Old Bones Mean a lot to us Christians
"James the son of Joseph" inscribed on an ossuary found. Read more.
Posted by jeremy stock at October 25, 2002 06:29 PMAin't this cool? :) I mean there is a slight chance that it was a different James, Joseph and Jesus, but come one. It is from the right time period and has the right family relationships and the brother is named which is unusual. I think this is great!
Posted by: Tim at October 25, 2002 09:28 PMOh, by the way, what does this say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? I mean this is James, brother of Jesus, son of Joseph. If James was just a close relative, would he be both Jesus' brother and Joseph's son?
Just looking for a perpetual-virginity proponent's thoughts.
Posted by: Tim at October 25, 2002 09:35 PMTim,
I can give you my meager explanations, just know that there are others with more knowledge of language and history that can better respond on this topic. With that said, the tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary is not jeapordized by archeaological findings, for one of two reasons:
1. One theory is that Joseph (Mary's husband) had children from a prior marriage; one of these children could be the James of which we speak.
2. In Greek cousins are often called "brothers" or "sisters." (Also, in Greek cultures to this very day it is not uncommon for persons without blood relation but who live within the same household to be called "brothers" and "sisters.")
I believe this is one of those issues that Protestants and Orthodox/Romanists will continue to disagree. The fact of the matter is that the description of Mary as "ever virgin" dates back at the latest to the 5th Century, and was a view of the Church for well over a thousand years prior to Luther and Calvin coming along quickly removing that belief from the minds of their followers.
In all, the finding of the ossuary is truly awesome, and yet another testament to the awesome history of Christ's church.
Good to hear from you!
Posted by: jeremy at October 26, 2002 10:00 AMTsk, tsk! Calvin and Luther did not dump Mary's perpetual virginity, they believed in it! It is sola scriptura that bring this into question. The only answer that will work in this case is (1), but that presumes an aweful lot to perserve a tradition. It is possible that Joseph was an older man when he married Mary and that is why he doesn't appear in the gospels during Jesus' ministry, only the birth narratives.
Number 2 above won't work because James is now known as more than just "Jesus brother" but now "son of Joseph". That excludes 2.
Perpetual virginity or not, the is a tremendous find, adding a lot of evidence in support of the historicity of Jesus.
Posted by: Tim at October 27, 2002 05:56 AMPoint well taken on Calvin and Luther. :-)
Sola Scriptura itself was a creation of the Reformation. So it seems the Protestant has the quandry: a new teaching: "Mary is not 'ever-virgin'", supported by a new interpretive grid: sola scriptura. Sounds like a mere stipulation to me. Hm.
Posted by: jer at October 27, 2002 07:18 PMHum, a "new" reading. Though the perpetual virginity didn't appear till what, 5th century?
Besides, I thought that tradition was supposed to go together with scripture, not contradict it. So if James was both Jesus' brother and Jospeh's son, the clearest explination that leaves the virgin birth in tact is that Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus. If Joseph had kids by a marriage before Mary, they seem to be missing in the birth narritives from the NT. Doesn't prove that such kiddies didn't exist, just seems like a pretty glaring omission. Mary and Jospeh go to Bethleham to register for a census. Seems to me like Joseph would be required by law to bring those kiddos with him. And yet,
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. -Lk 2:4-5
Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt. Surely Joseph's childern would have been with them, and yet
When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, - Matt 2:13-14Take the child and His mother but not your own children?
Now of course the focus of Matthew's and Luke's narritives are on Jesus and His birth to a virgin so there may be details that the Evangelists left out. But surely if there were other children in the house at the time of Jesus' birth, the text would have said something like "Joseph took his family to Bethleham" and "Take your family and flee to Egypt". Those would have still left some wiggle room for both camps, but it would be I who was wiggling.
I am not opposed to tradition, we all have them even those who say they don't, their tradition is to ignore tradition. My point is only that even our tradition must be subject to scripture. Sure, there are some issues that are not clear and that there are interpretive differences over (the are what the anti-sola scriptura folks focus on, but on some issues, I think it is pretty clear. Let's not let 'tradition' cloud those issues.
Posted by: Tim at October 28, 2002 05:19 AMSt. Athanasios makes mention of the "ever-virgin" Mary and so the tradition is certainly older than the fifth century. And if we affirm the interpretation of the early Fathers, the belief in the ever-virginity of Mary extends all the way back to the prophet Ezekial when he prophesied concerning it. (chapter 44 I think.)
The omission of Jesus' siblings in the early accounts of Luke really doesn't tell us much. I might also mention another omission which I think speaks more clearly: The charge given by Jesus on the cross for John to watch over the Theotokos...a duty which properly should have befallen one of Mary's natural children had she had any.
