I don't know why, but for some reason this reminds me of the Antonio Banderas film "The Body." In case you don't remember, it's a film where a priest is sent by the Vatican to check out the possibility of some bones that have been discovered in Jerusalem could be those of Jesus Christ. I won't tell you anymore about that film ...
But if this topic intrigues you, I've got a roundup going of various sites of discussion, followed by several press items.
One of the first sites to check out should be Mark Shea's site, Catholic and Enjoying It!, beginning with the comments under the "Interesting" post. Also, this from his "You guys always surprise me," post...
"I've never had much trouble with this (Perpetual Virginity)doctrine, and it always puzzles me that so many of my Protestant friends thinks it's a big deal. The scriptural evidence for it seems rather reasonable (it explains why Mary talks as she does at the Annunciation, and is highly credible from the viewpoint of how a pious Jew like Joseph would react to a woman who was a sort of "second Ark of the Covenant" ("Don't touch!"). Meanwhile the arguments against it are easily dispensed with (Joseph could have had children by a previous marriage or something.) So I've never thought it was a big problem.
What puzzles me is why so many Protestants I run into think it's worth going to the mat over. Major figures in their own tradition have no trouble with it (namely Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, among others) and are none the worse for wear. Believing in it does no harm and rather a lot of good. So if a Catholic holds it as dogma, why sweat about it?"
Another site to check out is John Betts' Just Your Average Catholic Guy that notes this finding actually gives a lot of credence to the Eastern tradition of Christianity.
"The dominant Catholic tradition is that the brothers of Jesus are actually cousins because Mary didn't have any more children, or they were step brothers in that they were Joseph's sons by a previous marriage. This inscription could call into question that doctrine." (comment by Protestant scholar Ben Witherington III)
I really do not see how. If this ossuary is accepted to be genuine, than it merely gives more creedence to the Eastern tradition. Witherington is reading more into the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". This scant information does not tell us whether the James of this ossuary was a full-blooded or half-brother of this Jesus. The Tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity is de fide, not the traditions expounding on this in like manner with whether Mary physically died or not before the Assumption.
Donald Sensing at One Hand Clapping also has his say...
"That it carries the name of Jesus is not in dispute. Jesus was a fairly common first-century name of Jewish men. What makes the inscription so compelling, though, is its references to the names of Jesus' father, Joseph, and Jesus' brother, James"
As does Junkyard Blog, who's critical of a "critical scientist" comment.
One wonders how such a "shaky thing" as the existence of Jesus, if it never happened, could result in a faith that pretty much changed the entire world. One might also ask Mr. Eisenman what he expects of a genuine artifact, total imperfection? He's simply living by a hard dogma--that Jesus never lived--and no evidence will move him. He has moved beyond science and into faith, or anti-faith, or, well, superstition at the very least.
Anyway, here are some different takes on the same story from the press. From Zenit:
An inscription on a stone that was written in a script of 2,000 years ago appears to provide the oldest archaeological evidence of Jesus, an expert says....
André Lemaire, a researcher at the Sorbonne in Paris, wrote in the Biblical Archaeology Review that the stone, a burial artifact, is probably a reference to Christ, the New York Times reported today. Lemaire dates it to three decades after the Crucifixion....He acknowledges, however, that the words -- "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" -- do not conclusively indicate a reference to the James known in Christian tradition.
From CNN:
A limestone burial box, almost 2,000 years old, may provide the oldest archeological record of Jesus of Nazareth, according to several experts who announced the finding Monday....The ossuary, as the bone boxes are known, dates to A.D. 63 and has an inscription in Aramaic which translates to: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," said Andre Lemaire, an expert in ancient writing who identified the writing on the box in Jerusalem last spring.
This from the NY Times
Other scholars are reacting with caution, calling the find important and tantalizing but saying it will probably be impossible to confirm a definite link between the inscription and any of the central figures in the founding of Christianity....Fraud cannot be ruled out, they said, though the cursive style of the script and a microscopic examination of the etched surface seemed to diminish suspicions. An investigation by the Geological Survey of Israel found no evidence of modern pigments, scratches by modern cutting tools or other signs of tampering.
