[KFBobInsanesMom]

Speaking about the ossuary of James

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Here's a little analysis of it's meaning, from a Catholic perspective.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f...on/776424/posts

Here's one more article...
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/41317

I suppose one could argue forever, whether or not the last portion of the inscription is legit. I personally don't really think it is.

However, as I said before, I think it entirely possible that James was indeed the legit son of Joseph. However, I believe that he was NOT the son of Mary. Therefore making him a half-brother of Jesus.

From the Protoevangelium of James…
“And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl.”

“And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus, that all in Bethlehem of Judaea should be enrolled. And Joseph said: I shall enrol my sons…”

Both suggest that Joseph had other children before his taking of Mary. Take from that what you will. I suggest reading the whole of the protoevangelium. Short work, very good.

In doing a quick search on the protoevangelium of James I found the following: The Protevangelium of James has been characterized by scholars as “a wildly imaginative folk-narrative that is outrageously inaccurate about NT events as well as things Jewish” (J. P. Meier “The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus in Ecumenical Perspective,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 54 [1], 1992:16)...... J. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1993, 51), in his preface to the Protevangelium of James states that its historical value is “insignificant,” citing numerous inaccuracies and inconsistencies...... H. Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion (Vol. 1. New York: Sheed and Ward; 1964, 36), who is sympathetic to the Roman Catholic view of Mary, notes that this writing betrays “great ignorance of Jewish conditions” and is therefore of “little theological significance.” ......Proponents of the Epiphanian view admit that the accounts contained in the Protevangelium of James are “certainly works of imagination, not of historiography” (R. Bauckham, “The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response to John P. Meier,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 56 [4], 1994: 696).

I could find no support for this being considered an accurate document. In addition, the Bible is quite clear that the contemporaries of Joseph and Mary thought that Jesus was Joseph's son. This would not follow if Joseph had been say 70 or 80 and Mary somewhere around 15.


One small problem for a catholic in holding to the view that Joseph was an older man with children from a previous marriage, comes directly from a long standing belief ( and teaching ) of the Catholic Church that Joseph was a virgin. In QUAMQUAM PLURIES (On Devotion to St. Joseph) by Pope Leo XIII you find the following:

1. We judge it of deep utility for the Christian people, continually to invoke with great piety and trust, together with the Virgin-Mother of God, her chaste Spouse, the Blessed Joseph; and We regard it as most certain that this will be most pleasing to the Virgin herself. On the subject of this devotion, of which We speak publicly for the first time to-day, We know without doubt that not only is the people inclined to it, but that it is already established, and is advancing to full growth.

2. In truth, the dignity of the Mother of God is so lofty that naught created can rank above it. But as Joseph has been united to the Blessed Virgin by the ties of marriage, it may not be doubted that he approached nearer than any to the eminent dignity by which the Mother of God surpasses so nobly all created natures. For marriage is the most intimate of all unions which from its essence imparts a community of gifts between those that by it are joined together. Thus in giving Joseph the Blessed Virgin as spouse, God appointed him to be not only her life's companion, the witness of her maidenhood, the protector of her honour, but also, by virtue of the conjugal tie, a participator in her sublime dignity."

3. These are the reasons why men of every rank and country should fly to the trust and guard of the blessed Joseph. Fathers of families find in Joseph the best personification of paternal solicitude and vigilance; spouses a perfect example of love, of peace, and of conjugal fidelity; virgins at the same time find in him the model and protector of virginal integrity.

Joseph is called " chaste", "Blessed", " nearer than any to the eminent dignity of Mary", " a participator in her sublime dignity", "a model of conjugal fidelity", "a model of virginal integrity"

Rev. Fr. Joseph Anthony Patrignani, SJ, in his Devotion to Saint Joseph (a work approved by the Archbishop of New York in 1887), writes: "The virginity of Joseph was, it must be confessed, a marvel without example at the time, since he was the first who practiced it in the married state. Thus grace, in uniting two virgins in the persons of Mary and Joseph, added in their hearts a new lustre to that more than Angelic purity which constituted their glory and their merit.”

