It is possible the inscription on the ossuary--"James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"--provides us with a challenge in regard to some basic Christian assumptions about James. The Roman Catholic tradition is that Jesus' brothers and sisters actually were cousins; Orthodox Christians believe they were Joseph's children by a previous marriage. The inscription conflicts with both of those Christian traditions, in fact, for there certainly was an Aramaic word for "cousin" that could have been used in this inscription but was not. If Jesus was the son of only Mary, and James was the son of only Joseph, then Jesus and James would not literally have been brothers, as this inscription states.
     --"In the Name of the Brother," USA Weekend, April 13, 2003

Witherington's statement proved highly controversial. Though his characterization of Catholic teaching is not without problem, his assertion that there is an Aramaic word for cousin was egregious.

The Source of the Controversy

The New Testament is explicit that Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Christian tradition--later infallibly affirmed by the Church--acknowledges that she remained a virgin afterwards.

Yes, the Church of Rome does say she was a virgin till death. However, the Bible does not as we all know.

The great majority of Christians acknowledges this. Only the Protestant community dissents.

The better way to explain that is to say that "Catholic tradition" is what acknowledges Mary as a virgin for life. Nowhere in the Bible does to say that. Not one solitary verse. There is not as single Christian denomination that claims she was a perpetual virgin. Only in Catholicism do you see this, and if you click here you can see why.

But there are certain questions to be answered, such as who the "brethren" or "brothers" of Christ mentioned in Scripture are.

In English when we say "brother" we usually mean full brother--a male sibling sharing both biological parents.

Jimmy Akin uses the word "usually" to confirm his opinion? Fact is, I "usually" don't believe anyone that has no confidence in their message. Do you?

But the term has a broader range of meanings. It can include half-brother (male sibling sharing one biological parent), step-brother (male sibling sharing one parent by marriage), and adoptive brother (male sibling adopted into the family). It can be given figurative meanings, such as "comrade," as when military men are described as "a band of brothers."

No solid, or researchable proof. Just "opinions" of Jimmy Akin are used here. Fact is, the Bible does use the term “cousin” within it. Notice how he will completely evade that issue throughout this dissertation.

Which applies to the brethren of Christ in Scripture?

It is unlikely that the term "brother" is being used figuratively or mystically because all Christians are Christ's brothers in that sense, making it pointless to single out certain individuals for this description. Full brother is impossible, as Protestants also acknowledge, since Jesus was not the biological child of Joseph. Half-brother is ruled out by the fact that Mary remained a virgin.

Here Jimmy Akin assumes we believe Mary remained a virgin for life, and therefore we must throw out the "half brother" assumption? That statement alone proves he is grasping at straws. It also proves Rome is running scared, as this article is obviously aimed specifically FOR Catholics! Do they hope to prevent an exodus with it?Revelation 18:4 will ring loudly in some ears regardless! Rome knows the burial box has exposed them in the most graphic manner ever! By the way… one would think that if Jimmy Akin had Biblical proof of that statement he would use it. I ask Jimmy Akin... Can you show me one verse that says Mary was a virgin for life? Just one? Or show me one verse that shows me Joseph did NOT consummate his marriage to Mary. Or show me one verse that shows me Mary denied her husbands carnal desires for his WIFE. Why can’t Jimmy Akin do this? Because there are no such passages. In fact, the Bible states plainly that Joseph DID consummate the marriage AFTER she gave birth to her FIRST-born son. And natural science reports that when one consummates a marriage, that woman is NO LONGER a virgin!

Matthew 1:24-25, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

That simple and small word “till” in Matthew chapter one blows the entire house of cards over as easy as opening the kitchen door during a hurricane.

It is possible they were adoptive brothers, but there does not seem to be any evidence for this in the biblical or patristic record.

“POSSIBLE?” Is Jimmy asking us to believe what he himself can’t confirm? Isn’t that something? Human nature is at times easy to manipulate, even when the one doing the manipulation is proving 100% to be unable to stake his claim. It amazes me how often the “sheeple” maneuver is used. It is also amazing how often it is effective. Modern day fact is, there ARE over 1 BILLION Catholics now!

More plausibly, they were step-brothers: children of Joseph who were Jesus' brothers by marriage.

Plausibly? Jimmy Akin is still "suggesting" an opinion here, and I have yet to see any Scriptural or historic proof denying that which has been laid out in documented scientific research, not to mention BIBLICAL FACT.

Friends... NEVER accept an "opinion" when there are FACTS laid out for inspection. If you do, you play the fool. Jimmy Akin has yet to give a single CONFIDENT statement in this whole article. ALL of what he is stating are mere “opinions” and that’s all.

