James and Other Siblings

[Faith1960]

Well, the thing is, the step brother theory is just as technically compatible as the cousin theory and both have been taught by the RCC, albeit the cousin theory has been favored ever since St. Irenaeus pushed it in the 4th century. The RCC though hasn’t ever officially declared one way or the other, so there really wouldn’t be anything to be “wrong” about so to speak. That being said, I think the step brother theory raises additional questions about Mary as I’ve alluded to, but there may be a perfectly logical explanation that I’m simply not aware of because I’m utterly uneducated on Jewish custom for that time period.

I don’t mean just the discovery of the James ossuary but of the supposed tomb of Jesus and, really, anything else that crops up.

 

[BrownR]

I don’t mean just the discovery of the James ossuary but of the supposed tomb of Jesus and, really, anything else that crops up.

I equally share your concern.

You might want to read Dr. Ben Witherington’s blog which has some of the latest scrutinizing critiques of Cameron’s documentary assertions. There are some very strong arguments against the Talpiot tomb being related in any way to Jesus or his family. I suspect that much of this same data will be brought up in the Koppel analysis in the hour following the completion of the special.

 

[Faith1960]

I think it’s perfectly o.k. for the RCC to be wrong about some of these non “infallible” teachings, so we shouldn’t be afraid of exploring them. After all, it hasn’t been that long since the Galileo debacle, and the Church was very wrong about that. Thank God there was no push for an infallible geocentric theory!

Isn’t Mary’s perpetual virginity an infallible teaching, along with her assumption and the bodily ascension of Christ?

 

[Faith1960]

I equally share your concern.

You might want to read Dr. Ben Witherington’s blog which has some of the latest scrutinizing critiques of Cameron’s documentary assertions. There are some very strong arguments against the Talpiot tomb being related in any way to Jesus or his family. I suspect that much of this same data will be brought up in the Koppel analysis in the hour following the completion of the special.

Not to keep harping on this but Witherington, whom many people on CAF have been deferring to about the Jesus’ tomb story, also believes Jesus had siblings.

 

[Ghosty]

You are correct in that 1st century aramaic “brother” can technically have the same latitude in meaning that it does for us today in the English language, but the problem with the cousin theory at this point is that the inscription specifically states “son of Joseph”, this reduces the probability of James being a cousin quite dramatically. A James who was a son of a brother or sister of Joseph, also named Joseph? There is no record of this. Furthermore, the most popular use of “brother” was as a blood brother or very close nuclear family unit, possibly a step brother. When we stretch for the cousin explanation, a less likely use of the same word, aren’t we just as guilty of over reaching as the Protestants who stretch for the explanation of sola scriptura in the Greek form of “artios” in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to explain “sufficiency” which would be the 3rd or 4th least likely definition of the word? Yet, we do the same thing here with the explanation of “cousin”, something far more difficult to do if this inscription is in fact real. It makes much more probable sense to infer that James was a step brother or real brother. I wouldn’t think it would be a stretch to view him as a step brother, especially considering that we have two other early Christian works (Protoevangelium of James, and Gospel of Peter) that also speak of Joseph having other children by another wife. However, then we have to explain why Mary was taken care of by John and not one of the remaining family members. Perhaps something educated in early Jewish social structure could shed some light on this.

This of course assumes that the James being mentioned isn’t the son of another Joseph, and the brother of another Joshua. Since these are all common names for the time, it wouldn’t even touch on Christ’s family necessarily. The modern equivalent would be something like "Jim, son of Bob, brother of Chris), hardly anything striking.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BrownR]

Isn’t Mary’s perpetual virginity an infallible teaching, along with her assumption and the bodily ascension of Christ?

The virginity: Yes
Assumption: No?