From the Catholic Infomation Network we find this under the heading St. Joseph " The Gospels remain therefore as the only reliable source of information about Joseph......Joseph was, in every way short of generation, the true father of Christ, a term which the Gospels do not hesitate to use constantly. Jesus was truly the fruit of the marriage in which Joseph played an indispensable role. If his fatherhood was virginal it was not thereby something less than physical fatherhood; by its spiritual nature it was an earthly reflection of the paternity of God himself. The relationship of the Virgin Father to Christ is therefore analogous to that of the Virgin Mother. Both Mary and Joseph are integral parts of the mystery of the incarnation

From the web site of Eternal Word Television, Global Catholic Network we find.... Saint Joseph:A Theological Introduction by Fr Michael D Griffin O.C.D. ......."When did Mary and Joseph decide to remain virgins? Was it before they took their marriage vows that they made this extraordinary agreement of being joined in wedlock and yet never making use of their marital rights? Or was this mutual agreement reached only after the marriage had been contracted? We do not know anything of the specific circumstances that attended such an agreement, we know only of the constant tradition of the Church dating back to the earliest times that, enlightened by the grace of God, Mary and Joseph made this agreement and remained faithful to it always." ........One reason the Church encourages us to be devoted to Joseph is that he was a model in the heroic practice of all the virtues. The example of virtuous living that he gave in the exact fulfillment of the duties of his state of life is worthy of our reflection.....He was truly outstanding in the practice of virginal chastity. More: he and Mary's virtue in the time of courtship and all during their life together. They had made a promise of chastity, and because they were resolved to live it for God they were blessed above all others.........If devotion to Joseph is so important, it may be asked, why did it not flourish in the Church until more recent times? The only answer that can be given to this question is that in the providence of God it was necessary for Joseph to remain in obscurity in order to protect the mystery of the Incarnation and the virginity of Mary. In the eyes of God "a thousand years is like a day", and we are becoming increasingly aware that God's providence always brings to full flowering in the Church the devotions relevant to a particular time. God also inspires the Church to define a certain dogma of the faith at the particular moment in history when it is most helpful to the faithful. Obviously the definition of the Assumption of Mary did not become a truth in 1950 with the solemn definition of Pope Pius XII, this truth has been the Church's from the beginning. But in the providence of God this definition was reserved to our age because of its special aptness to the times in which we live.

This is from a Catholic web site but I have lost the link...Father Francis Filas, S.J., the greatest living American Josephologist, refers to Joseph as " the Virginal Father of Christ."

If indeed the " brothers and sisters" of Jesus ( James in particular ) were children of Joseph's from a previous marriage, then why has the Catholic church been teaching and holding to the doctrine of Joseph's virginity for so long?????.

[goldenchild]

Thank you for sharing all of that, that is extremely interesting. It is entirely possible that Joseph was a virgin. I definitely could be wrong about what I said. I merely gave it as a possibility. And I am going to do a little more research on the protoevangelium of James before I completely agree with you there. However, now if you are going to argue that Joseph was celibate, I would now ask you to explain to me how Jesus had other children. If Joseph was celibate and he was married to Mary, then how did Jesus' alleged brothers and sisters become alive? Did Mary go off and make it happen with some other guy? I'm assuming you can find scripture to back it up? Just those few questions for now. Thank ya.

[Travis]

Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Christ was born, thus producing Jesus' sibling(s).

Matthew 1:25a
but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. (emphasis mine)

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by Travis

Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Christ was born, thus producing Jesus' sibling(s).

Matthew 1:25a
but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. (emphasis mine)

That's what I say. The James identified as the author of the Epistle of James is definately not the apostle James, for he was martyred in 44AD, long before this epistle was written. Neither can it be the other two mean named James in the NT, because they had neither the stature nor the influence to have authored the epistle(Jude referred to himself as simply "a brother of James" in Jude 1.1, so well-known was he.)

Also, the James who wrote the epistle heads up the list of Joseph's sons in Mt 13.55, which suggests he was the second-eldest and Mary and Joseph's firstborn son.

It's my personal belief that the writer of James was not James the apostle, but rather James the half-brother of Jesus.

But I really don't see why we need to argue about which James it was. Where will that get us?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by disciple_419

It's my personal belief that the writer of James was not James the apostle, but rather James the half-brother of Jesus.

I agree. James the apostle (brother of John) was killed rather early, as noted in Acts 12:2.

[Katholish]

I will just re-post the sources that I had found in this regard.

Matthew 10:
1 And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.
2 And the names of the twelve Apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother,
3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus,
4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Galatians 1:
18 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem to see Peter: and I tarried with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord.
20 Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I lie not.

Papias who is a father of the Church and learned directly from John the Evangelist and was a companion of Polycarp wrote the following explaining who the different Marys were that are referred to in the Scriptures, and for our purposes also explains the relationship of James to our Lord.

Papias, Fragment X:

(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

In Galatians 1:19, Paul implies that James, "The brother of the Lord" is an apostle. It is like saying "I didn't see any people in group A accept from Person B". By that statement, you are implicitely stating that Person B is in group A. When Paul says that he saw none of the other Apostles, saving James the Brother of the Lord, he is implicitly stating that James the Brother of the Lord is an Apostle.

This is also affirmed by the account of Papias, who explicitly states that the James Judas and Joseph mentioned in the Gospel are the son of Mary, the wife of Alpheus.