I suspect that the "proto-evangelum (sp?) of James" might also make mention of the matter...which while not being scripture would certainly testify to the earliness of the Tradition.
peace
james
Like I said, it doesn't demolish the case, but it sure weakens it.
John & Mary? First, it isn't exactly clear what is happening in that exchange and second Jesus siblings didn't believe in Him at that point (remember they thought He was crazy) so Jesus may have been entrusting her to one of His believing disciples. Besides, if James was Jesus' step-brother via Joseph's previous marriage, then James would have responsibility for Mary as the older brother.
See? This is not an easy thing to resolve, both sides have reasons and rationale. All I'm trying say is that I think the ossuary seems to lend weight to my side. It certinally is not an open and shut case (bad pun intended, apologies offered for poor humor).
Posted by: Tim at October 30, 2002 01:03 PMGentlemen,
I'm enjoying the dialogue; if I had more time I'd love to join more. Perhaps this weekend.
God be with us
Posted by: jer at October 30, 2002 04:23 PMNo problem brother, as long as we are entertaining you....
Big Fat ;0) to ya!
Posted by: Tim at October 31, 2002 11:34 AMHi Tim...
As I suspect you know, we Orthodox don't feel the need to prove the case by using Scripture alone. All of us tend to have a paradigm which we bring to Scripture and often we can make the Scripture stroke those personal paradigms. Ultimately, we cannot approach the Scripture as if were written with the intent of providing future generations with a "how to" guide on Christianity.
You may be very well right, Tim, that it cannot be proven...but for instance you say:
"First, it isn't exactly clear what is happening in that exchange and second Jesus siblings didn't believe in Him at that point"
You see when the Scripture is placed in its (proper, dare I say) context of Holy Trandition it is VERY clear what is happening there, but if you are left to try and discern it outside of any context except personal scholarly opinion then you are right. And indeed we shall have this problem throughout all of the hermeneutic realm...certainly this is why many protestants cannot even agree on whether or not we have free will.
Also, we know that at SOME point in the Gospel narrative that Jesus' step-siblings (hehehe) didn't believe in him, but we are not told exactly when they did convert. I have seen ancient record of both a pre and post resurrectional conversion of my patron St. James, the brother of God.
It seems to me that the bigger question is in regards to Authority.
peace
james
James writes:
You see when the Scripture is placed in its (proper, dare I say) context of Holy Tradition it is VERY clear what is happening there, but if you are left to try and discern it outside of any context except personal scholarly opinion then you are right. And indeed we shall have this problem throughout all of the hermeneutic realm...certainly this is why many protestants cannot even agree on whether or not we have free will.Well said James. I could hardly agree with you more. Once a person places himself outside of the historic, Apostolic Church (I don't use those adjectives loosely, but as being descriptions of fact) he has placed himself into a realm of subjective personal conviction based on his own interpretation of Scripture. Once he has his convictions on Scripture he goes and finds a church that agrees with his convictions-- if he can't find a church that agrees, he goes and starts his own. I call it "lone-ranger" theology.
One point is clear: this entire debate comes down to authority-- who has it? The Holy Apostolic Church? Or one's own conviction?
You see when the Scripture is placed in its (proper, dare I say) context of Holy Trandition it is VERY clear what is happening there, but if you are left to try and discern it outside of any context except personal scholarly opinion then you are right. And indeed we shall have this problem throughout all of the hermeneutic realm...certainly this is why many protestants cannot even agree on whether or not we have free will.Ugh. I know that sola scriptura is a favorite drum to beat but you blew right past my point. Let me restate it.
If Joseph had children from another marriage as Tradition tells you he did, then what was happening at the cross with John and Mary? Jesus then would be the youngest child in the family, not the oldest. As such, within the structure of the family, He would have no authority to entrust Mom to anyone, nor would there be any need for Him to. The oldest son would assume responsibility for her.
This isn't a problem with sola scriptura, this is a problem with tradition. If the other tradition is true, that Jesus did have younger brothers and sisters, then what is happening at the cross makes sense. The oldest son is providing for his mother.
So back to the inscription on the ossuary. James is Joseph's son. If James is Joseph's son from a previous marriage, then he is older than Jesus. The care of Mary is his responsibility, not Jesus'. How does Tradition help here?
Once he has his convictions on Scripture he goes and finds a church that agrees with his convictions-- if he can't find a church that agrees, he goes and starts his own. I call it "lone-ranger" theology.Kind of like what you did in leaving the Presbyterian church and joining the Orthodox? You didn't buy Sola Scriptura so you found a denomination you agreed with. Why not Rome? They reject Sola Scriptura too.