I assumed that the assumption was infallibly taught, but I checked some links and found some interesting info on Wikipedia which may or may not be accurate:

In Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma he states that “the fact of her death is almost generally accepted by the Fathers and Theologians, and is expressly affirmed in the Liturgy of the Church,” to which he adduces a number of helpful citations, and concludes that “for Mary, death, in consequence of her freedom from original sin and from personal sin, was not a consequence of punishment of sin. However, it seems fitting that Mary’s body, which was by nature mortal, should be, in conformity with that of her Divine Son, subject to the general law of death”.[5] The point of her bodily death has not been infallibly defined, and many believe that she did not die at all, but was assumed directly into Heaven. However, the same Apostolic Constitution which infallibly proclaims the doctrine of the Assumption, does not dogmatically define whether or not she experienced bodily death.

Therefore, there may or may not be some wiggle room in the doctrine of the “bodily assumption”?

 

[BrownR]

Not to keep harping on this but Witherington, whom many people on CAF have been deferring to about the Jesus’ tomb story, also believes Jesus had siblings.

Good observation. Yes, he does in fact believe that the James Ossuary is real and that Jesus had siblings. He is an evangelical biblical scholar that teaches at Asbury Theological Seminary. I have referenced him quite a bit because he is very much on the forefront of disputing and researching the flaws in the Talpiot tomb theories posed by James Cameron and others. He has been giving many interviews to the media lately in relation to this topic. He’s very intelligent, networked, and well equipped to refute some of the irresponsible claims made by Cameron and Jacobovici thus far. Just keep in mind that he’s an evangelical protestant with his own agenda to be sure against the Catholic Church, but in the case of the Talpiot tomb, Catholics and Christians of all denominations can work together because it’s a theory that attacks fundamental Christian theology shared by all traditions.

 

[Faith1960]

This of course assumes that the James being mentioned isn’t the son of another Joseph, and the brother of another Joshua. Since these are all common names for the time, it wouldn’t even touch on Christ’s family necessarily. The modern equivalent would be something like "Jim, son of Bob, brother of Chris), hardly anything striking.

Peace and God bless!

I’d find it somewhat striking. I know plenty of men named Jim, Bob and Chris but no Jims who are the sons of Bob, brothers of Chris. If Jim came from a very well known family, many years ago, and I stumbled on a grave with all the above names, I’d certainly be willing to consider the possibility it could be THE Jim.

 

[Nullasalus]

I’d find it somewhat striking. I know plenty of men named Jim, Bob and Chris but no Jims who are the sons of Bob, brothers of Chris. If Jim came from a very well known family, many years ago, and I stumbled on a grave with all the above names, I’d certainly be willing to consider the possibility it could be THE Jim.

What if 1 out of 4-5 men were named Bob? What if the graves had no year markers, and could have had a span of nearly 100 years? What if you found the graves for Jim, Bob, Chris, and Zeke - still striking?

The problem with finding a coincidence striking is knowing what the boundaries are. The number of men with the last name ‘Hsu’ is likely vanishingly small in the US. But if I bump into one in Chinatown, NY, should I be surprised?

 

[BrownR]

This of course assumes that the James being mentioned isn’t the son of another Joseph, and the brother of another Joshua. Since these are all common names for the time, it wouldn’t even touch on Christ’s family necessarily. The modern equivalent would be something like "Jim, son of Bob, brother of Chris), hardly anything striking.

Peace and God bless!

Just to add to what Faith mentioned. This combination, if genuine, does add a certain degree of uniqueness to the James Ossuary. “James, son of Joseph” alone would not make this ossuary as unique, but appending the ossuary inscription with “brother of X” was very uncommon. This would only be done if the brother was someone of unique importance or perhaps paid for the ossuary and crypt. The point being that it’s not recorded very often in the ossuaries that have been uncovered. So, at that point we have to think of a James, who was the son of Joseph, and possibly had a brother named Jesus who was of enough significance or importance to merit mentioning on the ossuary. James, the brother of Christ fits that narrowed focus of potential candidates very well. It makes the bones in this ossuary not only the possible remains of “James the Just”, but perhaps the probable remains, if they are proved genuine that is. If not probable, then at least statistically relevant to be worth our consideration.