Certainly James, the Greater, the brother of John the Evangelist died early in the persecution, but it was James the Less, Apostle and Bishop of Jerusalem who is referred to by Paul as James, the Brother of the Lord, and as an Apostle.

[Katholish]

I forgot to add that I have read the Protoevangelium of James. Not only is it reported to have been written around 150AD, but I wouldn't rely on it for serious historical information, in some places, it just isn't even decent for one thing. However, that being said, among the apocryphal books of the New Testament that I have read, this one seems at least a little concerned with appearing to have some accuracy. It isn't has far off as many of the others are.

I do strongly disagree with the theory that these are children of Joseph from a previous marriage, even if solely based on the evidence from Galatians and Papias.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by Travis

Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Christ was born, thus producing Jesus' sibling(s).

Matthew 1:25a
but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. (emphasis mine)

And I'm assuming that you can explain to me how the usage of the greek word for "until" connotates a switch in what happened.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Originally Posted by Travis

Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Christ was born, thus producing Jesus' sibling(s).

Matthew 1:25a
but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. (emphasis mine)

This argument never made any sense to me.

Matthew 28:20
and behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.
By your reasoning then, Christ would no longer be with us at some point in time (i.e. "the end of the age"). And I don't think that's the case.

And there are a few more examples of such. "Until" does not always mean, "and then it happened".

[goldenchild]

Of course, that is the way it should be understood, but some people like to place a double standard on the Mary verse, by playing with the greek.

[Insane Drummer]

Originally Posted by Fides_et_Ratio

"Until" does not always mean, "and then it happened".

Yet sometimes it does.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by Insane Drummer

Yet sometimes it does.

Maybe, but you're implying a double standard. So you should be able to give a reason why it applies in this case and not in the one she gave. Just because it would help you fit your interpretation doesn't mean it works. You need it to work with Scripture, and in this case it can't. Believe it or not, to say that Mary and Joseph did not have marital relations UNTIL Jesus' birth AND THEN HAVING marital relations, is just as proposterous an idea as to say that Jesus will be with us UNTIL the end of the world BUT NOT AFTER that. Differentiate for me the verses.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Thank you for sharing all of that, that is extremely interesting. It is entirely possible that Joseph was a virgin. I definitely could be wrong about what I said. I merely gave it as a possibility. And I am going to do a little more research on the protoevangelium of James before I completely agree with you there. However, now if you are going to argue that Joseph was celibate, I would now ask you to explain to me how Jesus had other children. If Joseph was celibate and he was married to Mary, then how did Jesus' alleged brothers and sisters become alive? Did Mary go off and make it happen with some other guy? I'm assuming you can find scripture to back it up? Just those few questions for now. Thank ya.

No I do not believe Joseph was celibate, nor do I believe Mary was, after Jesus birth. I believe they were married in every sense ( including having sexual relations) and that they had other children as scripture tells us. What I am wondering about is which view is actually held by the Catholic church.... that the brothers are really cousins or some other relative and that Joseph was not married before and was not an old man.... or is it believed that Joseph was married before and had children. I found quite a bit of discrepency over the years as to which view is held as truth by the Catholic church.... or is it possible that there is a third view that I have not come across???

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Maybe, but you're implying a double standard. So you should be able to give a reason why it applies in this case and not in the one she gave. Just because it would help you fit your interpretation doesn't mean it works. You need it to work with Scripture, and in this case it can't. Believe it or not, to say that Mary and Joseph did not have marital relations UNTIL Jesus' birth AND THEN HAVING marital relations, is just as proposterous an idea as to say that Jesus will be with us UNTIL the end of the world BUT NOT AFTER that. Differentiate for me the verses.

I think the obvious response to this is the frequent mention in scripture of Jesus brothers and sisters...this gives good reason to believe that the " until" means that they had no intercourse until after she gave birth to Jesus, and then they had a marriage in every sense of the word.

[Katholish]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

No I do not believe Joseph was celibate, nor do I believe Mary was, after Jesus birth. I believe they were married in every sense ( including having sexual relations) and that they had other children as scripture tells us. What I am wondering about is which view is actually held by the Catholic church.... that the brothers are really cousins or some other relative and that Joseph was not married before and was not an old man.... or is it believed that Joseph was married before and had children. I found quite a bit of discrepency over the years as to which view is held as truth by the Catholic church.... or is it possible that there is a third view that I have not come across???

The Catholic Church holds (though it has not made a formal declaration and thus does not so hold as a matter of Doctrine) that Joseph was not previously married. That James, The Brother of the Lord was James the Less, son of Alpheus.

The term brother also read in the plural as brethern not necessarily pointing to a member of the immediate family but also being used for the extended family.