Having said that, let me add that I do not reject tradition for the sake of rejecting tradition. In Protestant terms it is called Historical Theology. You want to wind up in heresy? Ignore the historical teaching of the Church. What I am saying is that tradition is subject to Scriptures too.
Posted by: Tim at November 3, 2002 03:21 PMHi Tim...
I'm not sure that I am prepared to speak on the extent to which older step-brothers are supposed to take on such duties as it appears Jesus gave to John in regards to the Theotokos. I mean, do YOU know for sure whether or not in the ancient Judaic traditions the law applied to step-sons?
Scripture is not going to answer us either way - definatively.
Also, I would say that the issue of Sola Scriptura is not a mute point here. Tim, you are looking at Holy Tradition and judging it based on YOUR interpretation of Scripture. Whereas we would maintain that the proper hermeneutic would be to keep Holy Scripture as apart of Holy Tradition as it was intended...the living witness of the Church. We interpret the Scripture through the eyes of Tradition.
Ultimately we are proceeding from different starting points and different paradigms.
You said:
>You didn't buy Sola Scriptura so you found a >denomination you agreed with.
(in my best arabic accent) What is this thing you call a "denomination"? Is Christ divided? (something my Bishop said to me when I called the Orthodox Church a "denomination") I cannot speak for Jeremy, but for my part I wrestled with Orthodoxy for quite awhile, until the Church finally convinced me of HER truth and not mine. I didn't become Orthodox in theology first and then went and found the Church, rather just the opposite.
>Why not Rome?
How much time do you have?
peace
james
>(in my best arabic accent)
Ah, and a fine arabic accent it was!
No my brother in Christ, Christ is not divided and just because I am not a Presbyterian or a Methodist or an Anglican or (*gasp*) an Eastern Orthodox does not mean that I am divided from them either. I know that most Protestants and darn near 99.7% of all Baptists have a terrible view of the catholic Church, I do not.
The idea that ANY group is perfectly harmonious and agree in every point of doctrine is simply wrong. Within an (for example) Orthodox Presbyterian Church there is a great deal of doctrinal clarity and precision. Does that mean that everyone agrees on everything and all define the doctrines the same? No stinkin' way!
Now drop the "Presbyterian" from the name and ask the same question. You'll get the same answer. Is Christ divided in either case? Not necessarily. Is the Eastern Orthodox Church *exclusively* right on every point of doctrine? No, and neither is "Bob and Sue's Non-Denominational House of Prayer -n- Worship Shikina Glory Center of Family Faith" no matter how dogmatically Pastor Bob affirms the pre-trib, pre-wrath, pre-3:00 pm rapture of the Non-denominational church.
Besides, is your bishop saying that nothing outside his *denomination* is the Church?
'Nuff of that. Back to tradition. Notice that in my last comment I did not refer to my interpretation of Scripture. I asked some logical questions. No, I'm not prepared to discuss the intricate details of familial responsibility in a mixed family of the first century. (I don't have a clue and don't know where to look for a good, authoritative answer! Besides, this pint of fine Brittish ale is beginning to go to my head. :) All I am asking is if this non-scriptural evidence does not call into *at least* question the Tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity? I think it does. If Tradition is not up for debate then I'll just sign off of this post and be done with it.
BTW, what did you Orthodox talk about *before* the Reformation? ;0)
On a side note, the word is "moot" not "mute". Just so you know, ya know?
Posted by: Tim at November 3, 2002 08:31 PMHi Tim...
>I know that most Protestants and darn near 99.7% >of all Baptists have a terrible view of the >catholic Church, I do not.
I certainly honor you for this. Unfortunately whilst I was a protestant I was amongst the 99.7%
>The idea that ANY group is perfectly harmonious >and agree in every point of doctrine is simply >wrong
I didn't mean to imply that a perfect doctrinal consensus is the criteria for unity in the Church. Indeed, there is room within the Orthodox Church for pious opinion (on some matters). But in the ancient Church unity was seen as being found in the picture of the local Churches gathered around their Bishops AND in the shared Cup of the Holy Mysteries. Sadly, today since most Christians cannot agree on what is actually IN the cup we would have to say (in the Orthodox frame of mind) there is no unity. I cannot say I am unified with my Baptist friend down the street when we bid one another farewell on the mornings of the Lord's Day and he further more denies the Body and Blood in the Eucharist - something we Orthodox from the beginning have affirmed as being critically important.
>Bob and Sue's Non-Denominational House of >Prayer -n- Worship Shikina Glory Center of >Family Faith" no matter how dogmatically Pastor >Bob affirms the pre-trib, pre-wrath, pre-3:00 pm >rapture of the Non-denominational church.
hehehehe...you've no idea how much this made me laugh.
