James and Other Siblings

[Faith1960]

I agree no one says an intellectual straitjacket is a prerequisite for the exercise of ones faith.However there is a fine line between open minded argument and heresy. The questioning of an infallible pronouncement is not faithful to the magisterium of the church and brings one easily into a heretical position.

I can certainly live with that. To do otherwise scares me a bit, to be honest.

 

[Brenda4God]

I’m with Lazerlike and Ghosty.

I saw a PBS program (or was it the history channel?) that proved the James ossuary was a fraud made up by an antiquities dealer in Israel. I think the guy is in jail now.

This is all just so silly to me. Sorry.

 

[Faith1960]

I’m with Lazerlike and Ghosty.

I saw a PBS program (or was it the history channel?) that proved the James ossuary was a fraud made up by an antiquities dealer in Israel. I think the guy is in jail now.

This is all just so silly to me. Sorry.

No, a trial is still going on.

 

[Brenda4God]

Unless the documentary was just propaganda, they found this man’s whole laboratory (Oded Golan?), filled with chemicals to add “patina” of just the right kind to make it appear to be ancient, stones taken from nearby ruins that were in the process of being “antiqued” and more. It was like an antiquities factory.

He “found” quite a number of rarities. Too many not to be noticed, I guess.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oded_Golan

 

[RyanL]

From the Archaeological Institue of America:

The identification of the Talpiyot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family is based on a string of problematic and unsubstantiated claims, including adding an otherwise unattested Matthew (Matya) to the family of Jesus; identifying an otherwise unknown son of Jesus named Judah; and identifying the Mariamne named on one of the ossuaries in the tomb as Mary Magdalene by interpreting the word Mara* *(which follows the name Mariamne) as the Aramaic term for “master” (arguing that Mariamne was a teacher and leader). To account for the fact that Mary/Mariamne’s name is written in Greek, the filmmakers transform the small Jewish town of Migdal/Magdala/Tarichaea on the Sea of Galilee (Mary’s hometown) into “an important trading center” where Greek was spoken. Instead, as in other Jewish towns of this period, generally only the upper classes knew Greek, whereas poorer Jews spoke Aramaic as their everyday language. Taken individually, each of these points weakens the case for the identification of the Talpiyot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family. Collectively these points are devastating, since the statistical analyses presented in the film are based on certain assumptions made about these names.

To conclude, the identification of the Talpiyot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family contradicts the canonical Gospel accounts of the death and burial of Jesus and the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus. This claim is also inconsistent with all of the available information - historical and archaeological–about how Jews in the time of Jesus buried their dead, and specifically the evidence we have about poor, non-Judean families like that of Jesus. It is a sensationalistic claim without any scientific basis or support.

Then think about St. Joseph, who lived (and likely died) in Nazareth. That’s about four days walk from Jerusalem. The proponents of this theory would have his dead corpse carried four days to Jerusalem in order to be buried in a tomb he could never have afforded on a carpenter’s salary.

Stretching?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Brenda4God]

Hi Ryan

Thank you for that informtion. I never thought about your last point, too.

I have to admit all of this makes me sad. You know where these attacks are coming from and it isn’t from up above.

 

[BrownR]

From the Archaeological Institue of America:Then think about St. Joseph, who lived (and likely died) in Nazareth. That’s about four days walk from Jerusalem. The proponents of this theory would have his dead corpse carried four days to Jerusalem in order to be buried in a tomb he could never have afforded on a carpenter’s salary.

Stretching?

God Bless,
RyanL

Just to clarify, Jacobovici and Tabor aren’t claiming that Joseph’s body is or was in the Talpiot tomb. They are claiming that Jose’s (Jesus putative “brother”) was in one of the ossuaries. Also, the bodies were allowed to decompose and dessicate for over a year before storing the bones in an ossuary for “reburial” in a tomb. Therefore, hypothetically, there wouldn’t be a problem with burying an ossuary at a distant location from a logistics/sanitation standpoint.

Overall though, I agree with the AIA article. I wasn’t particularly impressed with the Discovery special. I chuckled when they tried to insinuate that John at the foot of the cross was in fact, Jesus’ son consoling his own mother. There are so many problems with the Talpiot (Jesus Family) tomb theory in the first place. What saddens me though is the fact that many Christians who watch it won’t be able to reason through all the inconsistencies and it might be inimical to their own faith. I think we’re seeing a very real rebirth of a form of gnosticism.

Anyway, as I said before, Dr. Witherington’s blog is a good repository for some excellent “refutations” from scholars and experts alike if anyone is interested. I wish they had used him for the one hour “critique” special with Ted Koppel.

 

[grandfather]

I’ve been looking at lots of blogs over the past few days and over and over I read comments about James being Jesus’ brother. Not step-brother or cousin. Brother. it seems like everyone except for Catholics believe that Jesus had siblings. Why is that? Why would seemingly most non-Catholic scholars insist he had siblings if he didn’t?