This from the Washington Post:
Since Lemaire's visit, scholars and scientists have examined and analyzed the box, seeking to expose it for a fake, or to show that it is otherwise impossible for it to be the ossuary that once held the bones of St. James, founder of the Christian church of Jerusalem, and, in the words of St. Paul to the Galatians, "the Lord's brother." ... So far the ossuary has withstood scrutiny, but even those who have studied it concede it cannot be fully authenticated: "It will always be controversial," said Aramaic scholar Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer, an emeritus Biblical Studies expert at The Catholic University who studied the inscription.
This from Las Vegas Sun:
All three names were commonplace, but he estimates that only 20 Jameses in Jerusalem during that era would have had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus...Moreover, naming the brother as well as the father on an ossuary was "very unusual," Lemaire says. There's only one other known example in Aramaic. Thus, this particular Jesus must have had some unusual role or fame - and Jesus of Nazareth certainly qualified, Lemaire concludes.
From the Biblical Archaeology Review:
The new find is also significant in that it corroborates the existence of Joseph, Jesus’ father, and James, Jesus’ brother and a leader of the early Christian church in Jerusalem. The family relationships contained on the new find helped experts ascertain that the inscription very likely refers to the Biblical James, brother of Jesus (see, for example, Matthew 13:55-56 and Galatians 1:18-19). Although all three names were common in ancient times, the statistical probability of their appearing in that combination is extremely slim. In addition, the mention of a brother is unusual--indicating that this Jesus must have been a well-known figure
And this at National Geographic via The Fat Guy
Whether Jesus was the son of God is a theological problem, said Lemaire. But historians don't doubt the existence of either James or Jesus; both are mentioned frequently in early historical accounts. ... Following the death of Jesus in 29 A.D., James assumed leadership of the Christian church in Jerusalem until he himself was martyred in 62 A.D. According to biblical accounts, he was one of the first apostles to see Jesus after his resurrection. ... He is referred to as the brother of Jesus in both the Bible and in contemporary historical accounts. In Matthew 13:55-56, for instance, Jesus is said to have four brothers and two sisters. But the exact nature of these relationships—whether they were full siblings by blood, half siblings, or cousins—has been open to interpretation. ... "If you're Catholic, you think they're cousins because the perpetual virginity of Mary is official church doctrine," said Witheringon. "But there are a lot of problems in the historical record with that." ..."When James is referred to as the 'brother of our lord' in the New Testament, the word used means 'blood brother,'" he continued. "It would have to be qualified in context to mean something different." ... A second interpretation is that James and the other siblings are half-brothers and -sisters, Joseph's children from a prior marriage...."The ossuary gives us another piece of evidence outside the Bible that these are blood brothers and sisters of Jesus," said Witherington.
And for the fun of it...here's this extra bit...
Some authors, comparing John 19:25 with Matthew 28:56 and Mark 15:40, identify, and probably rightly so, Mary the Mother of James the Less and of Joseph in Mark and Matthew with "Mary of Cleophas" in John. As the name of Mary Magdalen occurs in the three lists, they identify further Salome in Mark with "the mother of the sons of Zebedee" in Matthew; finally they identify Salome with "his mother's sister" in John. They suppose, for this last identification, that four women are designated by John, xix, 25; the Syriac "Peshito" gives the reading: "His mother and his mother's sister, and Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalen." If this last supposition is right, Salome was a sister of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and James the Greater and John were first cousins of the Lord; this may explain the discipleship of the two brothers, Salome's request and their own claim to the first position in His kingdom, and His commendation of the Blessed Virgin to her own nephew. But it is doubtful whether the Greek admits of this construction without the addition or the omission of kai (and). Thus the relationship of St. James to Jesus remains doubtful.
No comments:
Post a Comment