Scholars: Oldest evidence of Jesus? By Jeordan Legon CNN Monday, October 21, 2002 Posted: 10:18 PM EDT (0218 GMT)

WASHINGTON (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.

Aramaic, an ancient Semitic language, was the lingua franca of the Middle East for many centuries. At the time of Jesus' life, Aramaic was the common language of the Jews. Hebrew was the language of government, religion and the upper classes.

Writing about his findings in the new issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Lemaire, who teaches at the Sorbonne in Paris, called it "very probable" that the box belonged to Jesus' brother James, who by Christian tradition was the leader of the early church in Jerusalem.

Some scholars expressed doubt that the box, which is 20 inches long by 11 inches wide, could be definitively linked to Jesus, a Jewish carpenter by trade revered by Christians as the son of God.

"We may never be absolutely certain. In the work I do we're rarely absolutely certain about anything," said Kyle McCarter, a Johns Hopkins University archaeologist, who said that the finding was probable, but that he had "a bit of doubt."

While most scholars agree that Jesus existed, no physical evidence from the first century has ever been conclusively tied with his life.

Two scientists from the Israeli government's geological survey tested the box last month, inspecting the surface patina and inscription under a microscope. They concurred that the object is more than 19 centuries old, the archaeology magazine reported.

"It's hard to avoid the conclusion that these three names refer to the personages so identified in the New Testament," said Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Many of the conclusions reached by experts relied on the inscription written on the ossuary. The boxes commonly were used by Jewish families between 20 B.C. and A.D. 70 to store the bones of their loved ones.

Lemaire said out of hundreds of such boxes found with Aramaic writing only two contain mentions of a brother. From this, scholars infer that the brother was noted only when he was someone important.

James, Joseph and Jesus were common names in ancient Jerusalem, a city of about 40,000 residents. Lemaire estimates there could have been as many as 20 Jameses in the city with brothers named Jesus and fathers named Joseph.

The inscription reads, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," according to scholars. But it is unlikely there would have been more than one James who had a brother of such importance that it merited having him mentioned on his ossuary, Lemaire said.

Lemaire found the box in June by accident, said Shanks, who was able to inspect the box personally.

But he said whether the box belonged to Jesus' brother, it still provides a powerful link with the past.

"This is something that provides a bridge over time," he said. "My reaction is not so much excitement as it is awe."

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 22, 2002

Answers

For those who hadnt heard this news(unlikely it seems like a big story). I dont know what to think about this, I wonder if the Vatican will send someone to have a look? Any thoughts?

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 22, 2002.

"Jesus, a Jewish carpenter by trade revered by Christians as the son of God."

Heh. Did anyone else find this funny?

I really don't know about this. I really don't want to suggest anything untoward, but what's the deal with the "brother" thing again?

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), October 22, 2002.

Heh, nevermind. Nix the above question.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), October 22, 2002.

Whether or not this box belonged to Jesus' brother, it is still an interesting story and we can learn so much about that time period. I think it is fascinating.

As for James being the brother of Jesus of Nazareth, is there a previous thread on this topic? I know it is a controversial one. During that time people called each other Brother.

James is often referred to as Jesus' brother so I am interested in the answers regarding this subject. If there is a previous thread on this, please let me know. Thank you.

I used to belong to a Filipino Charismatic prayer group and they used to call each other Brother.

Thank you, MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), October 22, 2002.

It could have also been, as described in one of the Apocryphal books, that James was the son of Joseph from a first wife, therefore making him Jesus' half brother. But it is all speculation. We know for sure however that Mary was a virgin and still is, because our Holy Mother Church teaches thus. Likewise there are several Scriptural incidents and passages which would indicate this as truth.

I would love to hear more about the find, if indeed it can bring some more light on Jesus' life.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 22, 2002.

Good morning, Jake :)

I, too, read that James was the son of Joseph from a previous marriage.

I do think at the time that Jesus called everyone Brother...like preachers do today. "My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ," is often heard at churches other than Catholic.

Wouldn't it be amazing if this find "is" related to Jesus in some way?

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), October 22, 2002.