Because they are ignorant.
When Saint Paul wrote in defense of his apostolic authority he said he met Peter and he met “no other apostle except James the brother of the lord”. If one looks in the Bible at the different lists of the apostles one finds that there are two apostles named James. In order to differentiate between the two in these listings the names of both James fathers are given. No other apostles fathers are named, because all the rest have unique names, John, Thomas, Matthew, etc. None of the fathers of the two apostles James are named Joseph, ruling out the half brother theory. So neither James, one of which is supposedly Jesus brother according to Paul, and in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, have a father named Joseph, but rather they are Alphaeus and Zebedee. Now look at the account of the Crucifixion and you find the mothers of James, sister of Mary and wives of Alpheus (Clopas) and Zebedee. So we know the mothers and fathers of both apostles James, one of which is supposed to be Jesus brother. If both James have different parents from Jesus how can one be the brother of the Lord? The word brother means close kin. In fact one woman with Mary at the cross is identified as her sister, making her son James, Jesus cousin.

 

[BrownR]

Joe Zias’ guide to unraveling the “Jesus Family Tomb”. He was the curator for anthropology and archeology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997 and personally numbered the Talpiot ossuaries.

joezias.com/tomb.html

 

[M_Oliver]

Whether He did or did not DOES NOT MATTER. Who cares! Do any of you really think this issue is IMPORTANT? Can you say PHARISEES?? Give me a break.

 

[BrianH]

grandfather;1973252]Because they are ignorant.
When Saint Paul wrote in defense of his apostolic authority he said he met Peter and he met “no other apostle except James the brother of the lord”. If one looks in the Bible at the different lists of the apostles one finds that there are two apostles named James.

I am sure you are aware that not only the twelve were considered Apostles.
From the Catholic encyclopedia

The word Apostle has also in the New Testament a larger meaning, and denotes some inferior disciples who, under the direction of the Apostles, preached the Gospel, or contributed to its diffusion; thus Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), probably Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), Epaphroditus (Phil., ii, 25),

 

[metal1633]

I reviewed Ludwig Ott’s statement from “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” which was written after Pope Pius XII wrote “Munificentissimus Deus” and on further scrutiny I think he’s simply referring to the fact that Pope Pius XII doesn’t specifically refer to whether Mary’s physical body died or not, meaning it could have died here on earth and then been assumed or she could have been assumed before physically dying.

Thanks for the clarification.

In Munificentissimus Deus: the Pope does in fact repeatedly refer to her death. Example … this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ…

She was not exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam – from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

 

[BrownR]

In Munificentissimus Deus: the Pope does in fact repeatedly refer to her death. Example … this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ…

She was not exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam – from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

catholicherald.com/saunders/01ws/ws010816.htm

Given this understanding, Pope Pius XII solemnly defined in “Munificentissimus Deus” on Nov. 1, 1950, that “the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” Note that the solemn definition does not specify whether Mary physically died before being assumed or just was assumed; it simply states, “Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life…”

So did Mary die first before being assumed? Did she fall “asleep”? Was she buried? The Church does not bind us to a particular answer because the tradition is not clear. In an apocryphal collection of stories called Transitus Mariae (The Passage of Mary), attributed to Bishop St. Melito of Sardis (d. c. 200), Mary died in the presence of the apostles in Jerusalem, and then depending on the story, her body just disappeared, or was buried and then disappeared.

I certainly haven’t researched the document very thoroughly but I can’t really find a preponderance of scholarly opinion that agree in anything other than a certain element of ambiguity where Mary’s death was concerned. I think the wording in the document can be left up to different interpretations but that’s just my 2 cents. Check out Fr. Saunders article and see what you think.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

That’s one way to look at it, but note that after the Infallible declaration of Immaculate Conception, Mary herself appeared to Saint Bernadette Soubirous of Lourdes and called herself just that – “I am the Immaculate Conception.”

Nothing will contradict Dogma simply because nothing can contradict Dogma. The Immaculate Conception is probably the hardest thing to prove. With the Assumption and the Perpetual Virginity, at least those are visible things that can be witnessed by the human eye. But sin is invisible. The Pope really went out on a ledge to declare the Immaculate Conception, but it turned out he was right, as it was confirmed by Mary’s apparition.

If the Pope was right on this Invisible dogma, imagine how much more right he must be on the Visible dogmas.

As an aside, sometimes I wonder if it was premature of the RCC to infallibly rule on the perpetual virginity of Mary and the assumption. Couldn’t it have remained as a popular tradition in the Church, as it was then, but not necessarily an infallible teaching? I mean, after all, does it really impair the message of Christ and his ministry? In light of today’s science and archeology I wonder if the early Church would still consider it a prudent decision. The inherent danger is that if anything is ever found to contradict these infallible teachings, it will be a devastating blow to the Church. I personally hope and believe that will not happen.

 

[panevino]

If Jesus had half-brothers from his father Joseph (the elderly Joseph theory), the oldest of they, and not He, would be the heir to King David’s throne. It would controvert Jewish tradition for Jesus to be the heir, and thus He would not be fulfilling Micah or Isaiah’s prophecy.

My understanding is that the the prophecy also required that the mother needed to be of a preistly line (which Apparently Mary was).