Guess what - that burial box is a fake


#1

I can remember that within the last year the papers released a story about an ossary that was supposed to be a genuine artefact from the time of Christ with an inscription that was supposed to prove that James was the “brother” of Jesus.

Within the last week the men responsible for this artefact is a fake. It is an ossary that comes from that period but the inscription was in fact done by an Egyptian master craftsman and the people behind the fraud had attempted to make the box look very real.

Well, I guess that means that those people who took delight in pointing to this artefact as though it proved that Jesus had genuine brothers have allowed themselves to be defrauded in their pursuit to prove that Jesus had blood “brothers and sisters”. Will they never look what Scripture says when it identifies the “other Mary” as the mother of these men?

MaggieOH


#2

It says in the Bible, James and 3 other people were Jesus Brother. We do not know if he was his brother or his “Brotha”?


#3

If “Jesus brothers” were all older than Jesus, how is it that Mary was a Virgin? Answer: The “brothers” were the sons of Joseph who was a widower. He had sons by his first wife.


#4

[quote=Exporter]If “Jesus brothers” were all older than Jesus, how is it that Mary was a Virgin? Answer: The “brothers” were the sons of Joseph who was a widower. He had sons by his first wife.
[/quote]

However, the problem with this “tradition” is that it comes from an unreliable source of information and it is not supported by the Scripture.

The men who are identified in the Scripture as the “brothers” or “brethren” of Jesus are: James, Jude, Simon and Joses (Joset or Joseph). The Scriptures have identifed their mother as the “other Mary” and the two who appear in the list of the Apostles are identifed as the sons of Alphaeus, or at least James is identified as the son of Alphaeus, who is the brother of Joseph.

The theory that Joseph was a widower is in error, or I should say that it is also logically flawed because this is not supported by the Gospels, especially that of Luke. If Joseph had sons by a first wife, why is it that they did not travel with Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem? Why is it that they are not mentioned as being a part of the party who fled to Egypt?

The most logical explanation, when the Scripture is examined carefully, and without relying upon a tradition that has come from a suspect source, is that the correct term that should be used in English is that of “brethren” or “kin”, which means that they are members of the same family but are not the sons of either Joseph or Mary, and that they are not the sons of Joseph and Mary.

The tradition that these mens were the sons of Joseph by another marriage comes from the Protoevangelium of James. This document comes from a Gnostic source. The writer of the document took some of the traditional stories, such as that of Mary’s own miraculous birth (for according to this source, and other visionary sources, Mary’s mother was barren until the right time to bear a child had arrived), as well as the story that Mary was dedicated to the Temple and that she lived there until she became of marriageable age. The document provides a lot of embellishment to these stories, including the story that Joseph was chosen to be the husband of Mary by the High Priest in the Temple because he had the “flowering” branch. It also mentions the vows taken by both Mary and Joseph to remain as virgins. This is also the document that gives us the name of Mary’s parents as Anne and Joachim. It is the embellishments that give the source away. This is a document similar to those ascribed to both Solomon and Isaiah.

Maggie


#5

[quote=MaggieOH]I can remember that within the last year the papers released a story about an ossary that was supposed to be a genuine artefact from the time of Christ with an inscription that was supposed to prove that James was the “brother” of Jesus.

Within the last week the men responsible for this artefact is a fake. It is an ossary that comes from that period but the inscription was in fact done by an Egyptian master craftsman and the people behind the fraud had attempted to make the box look very real.

Well, I guess that means that those people who took delight in pointing to this artefact as though it proved that Jesus had genuine brothers have allowed themselves to be defrauded in their pursuit to prove that Jesus had blood “brothers and sisters”. Will they never look what Scripture says when it identifies the “other Mary” as the mother of these men?

MaggieOH
[/quote]

Hi Maggie,Every other women at that time was named Mary.Here a Mary ,there a Mary,there were Marys everywhere. :confused: God Bless


#6

[quote=MaggieOH]Within the last week the men responsible for this artefact is a fake. It is an ossary that comes from that period but the inscription was in fact done by an Egyptian master craftsman and the people behind the fraud had attempted to make the box look very real.

MaggieOH
[/quote]

I too remember reading this box was declared inauthentic by an Isreali government representative, but have not read the specifics you posted. Can you post a link to the info?