There is some evidence for this in the writings of early Christians. The earliest discussion of the matter that we have--in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James (c. A.D. 120)--states that Joseph was a widower who already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a consecrated virgin. Though not inspired, the document was written within living memory of Mary, when Christ's family was still well known, as other sources attest (e.g., second century historian Hegisippus). It may contain accurate traditions regarding the family structure.

Catholic documentations (notice the LATIN title) are never to be trusted. NEVER! Babylon is the house of Antichrist. For proof, for a FLASH animation… Or for a hardcopy of NUMEROUS facts.

The step-brother hypothesis was the most common until St. Jerome (the turn of the fifth century), who popularized the idea that the brethren were cousins.

hypothesis

\Hy*poth"e*sis\, n.; pl. Hypotheses. [NL., fr. Gr. ? foundation, supposition, fr. ? to place under, ? under + ? to put. See Hypo-, Thesis.] 1. A supposition; a proposition or principle which is supposed or taken for granted, in order to draw a conclusion or inference for proof of the point in question; something not proved, but assumed for the purpose of argument, or to account for a fact or an occurrence; as, the hypothesis that head winds detain an overdue steamer.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Here Jimmy Akin is seeking our assumption so as to better explain his own assumptions? You do realize what that equates to don’t you? HE wants us to believe what he himself can’t prove. NO FAITH IN MESSAGE = NO FAITH IN HEARERS.

One would not guess this from a casual reading of the New Testament, but many have tried to deduce it from statements in the New Testament.

Jimmy Akin admits here that for 5 CENTURIES most people did not agree with his church's theory UNTIL it was "popularized." Just because an idea is "popular" it doesn't make it right. Cocaine is "popular.” Adultery is “popular.” Lying is also “popular.”. Still… let’s turn the tables to expose how evil his theology is.

Jesus isn’t “popular”
Chaste living isn’t “popular”
Staying virgin till marriage isn’t “popular”
Living an honest life isn’t “popular”
Truth isn’t “popular”

Fact is folks… Jimmy Akin is merely stating, that once the lies of Rome become EVIL ENOUGH for the people to embrace, they would accept it. Look around you today, all that is evil is what defines popularity. Strange how Rome can twist evil to make it appear good isn’t it?

Proverbs 14:12, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

Part of the issue turns on the meaning of the word "brother." Thus far we have been discussing the English word brother for simplicity. The Greek equivalent (adelphos) includes the same concepts in its range of meaning. But Greek also has a word for "cousin" (anepsios), which seems to have been the normal word used when referring to cousins. An advocate of the cousin hypothesis would need to explain why it wasn't used if Christ’s brethren were cousins.

Again, Jimmy is displaying no confidence in his own assumptions. This is well noted when he states, "which seems to have been the normal word used", in the above excerpt. My friends, when they have no PROOF they always use "assumptions" to try and get YOU to believe them. Plus, if in fact the Bible was going to use the word COUSIN here, it would have. Want proof?

Luke 1:36, "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

Again, yet another verse in the Bible that blows the house of cards completely off the table like an atom bomb greeting an outhouse! If in fact the Word of God was referring to COUSINS, it would have easily used that term, for if it uses it in one place, it would most assuredly use it in another.

The standard explanation is that the New Testament isn't ordinary Greek. Some have suggested that parts of it may be translations from Aramaic. It is unknown if or how much of the New Testament had an Aramaic original, but even if none did, Aramaic had a strong influence on it. Probably all the New Testament authors except Luke were native Aramaic-speakers, and much of the dialogue in the Gospels originally occurred in Aramaic. Sometimes the Gospels even tell us the original words (e.g., “Talitha cumi” in Mark 5:41).

In the above paragraph ALONE we see Jimmy Akin using these words...

• suggested
• it may be
• unknown
• probably
• sometimes

None of which are strong words of confidence by any stretch of the imagination. ALL these words are used in the context of someone who is totally UNSURE of his message. A “false teacher” if you will. Or should I say a “hypothetical” situation? Mere conjecture without basis in FACT is all I see in the dissertation.

This is important because the meaning of the Aramaic word for "brother" (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.

Not in my Bible. My Bible uses BOTH the word “brother AND cousin” in it. This by the way is why the Vatican (and many Protestants) hate the King James Bible with such a passion. It easily proves them wrong. Plus, they also hate it for the fact that MANY years after it was written, the dead sea scrolls were found to be remarkably identical to that which is IN the KJV. Now, faith AND history prove the KJV accurate. Hence… hatred abounds.