Hello, Marylu

The reference to Jesus' brothers (Mk 3,31 p; 6,3p; Ac 1,14; 1 Co 9,5;G 1,19) has led several critics to think that Mary did not preserve her virginity after the birth of our Lord. This opinion is not met anyhere in the ancient tradition when mention is made of Jesus' brothers, and it clashes with several Gospel texts. James and Joseph, brothers in Mt 13,55p, seem to be the sons of another Mary(Mt 27,56 p). And when Jesus is dying He entrusts His mother to the care of a disciple (Jn 19,26f), which seems to suggest that she has no other son. Apart from this it is known in the semitic world the name brother is applied to close relations and relations by marriage.

I know you were not questioning whether Mary had other sons, but perhaps this might shed some light on the mention of Jesus having brothers to you.

I also think I rember reading that St. Joseph was a virgin. I don't rember where as it was many years ago in school. I don't have anything to back that statement up with except, I think I rember this being the case.

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), October 22, 2002.

Thanks David.

Also Mary's response to the Angel, at the anunciation, likewise indicates her wish to remain a virgin. It would make sence that since Mary was engaged, when the Angel anounced she would have a Son, Mary would (or should have) thought that it would be by Joseph who would soon be her husband. Just like in the previouse chapter where the Angel appears to Elizabeth's husband, he asks how, but he knows it is going to be by him. By Mary questioning how this would be, it implies that she never intended to have merital relations with Joseph in the first place.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 22, 2002.

Hello, Jake

You're welcome!

"...it implies that she never intended to have martial relations with Joseph in the first place"

The virginity of Mary at the moment of the Annunciation is stressed by the objection that she makes to the angel when he tells that she is going to be the mother of the Messiah: "But how can this come about since I do not know man?" (Lk 1, 34). The expression 'to know a man" is in fact a normal way in the Bible of speaking of conjugal relations as we see Jake in (Gn 4,1.17.25; 19,8; 24,16..) In this way Luke empasizes that Mary is a virgin at the moment that she receives Jesus.

Is Luke also trying to say that before the Annunciation Mary wanted to preserve her virginity? Since St. Augustine, many have thought so. They have translated her question to the angel by paraphrasing it: 'since I do not know want to know man," considering this nuance necesarry to justify Mary's question. Since she is the wife of a son of David, all she needs to do to become the Mother of the Messiah is to consummate her marriage; if she ses any difficulty here, it is because she wants to preserve her virginity.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), October 22, 2002.

I had posted a comment on another thread regarding this matter. Sorry for the duplication, but thought it applies here also.

If this find is authentic, it is really exciting, but in no way demonstrates the Catholic Church is wrong in Her teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary. There is an ancient tradition that seems to hold to the idea that Joseph was much older than Mary and actually had children from a previous marriage (he was a widower). (Although I tend to shy away from this view for personal piety reasons only.)

The tombstone states "James, the son of Joseph and brother of Jesus," not the son of Mary. (Yes, I realize it would be very rare to mention the mother in this context, but my point is still valid.) Also, the names of James, Jesus and Joseph were rather common at the time. An archaeologist states that a the combination of these three names as father/son/brother combination in Jerusalem around the year 63 AD to be around 20 statically. Also note that the term "brother" in the time of Jesus was used to be more than just blood brother. It could refer to a cousin, or in this context, a follower of Jesus was commonly referred to be a brother of Jesus. So a cousin of Jesus or a follower of Jesus with a father named Jesus would even be much more likely.

There are a lot of questions about authenticity of this find and in no way could be used to scientifically contradict with certainty the Catholic Church's teaching on Mary. And if you do really do your research and use reason, it makes a lot more sense to place your trust in the Catholic Church as the source of truth on faith and morals than this or any archaeological finds (which, surprisingly, consistently validate the Church’s teachings), scientific theory, and even the Bible with individual interpretation of verses taken out of context. I'd be more than happen to take up this point here or in another thread (preferably) if anyone is interested.

God blesss!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), October 22, 2002.

It's certainly interesting, but the media is making such a big annoying deal out of it ("Does this prove that Mary wasn't a virgin? Stay tuned, film at 11!") that I'm trying to ignore it. :-)

-- Christine L. (chris_tine_lehman@hotmail.com), October 22, 2002.