#7

[quote=Exporter]If “Jesus brothers” were all older than Jesus, how is it that Mary was a Virgin? Answer: The “brothers” were the sons of Joseph who was a widower. He had sons by his first wife.
[/quote]

This is true they all could have been step brothers from a previous marriege…


#8

[quote=mark a]I too remember reading this box was declared inauthentic by an Isreali government representative, but have not read the specifics you posted. Can you post a link to the info?
[/quote]

I will see if I can find an online article, however, I saw the information in two of my local newspapers, “The Australian” and the “Daily Telegraph”.

MaggieOH


#9

Well, the ossuary was discovered to be a fake quite a while back. I wish I had a current link on it, but I am sure more than six months ago.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter, whether half-brothers, cousins or distant clansmen it doesn’t make any difference to me.

+T+
Michael


#10

[quote=Bill_A]This is true they all could have been step brothers from a previous marriege…
[/quote]

However, there is no Scriptural support for this position. I intially thought that the mention of Joseph being an old man with other children was in the Protoevanelium but I found that it is in this source:

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-68.htm#P5970_1750772

The fact that this is the Psuedo Gospel of Matthew, and it repeats much of which is in the Protoevangelium also casts doubt upon its authenticity as a work of the Apostles. There are too many embellishments, and I think that we need to be aware of those embellishments and how they affect our understanding of both Joseph and Mary.

Both of the early stories say that a white dove came from Joseph’s rod, but there are other stories that have allegedly come from visions given in later centuries that partially support these ancient stories but also leave out the embellishments, including the martyrdom of Zechariah at the Temple by Herod’s men because they were looking for John.

MaggieOH


#11

[quote=Hesychios]Well, the ossuary was discovered to be a fake quite a while back. I wish I had a current link on it, but I am sure more than six months ago.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter, whether half-brothers, cousins or distant clansmen it doesn’t make any difference to me.

+T+
Michael
[/quote]

Yes, I do remember that it was at least 6 months ago when it was reported that the ossary could be a fake and the inscription was the reason why it was doubted as genuine. If I can find the link I will post it. The new story is that the men who were responsible for the fraud have been arrested and charged with forging the artefacts. I will post an online link as soon as I can find one.

MaggieOH


#12

I too would be interested in that link. Thanks for doing the leg word Maggie.

I wonder if the History Channel will be as quick to do another special about how this was a hoax. Probably not… far be it from the History Channel to challenge the high priests of their religion.


#13

I am going to have fun researching this whole subject. There is a lot of information available for those who want to read it. I found the following links on the arrests of the men responsible for the forgery:

sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=16370
christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/129/31.0.html

I found some other interesting links (so far they are all Protestant links) that are worth a look at how people were deceived by the “discovery”:

crosswalk.com/news/1175779.html#http___www_crosswalk_com_news_1175779_html
crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1193746.html#http___www_crosswalk_com_news_religiontoday_1193746_html

crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1211935.html

bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_HSALFMC.html

The reason that I am interested in this subject is that the find was highlighted on another list by a man who has since left the Catholic Church. He used the announcement of the find to state in the affirmative that Mary was not a Perpetual Virgin because of this finding.

MaggieOH


#14

[quote=Théodred]I too would be interested in that link. Thanks for doing the leg word Maggie.

I wonder if the History Channel will be as quick to do another special about how this was a hoax. Probably not… far be it from the History Channel to challenge the high priests of their religion.
[/quote]

I think that you will find that the History Channel will be slow to recant their errors. However, since I live in another country and I do not have cable television…

MaggieOH


#15

G’day Margaret,

Our own Fr. Paul Stenhouse MSC, from Sydney covered this very subject in Annals Australasia in the Oct. 2004 issue:

Whatever Happened… to the Apostles?
5. ST. JAMES THE LESS 1

This is the fifth of a series of fourteen articles by Paul STENHOUSE, MSC discussing Catholic tradition concerning the twelve Apostles, their background, mission and manner of death. The thirteenth will be devoted to Judas Iscariot and the final article will treat of St Paul, the ‘Apostle to the Gentiles’.