>Besides, is your bishop saying that nothing >outside his *denomination* is the Church?
yes. Here Tim we will have to address our differing ecclesiologies. You see the Orthodox affirm a visible, physical, and definitive Church and NOT an invisible, spiritual, and indefinitive church. However, that being said I should also add that we do not affirm that salvation is found only within the confines of the visible Church. A mystery indeed.
>If Tradition is not up for debate then I'll just >sign off of this post and be done with it.
Of course we can debate the Tradition, please don't sign off...but in that debate is the general concept that perhaps we ought to approach Scripture within the context of Tradition as opposed to starting from scratch and interpretting Scripture and THEN seeing if Tradition fits our interpretation. Our position is that unless Scripture directly - and I mean directly - contradicts Tradition (and of course we would maintain it doesn't) then we ought to accept the Tradition, which as we see it is the living life of the Holy Spirit in the Church as promised by Christ.
>Besides, this pint of fine Brittish ale is >beginning to go to my head. :)
Where's mine? Perhaps I can use that as an excuse for my mute=moot error? What can I say, I'm a dork.
>BTW, what did you Orthodox talk about *before* >the Reformation? ;0)
LOL!
well, actually, where should we begin? 1500 years of history to cover.
By the way...on a side note as well...am I the only person who is thoroughly unable to locate Jeremy's email address on this blog? Anyone know it? Jeremy?
Posted by: james at November 4, 2002 08:46 AM> I didn't mean to imply that a perfect doctrinal
> consensus is the criteria for unity in the
> Church. Indeed, there is room within the
> Orthodox Church for pious opinion (on
> some matters).
I know and that was my point. The question is which doctrines are so essential that without them a church is not a church.
> hehehehe...you've no idea how much this
> made me laugh.
That was the intention, glad ya liked it!
> in that debate is the general concept that
> perhaps we ought to approach Scripture
> within the context of Tradition as opposed to
> starting from scratch and interpretting
> Scripture and THEN seeing if Tradition fits
> our interpretation.
But I have been careful when questioning this very tradition to avoid my own interpretation, indeed avoid scripture in general, in the discussion. My only appeal to scripture was to point to narrative and ask "where's the young 'uns?" No interpretation, just a question.
Now, the question remains, if Jesus had older siblings, where were they in the infancy narratives? Why did Jesus have to turn His mother over to John (a firstborn's job)? If the answer is that Tradition says it is so and therefore it is, then I guess we don't have much more to talk about. Way back at the beginning I simply asked what the inscription on the ossuary had to say to that tradition. If Tradition is not to be questioned in light of neither scripture nor discovery of historical artifacts, then I guess it is untouchable.
BTW, I was doing some historical research on the exegesis of a particular verse and I came across some documents on the death of Mary. I smiled as I read them since the Roman Catholic Church says that she was assumed into heaven. Why would these ancient documents (even if a forgery) tell this fantastic story of her death? All of them put Mary in the best possible light so I don't think they were trying to disprove her assumption or downplay her in any way. Just made me smile.
>What can I say, I'm a dork.
Dude, don't say that. I was trying to kindly let you know the right spelling without insulting you. The kind and humble tone in my voice didn't come across the keyboard as well as your fine arabic accent did! :)
Posted by: Tim at November 4, 2002 09:26 PMHi Tim...
>The question is which doctrines are so essential >that without them a church is not a church.
This is an odd question to me, no doubt because of our differing ecclesiologies. But this is probably too big a topic to tackle in Jeremy's comment box :)
Is Tradition "untouchable"?
I guess I would say unless Scripture clearly contradicts the Tradition in question, then why
would I not accept the Tradition of the Church? Especially given our (read: Orthodox) understanding of the Church?
And also this thought popped into my head. Why do we not consider the "Didache" or "The Shepard" as part of the New Testament? Why only those 27 letters? Ultimately the answer will never satisfy the skeptic because it is the same answer that I offer in terms of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos. Holy Tradition - the belief that the Holy Spirit is alive and guiding the Church.
And trust me, I AM a dork...if you don't believe me, ask my wife :)
peace
james
Speaking of thoughts popping into heads, on grazed my cranium on the way to school this AM. I think it might be offensive if I don't say it correctly so put on your thick skin, okay?