James was the brother of Judas of Thaddeus, both sons of 'Alpheus' and more importantly, cousins to Jesus. After Jesus' resurrection, James remained in Jerusalem to 'evangelise' the Jews, while Judas (now Jude) Thaddeus went to evangelise greater Asia Minor et al.

There is no word for 'cousin' in Aramaic, one of the first ancient languages of the Bible, hence the Aramaic term for 'brother' is used interchangeably for 'brother' or 'cousin' throughout Scripture. There was no delineation between the two terms at the time, and because being a blood relation was of such import in the given culture anyway, the distinction didn't matter to readers at the time.

The distintion matters to us today who, using the English language and coming from a different culture, understand a greater distinction between brother and cousin.

Mary was a perpetual virgin through Her lifetime and had no other children aside from Jesus, Whom She bore immaculately. Joseph was likewise a virgin, chosen as guardian of the Holy Family and protector of Mary, with Whom he shared this pledge of purity.

There will of course be countless people who contest this, and countless more articles like the above designed to detract from Mary's status, but the Catholics here should understand it's just another pretence and either sensationalism, anti-Catholicism or just plain ignorance.

Regarding 'evidence of Jesus', well, it's all there. Ancient records in Rome contain details of the public and legally sanctioned crucifixion of 'Jesus, Son of Joseph the Carpenter' in 33 AD. Seek and you will find.

With best regards,

-- Christian (christian@app.com), October 22, 2002.

Just found an aritcle on Catholic Answers about this. Seems James Akins and I have the same take, but he has more details!

God Bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), October 23, 2002.

In catholic cyber space with no one else in my time zone as usual so Ill have a conversation to myself. I saw Chris Coose pop up today again, he was the first poster who was really nice to me, funny the things you remember. With Jean and Frank back the old liberals might be back to stir things up(tho Franks hardly liberal is he).

Marly Lu I know you are normally first up in the morning over there so good morning- you made me laugh mentioning the Filipino Charismatic prayer group as my parents stopped going to Mass living in the Phillipines as it was so dreadful- the continuous mind numbing high pitched singing was the final nail in the coffin for them. Not saying your prayer group was similar of course, just to end 45 years of continuous Mass going it must have been fairly dire stuff. I was unlucky enough to experience a watered down version in Malaysia. Hey when in Rome.... and Im sure they would find a Mass over here just as difficult. Thats sounds rather disrespectful about Mass but I guess you had to experience it Im being negative, something Im consiously trying not to do so much. Do others have to try and be positive or should we just say what we feel?

Im rambling rubbish again and Ive een to a dinner party which was niceAND I didnt drink too much and I think Im falling in love with someone :). Goodnight everyone

Have a great day all- as Ali G might say MAXIMUM RESPECT . God Bless

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 23, 2002.

looks like I had a few more drinks than I should have

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 26, 2002.

-- (:@:.:), October 28, 2002.

Good morning Courtenay! :)

The Filipino prayer group I belonged to was a very special group of people, very talented musically, and very catholic and very spiritual.

They were truly devoted to the church, Rome, and to Our Blessed Mother. I met some of the most interesting, highly-educated people there - mostly doctors and surgeons - yet very humble.

They accepted everyone into their group - even us ordinary working class. :)

I learned a lot from these wonderful, warm, hospitable people and will never forget them.

After a while, I drifted away from the charismatic movement but it served its purpose at the time. I am sorry to hear that your mom left the mass - did she ever go back?

Have a great day!

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), October 28, 2002.

Hi Mary Lu I wish we had an edit function to remove unwanted posts because that is simply awful from me. If we ever get a moderator could you please delete that drunken drivel from me. Anyhow... both my parents no longer regularly go to Mass , though I think they will get their act into gear soon. I will try and have a nice day though it is 3.00am and Ive got to *get up* in a few hours for work...silly boy, I hope you and the family are well.

Blessings

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 28, 2002.

Dear Courtenay:

I will keep your mom and dad in my prayers as to their returning to mass.