More than seventeen years ago an ossuary or ‘bone box’ surfaced in Jerusalem dating from the first century AD and bearing the inscription: Ya’kov son of Joseph, brother of Yeshua - ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’. Controversy erupted immediately over the genuiness of the inscription, and the dating of the limestone burial box.

Mystery still surrounds the box, its provenance, the identity of its owner, and the identity of the ‘James,’ ‘Joseph,’ and ‘Jesus’ mentioned in the inscription. None of the names was uncommon at that time, and there the matter rests.

There are references to at least eight persons named James in the New Testament. The five that principally interest us here are as follows:

James, son of Zebadee, brother of John. 2
James the son of Alphaeus. 3
James the ‘brother’ of the Lord. 4
James the brother of Joseph, whose mother was Mary. 5
James the brother of Jude. 6
James the first Bishop of Jerusalem. 7

We discussed the life and death of James, son of Zebadee in an earlier issue [Annals 5/2004]. This month we are concerned with the Apostle James. Following Catholic tradition, we suggest that all six of the Jameses mentioned above are one and the same person: and The Roman Breviary, in identifying James the son of Alphaeus [Matthew 10,3] with James the so-called ‘brother’ of the Lord [Matthew 13,55] who became the first bishop of Jerusalem, is following the judgement of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis [60-130 AD] who was a contemporary of the Apostles, and the opinion of St Jerome 8 [345-420] and St Augustine, 9 [354-430 AD] and the universal belief of the Catholic Church in the West.

Read the complete article HERE

Happy New Year to all!


#16

Thanks for the links! :slight_smile:


#17

[quote=MaggieOH]I think that you will find that the History Channel will be slow to recant their errors. However, since I live in another country and I do not have cable television…

MaggieOH
[/quote]

The History Channel, like it’s cousin in spirit TLC (aka the lying channel) are only concerned about having an audience.

Making money is the absolute first priority, accuracy a distant second. They also use independent producers who sell their work to anyone willing to buy their canned product. Oftentimes if you watch the credits the “experts” interviewed are actually the people who wrote the script. They interview themselves!

I have seen a lot of their material because I borrow it from the library for free. It is amusing to point out the factual errors, even guessing the agenda of the writers sometimes. But when they discuss religion it makes my blood boil!

This isn’t scholarship by any means, and certainly not journalism, but entertainment under the guise of serious topics. They play on popular prejudices, reach for shock value and also make insinuations they cannot back up. They take stock footage from other filmings and paste them in for filler, you could notice the same set of rocks over and over again if you pay attention. Now that the episode on the ossuary is a “property” it will be replayed again and again until it is finally put in the can for a DVD release. Nothing is wasted.


#18

[quote=Hesychios]The History Channel, like it’s cousin in spirit TLC (aka the lying channel) are only concerned about having an audience.

Making money is the absolute first priority, accuracy a distant second. They also use independent producers who sell their work to anyone willing to buy their canned product. Oftentimes if you watch the credits the “experts” interviewed are actually the people who wrote the script. They interview themselves!

I have seen a lot of their material because I borrow it from the library for free. It is amusing to point out the factual errors, even guessing the agenda of the writers sometimes. But when they discuss religion it makes my blood boil!

This isn’t scholarship by any means, and certainly not journalism, but entertainment under the guise of serious topics. They play on popular prejudices, reach for shock value and also make insinuations they cannot back up. They take stock footage from other filmings and paste them in for filler, you could notice the same set of rocks over and over again if you pay attention. Now that the episode on the ossuary is a “property” it will be replayed again and again until it is finally put in the can for a DVD release. Nothing is wasted.
[/quote]

LOL, yip!

However, I still like Wild West Tech… fer shame, I know.


#19

[quote=Hesychios]The History Channel, like it’s cousin in spirit TLC (aka the lying channel) are only concerned about having an audience.

Making money is the absolute first priority, accuracy a distant second. They also use independent producers who sell their work to anyone willing to buy their canned product. Oftentimes if you watch the credits the “experts” interviewed are actually the people who wrote the script. They interview themselves!

I have seen a lot of their material because I borrow it from the library for free. It is amusing to point out the factual errors, even guessing the agenda of the writers sometimes. But when they discuss religion it makes my blood boil!