Also, I read a statistic somewhere by a scholar who narrowed down potential James’ who were fathered by a Joseph, and had a brother named Jesus who lived in this region during this time period, and I believe the number was 20. Compound that with the fact that it was very rare to mention a brother on an ossuary, and you have a certain body of evidence in my opinion to warrant a credible theory of this ossuary being the real James the Just.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Just to add to what Faith mentioned. This combination, if genuine, does add a certain degree of uniqueness to the James Ossuary. “James, son of Joseph” alone would not make this ossuary as unique, but appending the ossuary inscription with “brother of X” was very uncommon. This would only be done if the brother was someone of unique importance or perhaps paid for the ossuary and crypt. The point being that it’s not recorded very often in the ossuaries that have been uncovered. So, at that point we have to think of a James, who was the son of Joseph, and possibly had a brother named Jesus who was of enough significance or importance to merit mentioning on the ossuary. James, the brother of Christ fits that narrowed focus of potential candidates very well. It makes the bones in this ossuary not only the possible remains of “James the Just”, but also the probable remains, if they are proved genuine that is.

Not necessarily. There were, no doubt, several persons named Jesus that were of some importance. Given the frequency of the name, it is more likely that a person of importance would be named Jesus than anything else. Add to that the chance that the person that purchased the Ossuary was very wealthy, and this even more increases the chances it is just some other fellow. If Jesus was the most common name of the era, then certainly any given wealthy person would be more likely to be named Jesus than anything else.

 

[Faith1960]

What if 1 out of 4-5 men were named Bob? What if the graves had no year markers, and could have had a span of nearly 100 years? What if you found the graves for Jim, Bob, Chris, and Zeke - still striking?

The problem with finding a coincidence striking is knowing what the boundaries are. The number of men with the last name ‘Hsu’ is likely vanishingly small in the US. But if I bump into one in Chinatown, NY, should I be surprised?

LOL. You’ve got a point there.

 

[BrownR]

Not necessarily. There were, no doubt, several persons named Jesus that were of some importance. Given the frequency of the name, it is more likely that a person of importance would be named Jesus than anything else. Add to that the chance that the person that purchased the Ossuary was very wealthy, and this even more increases the chances it is just some other fellow. If Jesus was the most common name of the era, then certainly any given wealthy person would be more likely to be named Jesus than anything else.

Of the hundreds of ossuaries discovered from this time, only 2 others mention a brother. This was extremely rare. Compound this with the fact that the James, Joseph and Jesus name fit the New Testament profile and you are fighting against some impressive statistical odds to prove that there is no possible relation.

 

[Ghosty]

I’d find it somewhat striking. I know plenty of men named Jim, Bob and Chris but no Jims who are the sons of Bob, brothers of Chris. If Jim came from a very well known family, many years ago, and I stumbled on a grave with all the above names, I’d certainly be willing to consider the possibility it could be THE Jim.

My point is that it’s hardly an unexpected combination. It’s not that every family is composed of such a combo, but that it’s a combination of very common names. Plus, as others have pointed out, there was a smaller pool of names in that culture to begin with, with Jesus being incredibly common (the names Jesus and Mary are likely only equally as common among American Hispanic families, and even then perhaps not as common as in first century Palestine).

This was extremely rare. Compound this with the fact that the James, Joseph and Jesus name fit the New Testament profile and you are fighting against some impressive statistical odds to prove that there is no possible relation.

They don’t fit “the New Testament profile”, they fit the First Century Palestine profile

It’s not even necessary to go to the Proto-Evangelium of James, since even if this is James, the cousin of Jesus, it could just as likely be the son of another Joseph, as it was also a typical name of the time. While it perhaps gives us some pause for thought, it hardly gives anything more conclusive than what we already had, which is that Jesus had living relatives of His own generation. It hardly demonstrates the veracity of the Protoevangelium, which itself has been regarded historically as a fairly reliable document anyway. At most it simply shows us that what we already suspected as possibly true isn’t necessarily crazy. The Fathers could have told us that!