Many of the folks I have talked to (or heard of) who left evangelicalism for High Church (Roman Catholic or Orthodox) did so for one or both of two reasons:
1) Disunity in the evangelical world
2) Questions about authority spawned by odd evangelical doctrines
As to the first, most of the evangelicals headed to churches who talk about unity *only in terms of being part of their church*. In evangelicalism, we have a high view of the invisible church and are fairly hesitant to "un-church" another fellowship, whether we act like it or not. These "High Church" traditions claim that unity exists only in them and that everyone else is not the church, but they often don't act like it. Were I troubled by "disunity" in Protestantism, I just don't see how I would find solice in Rome or Orthodoxy.
As to the second reason, authority, the High Churches often claim to have the corner on Christian truth but define precious little of it difinitively. They all leave some room for disagreement even though they claim to be the highest source for truth. Why not come out and *infallably* define the True Christian eschatology? Within evangelicalism most churches and teachers cite other sources favorably and don't act like they have a corner on it. Were I to have a problem with authroity, I don't think I would head to High Churches becasue they seem to claim much and deliver little.
> And trust me, I AM a dork...if you don't believe
> me, ask my wife :)
Stop being such a dork, you're not a dork, okay? Oh, wait.
We're all dorks. We have on-line lives, we read blogs, we are into computer. That is some fine dorkery. Using a word like "mute" instead of "moot" is not being a dork (nay, I would say knowing the difference smacks of dorkism), that is a subtle one that is easily and often confused.
Posted by: Tim at November 7, 2002 09:36 AMHi Tim
>Many of the folks I have talked to (or heard of) >who left evangelicalism for High Church (Roman >Catholic or Orthodox) did so for one or both of >two reasons:
>1) Disunity in the evangelical world
>2) Questions about authority spawned by odd >evangelical doctrines
Though I would not say that these issues did not play a role in my decision to leave protestantism, for me it was ultimately much more simple. I started diving into the writings of the early Church (not just commentaries about the early church, I went to the sources): St. Ignatios of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Clement of Rome, and St. Irenaios of Lyon etc etc. I also read other works like the Didache and such which were highly revered by the early church and in some cases almost became apart of the official canon of Scripture. And basically what I came to discover is that there is NO way I could claim to be in the same church as these guys. Doctrine after doctrine, practice after practice which I had rejected ended up popping up and being upheld in these early writings. I was literally floored.
I did not drop out of protestantism for all its faults, rather I discovered the early church - still alive.
>In evangelicalism, we have a high view of the >invisible church and are fairly hesitant to "un->church" another fellowship, whether we act like >it or not.
I understand Tim, really I do. It would be great if I could take a "I'm in the Church, your in the Church, everyone is in the church" attitude but in the same sense that non-christians dislike the exclusive importance we attach to having Jesus as savior, invisible church folks dislike us visible church folks for claiming a comparable exclusivity.
Soothing as the "invisible church" is, the fact remains that it is a belief system that is utterly foreign to the early church and effectively did not exist until after the Reformation.
Also, let me say this, in Orthodoxy the Church is not synonymous with salvation. There is a tremendous emphasis in Orthodoxy on self-examination and we are VERY strongly discouraged from passing judgement on others. We have no qualms in admitting that many people outside the Church will be first in line in front of many within the church. In fact some Orthodox saint (whose name shamefully escapes me) once said: "The halls of hell are lined with men in stoles" (meaning Orthodox clergy).
>As to the second reason, authority, the High >Churches often claim to have the corner on >Christian truth but define precious little of it >difinitively.
Well I think you will find that the Roman Catholics are very big of defining doctrines and dogmas down to the most minute details. So if that's what you are looking for, then it is certainly there. The Orthodox however are hesitant to do so because of our profound respect and utlilization of apophatic theology.
>They all leave some room for disagreement even >though they claim to be the highest source for >truth. Why not come out and *infallably* define >the True Christian eschatology?
If you look at Church history, vitually without exception, the only time that the Church moves to strictly define doctrine is when it is confronted with some heresey or error. Every one of the 7 ecumencial councils are an excellent example of this.
>I don't think I would head to High Churches >becasue they seem to claim much and deliver >little.
For us, Christianity is not so much about having ALL of the right doctrines or affirmations nailed down, rather it is more about transfigurment, healing, prayer, and hands-on faith. And whereas the Orthodox may not nail down a definitive eschatology (save for "and He shall come again to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom shall have no end") they do offer, in the words of the Didache, "a way of Life."
I hope this makes some sense...
peace and love
james
highest quality replica jewelry Rolex watch, wrist watch, Replica Watch purchase your affordable realistic Rolex replica watch today at http://www.pro-rolex-replica-watches.com
Posted by: Rolex Replica at November 8, 2004 10:30 AMNo Fax Payday Loans - Faxless Cash Advance
Posted by: Faxless Cash Advance at January 18, 2005 04:26 PM