This isn’t scholarship by any means, and certainly not journalism, but entertainment under the guise of serious topics. They play on popular prejudices, reach for shock value and also make insinuations they cannot back up. They take stock footage from other filmings and paste them in for filler, you could notice the same set of rocks over and over again if you pay attention. Now that the episode on the ossuary is a “property” it will be replayed again and again until it is finally put in the can for a DVD release. Nothing is wasted.
[/quote]

I see another problem with this kind of material. These producers claim to have a product that is well researched, and there are many who believe every word that they see in the documentaries that are presented on the T.V. As I said I do not have cable TV and therefore never see the History Channel, or the other one you mentioned :smiley: . I do not even watch the majority of the programs of this nature that are presented on our ABC T.V., though I did listen to the one on Pompeii. I do agree that the producers of these documentaries have their own agenda, complete with an anti-Catholic bias, and I point to the documentary on the Crusades as an example of something that was poorly researched. Although I did not watch the Crusades, I do know people who have been very influenced by what was depicted in that particular documentary series.

I agree with all of your points.

MaggieOH


#20

[quote=Sean O L]G’day Margaret,

Our own Fr. Paul Stenhouse MSC, from Sydney covered this very subject in Annals Australasia in the Oct. 2004 issue:

Whatever Happened… to the Apostles?
5. ST. JAMES THE LESS 1

This is the fifth of a series of fourteen articles by Paul STENHOUSE, MSC discussing Catholic tradition concerning the twelve Apostles, their background, mission and manner of death. The thirteenth will be devoted to Judas Iscariot and the final article will treat of St Paul, the ‘Apostle to the Gentiles’.

More than seventeen years ago an ossuary or ‘bone box’ surfaced in Jerusalem dating from the first century AD and bearing the inscription: Ya’kov son of Joseph, brother of Yeshua - ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’. Controversy erupted immediately over the genuiness of the inscription, and the dating of the limestone burial box.

Mystery still surrounds the box, its provenance, the identity of its owner, and the identity of the ‘James,’ ‘Joseph,’ and ‘Jesus’ mentioned in the inscription. None of the names was uncommon at that time, and there the matter rests.

There are references to at least eight persons named James in the New Testament. The five that principally interest us here are as follows:

James, son of Zebadee, brother of John. 2
James the son of Alphaeus. 3
James the ‘brother’ of the Lord. 4
James the brother of Joseph, whose mother was Mary. 5
James the brother of Jude. 6
James the first Bishop of Jerusalem. 7

We discussed the life and death of James, son of Zebadee in an earlier issue [Annals 5/2004]. This month we are concerned with the Apostle James. Following Catholic tradition, we suggest that all six of the Jameses mentioned above are one and the same person: and The Roman Breviary, in identifying James the son of Alphaeus [Matthew 10,3] with James the so-called ‘brother’ of the Lord [Matthew 13,55] who became the first bishop of Jerusalem, is following the judgement of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis [60-130 AD] who was a contemporary of the Apostles, and the opinion of St Jerome 8 [345-420] and St Augustine, 9 [354-430 AD] and the universal belief of the Catholic Church in the West.

Read the complete article HERE

Happy New Year to all!
[/quote]

John,

Fr. Stenhouse’s article is a little out of date as a source of information because the Israeli authorities have made arrests, charging Golan with fraud over the ossuary of James and the other item that has caused a stir.

My interest in the subject remains the same, that of refuting those who claim that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, including the refutation that Joseph was an elderly man who was a widower with older children.

As far as the men named James are concerned, I agree that we have two Apostles with the name James. The first James is the son of Zebedee, and he was execucted by Herod. The second James is the son of Alphaeus. He is also the man who is identified as “the brother of the Lord”, and he is the first Bishop of Jerusalem. This James is also the son of the “other Mary” who is identified with the Greek name Clopas. The names Alphaeus and Clopas are the same name but in two languages. Therefore we are not looking at 6 men named James, but at two men. The case for James as a cousin of Jesus is a lot stronger than as a blood brother, or even a half (step) brother.

Those who claim otherwise dispute the tradition that was written down by Papias who was the first to identify James in this way. The modern scholars neglect a lot of the traditional history in favour of their own ideas and they try to find the evidence that fits with their ideas, not necessarily what is stated in the Scripture.

MaggieOH


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.