach anything that can not be supported by Scripture. Mary remaining a virgin cannot be supported by Scripture.

Wanna gove some verses supporting that?

 

[Oblio]

It is very hard to imagine a couple being married and then in this case Mary remaining a virgin. There is nothing in Scripture to even suggest that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life.

It is not uncommon at all for married Saints to remain chaste.

 

[Oblio]

"And [Joseph] new her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" [Mat_1:25]... In discussing the verse "knew her not till," St. John Chrysostom writes that "The evangelist uses the word 'till,'(eos) not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards Joseph knew Mary, but to inform thee, that before the birth, the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why the word 'till'? It is usual in Scripture often to do this. It uses this expression without reference to limited times. Also, in the account of Noah and the ark likewise, it says, 'The raven returned not till the earth dried up' [Gen. 8:7]. Yet, the raven did not return even after that time. Scripture also says about God, 'From age until age thou art, [Psa_90:2] not as fixing limits in this case. Also in the case, 'in His days shall righteousness dawn forth an abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away' [Psa_72:7], it does not set a limit to this fair part of creation." [John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew]

Blessed Jerome, in his treatise "On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary," also adds: "And what does it mean when Scripture says, 'For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet'? [1Co_15:25]. Is this Lord then to reign only for the time till His enemies shall be under His feet? And David, when he says 'Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the ahnds of their masters, as the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord oru God, until he takes pity on us' [Psa_123:2], does not mean that David will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy and, then having obtained it, he will direct them toward the earth." [Jerome, On the Ever-Virginity of the Blessed Mary] Blessed Jerome also comments that when the Savior speaks to His Apostles, saying, "Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the world" [Mat_28:20], it certainly does not mean that after the end of the world, He will step away from His disciples!

St. John Chrysostom continues: "In such a manner having become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail and a childbearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her and kept her in the place of a wife?" [John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Matthew] Saint Basil believed in Mary's perpetual virginity and claimed that "until" could be used indefinately. "Lovers of Christ cannot hear that the Theotokos ever ceased to be a virgin." [PG, 31, 1468A]

The above is from: "The Life of the Virgin Mary, The Theotokos," (Holy Apostles Convent, 1989), pp. 148-149