Sometimes, it just takes something that turns us off - it could be trivial or it could be major - but we take our feelings out on God and stop going to church. We don't realize when we do that, we are hurting not only God, but ourselves.

For instance, I am very upset about something that took place recently. A very depressed young man came into church after mass. He was 16 years old and, obviously to everyone there, this young man was hurting badly. He went right over to the confession and sat down waiting for the priest to finish mass so he could have a confession or at least talk to the priest.

The priest went over to him and told him that he would call him that afternoon and make an appointment to get together. The boy was so sad and said, "Father, I really need to talk to a priest!" Well, Fr. could not talk to him then. (perhaps he did have something else to take care of that morning)

So, I went over to the boy and sat with him, but he would not talk to me. He said he must talk to a priest and started crying. I walked with him to the rectory and the secretary took over from there; Our pastor was not available either. The boy would not talk to her either; he insisted that he wanted to talk to a priest.

When he came out of the rectory I went back into the church with him and tried talking to him. He would not talk, but at least I told him he could talk to me any time he wanted and there were other people in the church who would be willing to help him as the priests do have a very busy schedule.

Anyway, his mom came to pick him up and take him home. She, too, looked very sad and said the family was going through a rough time and she wished her son could have spoken to the priest but understood that no appointment was made and they, the priests, do have an agenda to follow.

When I saw her the next day, she told me that the priest who promised to call her son, never called him and the son was very disappointed.

I thought about that boy all day and worried about him. It doesn't take much for a teenager to end his life when they are in a depression. Their problems seem so big to them (and, to them, they are) even though we know that every problem has a solution - for a depressed teenager suicide can become their only solution.

You, see, Courtenay, it is things like this that disturb me greatly. I try so hard to be a faithful catholic - I am trying, really but then I get angry at things like this and wonder why I bother.

I guess I bother because I love Jesus and I must remember that our priests our human beings who have weaknesses just like we do. If this was the first incident of its kind, I would let it go. But, this has happened so many times and I don't understand why.

Pray for me to let this thing go and not hold on to my bitterness. It seems to resurface all the time and I wonder if it is Satan doing his work. I must not let him win.

Thank you and God Bless.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), October 28, 2002.

I will pray for you of course Mary Lu, there is no place in the Church for such lazy or selfish priests, just as there is no place for those priests who abuse little boys. It is human to er, but they need to be accountable for their actions.

This priest you speak badly of, is this a common trait of his? Is he generaly unreliable and seemingly unloving? If so he should be held to account by his superiors and should not be serving as a parish priest until his heart is again filled with the holy spirit.

Im not a great Catholic either in terms of regular Mass going ML but I feel very positive about my faith lately and even more so about our church. Be not afraid!

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 28, 2002.

Hi Kiwi,

Thank you for your non-judgemental response. I'm sure I will be misunderstood.

My faith is strong; don't worry. It is just that I get so disappointed with our spiritual leaders sometime. As far as this priest behavior, you asked if he is like that all the time and I have to say yes, he is.

One day he told us the only reason he helps out at our church is because he needs the "money." He also asked why we attend daily mass when we don't have to; it is not an obligation. He said he is tired of doing mass and wishes they would do away with daily mass. I couldn't believe it!!

I decided that our priests are human just like we are and they have to stand before God one day too - like any other profession or vocation, some are very good at what they do and some aren't - it is just the way it is. I suppose I disappoint people too at times, including myself and God...so who am I to judge?

Maybe I expect too much from priests.

I guess the best thing to do is pray for our priests who are burned out and tired or in some way lacking in spirit. Their behavior is not for me to judge, I guess - but it is hard to accept sometimes. I know that there are many good priests around and the others need our prayers - I guess they all need our prayers because the very good ones do more than their share.

You are very kind, Kiwi, very kind. God bless.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), October 28, 2002.

test

-- (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 29, 2002.

I don't see anything wrong with what you said in that last post, MaryLu... we have every right to expect our priests to be as holy as possible.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 29, 2002.

Thank you, Emerald :)

I prayed before the Blessed Sacrament today for all of our priests.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), October 29, 2002.