The Trouble With "Dem Bones"
October 22, 2002
by Pastor Joseph Grant Swank, Jr.
The box
of bones is exciting as a "find." But for Roman Catholic Church
and Eastern Orthodox theologians, it poses a real problem that could
take some of the fun out of it.
These two branches of Christendom believe
that Mary was perpetually a virgin. That is, obviously, she and husband
Joseph never enjoyed God’s good gift of sex in marriage.
Of course, there is no biblical support
for this. In fact, biblical support states that the two had sex. Matthew
1:25 states just that; that is, that after Jesus was born, Mary and
Joseph enjoyed conjugal relations. Further, Mark 6:3 lists Jesus’ four
brothers’ names, and mentioned that He had "sisters."
So there you have it. And when you have
it, you can’t have it both ways.
Yet why is this perpetual virginity
such a big deal to Catholic and Orthodox? Could it be because celibacy
is such a big deal for priests and nuns? So youths are then challenged
to be virgins for life like unto the Blessed Mother.
However, once again, there is no biblical
backing for this. Instead, the Scriptures state just the opposite regarding
Mary.
(The Orthodox believe that Joseph had
James by a first spouse. After she died, he married Mary, she birthing
only Jesus, thus remaining virginal for life. This is legend with no
historical foundation.
Catholics footnote their Bibles by stating
that Jesus had no brothers and sisters but that such scriptural statements
refer to His cousins. The trouble here is that, in Greek, the terms
for "brothers" and "sisters" is not the same as the term for "cousin.")
Therefore, when Andre Lemaire, a specialist
in ancient inscriptions at France’s Practical School of Higher Studies,
writes in Biblical Archaeology Review that there is very probably
an authentic reference to Jesus of Nazareth on an ossuary—the box of
bones—it sets up a major problem for Catholics and Orthodox.
The find was in Israel. It would give
us the oldest archaeological evidence of Jesus Christ as an historical
figure. "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" appears in Aramaic
(the language of Jesus) on an empty ossuary—the limestone burial box
for bones. Lemaire speculates its date to be 63 AD. He banks that the
writing style sets the inscription smack in the time of Jesus and James,
leader of the Early Church in Jerusalem.
He states that only 20 Jameses would
have had Joseph as father and Jesus as brother in the holy city at that
time. Further, inscribing the name of both father and brother on an
ossuary was "very unusual." Therefore, this Jesus must have had some
unusual notoriety.
Two Israeli scientists with the Geological
Survey, having seen through a microscopic exam of the box, inform that
there is "no evidence that might detract from the authenticity."
Josephus, first century Jewish historian,
scribed that "the brother of Jesus. . .James by name" was martyred by
stoning in AD 62. If his bones were stored in a box, such could date
to AD 63.
The ossuary’s anonymous owner had not
known the value of his possession until Lemaire examined it last spring.
Mr. Anonymous says he does not want to deal with pesty reporters or
the cost of insurance and protecting the artifact. We might also add
that his anonymity will also keep the packs of excited theologians from
his door...
J.
Grant Swank, Jr.