In the end, there’s simply nothing conclusive to draw from the ossuary, and so it can’t be anything more than a historical curiousity. No new insights, no new teachings, no new history. It’s really nothing more than an archeological relic for inspiring conversations like this, regardless of whether or not it’s the ossuary of THAT James.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BrownR]

They don’t fit “the New Testament profile”, they fit the First Century Palestine profile

It’s not even necessary to go to the Proto-Evangelium of James, since even if this is James, the cousin of Jesus, it could just as likely be the son of another Joseph, as it was also a typical name of the time. While it perhaps gives us some pause for thought, it hardly gives anything more conclusive than what we already had, which is that Jesus had living relatives of His own generation. It hardly demonstrates the veracity of the Protoevangelium, which itself has been regarded historically as a fairly reliable document anyway. At most it simply shows us that what we already suspected as possibly true isn’t necessarily crazy. The Fathers could have told us that!

I’m not quite sure I follow your logic. You have 2 ossuaries out of hundreds from this time that demonstrate the rarity of a brothers inscription being included. A fairly liberal statistic of perhaps 20 other James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus in this region during this time period. The statistical odds that even one of these James ossuaries would have a brother inclusion in the inscription is remote to begin with, but if we have one, we have to pick the Jesus that was of greatest importance when compared to the other Jesus’ whom also could have been included. This natural selection leads us to Jesus of Nazareth as the person with greatest attributable probability. I think you are falsely attributing the common popularity of the names to the uncommon and unique combination of names on this ossuary when including a link to a brother of importance named Jesus. The fairly ubiquitous opinion among the experts and scholars is that if this James ossuary turns out to be real, then it could easily be the genuine ossuary of James the Just, brother of Jesus.

I’m confused on your mention of the Protoevangelium of James. You seem to bolster it’s historical significance and reliability, yet you seem to be inclined to believe a “cousin” theory. As I mentioned earlier, the Protoevangelium of James explains Jesus’ brothers and sisters, James included, as being children from a previous marriage, making James an older step brother. This was the popular Catholic opinion until St. Jerome defended the cousin theory in the 4th century. As I mentioned earlier, the step brother theory is supported by two other non canonical early Christian texts whereas the cousin theory is supported explicitly by no early Christian texts.

I might also mention that the ossuary has been carbon dated to ~60AD. James was recorded to die in 62AD.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m not quite sure I follow your logic. You have 2 ossuaries out of hundreds from this time that demonstrate the rarity of a brothers inscription being included. A fairly liberal statistic of perhaps 20 other James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus in this region during this time period. The statistical odds that even one of these James ossuaries would have a brother inclusion in the inscription is remote to begin with, but if we have one, we have to pick the Jesus that was of greatest importance when compared to the other Jesus’ whom also could have been included. This natural selection leads us to Jesus of Nazareth as the person with greatest attributable probability. I think you are falsely attributing the common popularity of the names to the uncommon and unique combination of names on this ossuary when including a link to a brother of importance named Jesus. The fairly ubiquitous opinion among the experts and scholars is that if this James ossuary turns out to be real, then it could easily be the genuine ossuary of James the Just, brother of Jesus.

I’m confused on your mention of the Protoevangelium of James. You seem to bolster it’s historical significance and reliability, yet you seem to be inclined to believe a “cousin” theory. As I mentioned earlier, the Protoevangelium of James explains Jesus’ brothers and sisters, James included, as being children from a previous marriage, making James an older step brother. This was the popular Catholic opinion until St. Jerome defended the cousin theory in the 4th century.

My only real point is that all of this is ultimately meaningless. Since none of it affects the deposit of Faith, and none of it can be relied upon to found a historical portrait, it remains a mere curiousity. A single disputed ossuary does not make for any groundbreaking revelations, especially in terms of history. If we had any surrounding testimony about the death of James and what was done with his body which coincided with the ossuary, we’d have something of greater historical value, but as it stands all we have is a box for bones with some names on it.

Even if it were the historical ossuary of James, son of Joseph, brother of Christ, it wouldn’t point to him being the son of Joseph the husband of Mary, since the ambiguous term for brother/cousin is still used, and since that term can be used for any extended kin of the same generation, the ratio of probable matches goes up considerably; if he was related by blood in any way to Jesus, and of the same basic generation, it would be worthy of note. It could be Joseph, brother of Mary, or Joseph, cousin of Joseph the step-Father of Christ, or what have you.

Even if we conclude that it is exactly as you say, the step-brother of Christ, it amounts to nothing. No matter of Faith rests on Joseph not having other, prior children, and in fact it’s quite likely given the testimony of the Early Church.

So all this adds up to is that maybe we have a box of bones that might be related in some way to Christ, and might even be the step-brother of Christ. Not exactly a solid find, no matter how you cut it.

I’m not invested in any explaination, since none of the likely ones have any bearing on history or on Faith. The possibilities aren’t strong enough to make any historical judgements, and they don’t even come close to touching on matters of Faith. So whether the term means brother or cousin in this case is irrelevant to me; the box remains an uncontroversial box of bones.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BrownR]

If we had any surrounding testimony about the death of James and what was done with his body which coincided with the ossuary, we’d have something of greater historical value

We do, James the Just’ putative burial place was said to be at the site of Temple Mount. The ossuary was discovered in Silwan, which is in sight of Temple Mount.

Even if we conclude that it is exactly as you say, the step-brother of Christ, it amounts to nothing. No matter of Faith rests on Joseph not having other, prior children, and in fact it’s quite likely given the testimony of the Early Church.

Agreed. I never once stated that this had any bearing on the Church’s infallible teachings. This is not an attack on the magisterium of the Church. This is scientific and historical data that would seem to indicate, if the James ossuary is genuine, a strong indication that James the Just, was indeed, Jesus’ older step brother. It simply is a much more logical conclusion, in my opinion, for all the reasons that I’ve mentioned.

 

[Nullasalus]

Agreed. I never once stated that this had any bearing on the Church’s infallible teachings. This is not an attack on the magisterium of the Church. This is scientific and historical data that would seem to indicate, if the James ossuary is genuine, a strong indication that James the Just, was indeed, Jesus’ older step brother. It simply is a much more logical conclusion, in my opinion, for all the reasons that I’ve mentioned.

A side-note.

As pointed out, an authentic James Ossuary doesn’t necessarily deny Mary’s perpetual virginity - stepbrothers simply become more likely given the context. But wouldn’t this be the first primary evidence of Jesus’ existence? (At which point, it’s not going to be Catholics arguing that ‘This must be some other James and Jesus’.)

Mind you, I’m still skeptical of the James Ossuary’s validity. The real problem for me is that a whole lot of the attestation (and criticism) is coming out of a criminal trial. Not the first proving grounds I’d pick, since whether or not the ossuary is authentic is arguably a secondary concern to the main parties involved.

 

[Ghosty]

Agreed. I never once stated that this had any bearing on the Church’s infallible teachings. This is not an attack on the magisterium of the Church. This is scientific and historical data that would seem to indicate, if the James ossuary is genuine, a strong indication that James the Just, was indeed, Jesus’ older step brother. It simply is a much more logical conclusion, in my opinion, for all the reasons that I’ve mentioned.

It’s not a logical conclusion for me simply because we don’t have any solid evidence at this point. I’m not at all bothered if it IS the ossuary of James the Just, nor do I particularily care of James the Just was Jesus’ step-brother. I just don’t find anything overly convincing either way as of yet, which is why it remains a curiousity and nothing more for me.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BrownR]

As pointed out, an authentic James Ossuary doesn’t necessarily deny Mary’s perpetual virginity - stepbrothers simply become more likely given the context. But wouldn’t this be the first primary evidence of Jesus’ existence? (At which point, it’s not going to be Catholics arguing that ‘This must be some other James and Jesus’.)

Precisely. Some Protestants were quick to jump all over this ossuary initially and claim that it implied that Mary had other children, but it actually does nothing of the sort. If anything, as you said, it bolsters the step brother theory, which after all, was the original Catholic theory to begin with.

I’m with you though in that I’m still a tad skeptical, simply because there seemed to be so much certainty in the early Church that James was buried at Temple Mount. Also, even if the ossuary were authentic, we still have some remaining problems with the inscription. I’ll be glad when the trial ends and scientists can hopefully get hold of the ossuary again. I’ll be interested to see how the Israeli courts rule on this one.