In fact, there was no word for "cousin" in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ayesbac off the mic mike. Your mmeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana ("kinsman"), qariwa ("close relation"), or nasha ("relative"). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”

Again, here he is expecting his readers to believe him on mere "opinion" or "circumstantial evidence." Not one shred of provable fact, neither Scriptural or historic has yet to have been used to CONFIDENTLY portray his message as being authentic. Not one. That in itself, speaks volumes.

The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for cousin, would normally have referred to whatever cousins Jesus had with such a general term and, in translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos).

The word "likely" used here again proves HE IS UNSURE.

Which James?

There may be as many as seven men named James mentioned in the New Testament. For our purposes the most important are:

• James “the brother of the Lord” (Matt. 13:55, Acts 15:13-21, 1 Cor. 15:7, Gal. 1:19)
• James “son of Zebedee” (Matt. 4:21, 10:2, 17:1, Acts 12:2)
• James “son of Alphaeus” (Matt. 10:3, Acts 1:13)

It is the first whose ossuary may have been found. He often was called “James the Just” and was martyred in the A.D. 60s (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20:9). He is not the same as James son of Zebedee, who was martyred earlier (Acts 12:2). Advocates of the cousin interpretation commonly seek to identify him with James son of Alphaeus.

Engaging the Argument

In the USA Weekend piece, Witherington criticized both the step-brother and the cousin hypotheses. Regarding the former, he wrote, "If Jesus was the son of only Mary, and James was the son of only Joseph, then Jesus and James would not literally have been brothers, as this inscription states."

This argument seems flatly erroneous. The inscription does not state that Jesus and James were "literally" brothers. It says that they were brothers, period. It doesn't say "James, son of Joseph, literal brother of Jesus."

This is ALWAYS the case for Rome to use a lie as truth. They do the same with Scriptures at every turn. When the Word of God is bluntly stating Truth, Rome will always seek a way to place a "twist" on what the Lord said. Satan did this in Eden effectively with our first parents, and very ineffectively in the desert with our Lord. Those of us that are God's children understand easily what's being said in His Word. For His children DO hear His voice. Those that aren't His children, seek to look for ways around what's being said by the Lord, or even better, they seek to alter that which is written so as to make it appear to say something completely different..

Ezekiel 22:28, "And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken."

So, since Jimmy Akin seeks a "literal" proof here. (even though it's already there for those with eyes that see) I ask. Jimmy Akin, where is the one verse that LITERALLY proves Mary was a virgin until death? Or how about the verse that LITERALLY proves Joseph never consummated the marriage? Or the one verse that LITERALLY states Mary denied Joseph's carnal desires towards his God given WIFE? Fact is folks, one can use the “LITERAL” card on either side. And I only do so to show how evil his methods are.

And what does Witherington mean by "literally"? To most ears, the most literal meaning of “brother” is full brother, all the other senses being in some sense accommodated to this primary sense. But we know that James can't be a full brother because Joseph was not Jesus' biological father. (A point that Witherington, who has written a book critical of liberal reinterpretations of Jesus, presumably acknowledges.)

Did you catch that? Jimmy Akin is now using the exact same method Bill Clinton used to define sex so as to “try” to get away with an evil act. Playing “dumb” is not something you can do with a Creator God. HE knows the HEART! God is not a man that he can be hornswaggeled, or taken by surprise.

Witherington is trying to get too much out of the single word "brother" in the inscription. It's range of meaning is simply too broad to rule out James being a step-brother.

And Jimmy is trying to do the same thing with the word "cousin," yet we are expected to believe him over documented facts, as well as Scriptural proof that the word COUSIN is in fact used in Scripture. The fact he refuses to acknowledge that is open evidence to his methods of deception. I would like to ask Jimmy Akin that question one day. WHY do you claim “cousin” is a word never used, therefore “brother” can be used in its place when Luke chapter one says otherwise?

Even in English, which has a gigantic vocabulary that includes a term for step-brother, we tend to use just "brother." Someone making introductions is more likely to say "This is my brother" than "This is my step-brother," unless family relations are unusually icy.

Again, Jimmy Akin is now using "assumptions" to preach this error. More LACK of confidence from Jimmy Akin leads to one thing. A lack of confidence in believers of his message. This is the norm however for Rome. When I was Catholic, you were taught that “not knowing” was 100% acceptable. In fact, my Catholic pastor at the time told me to STOP reading the Bible! Can you imagine!?

Witherington dismissed the cousin hypothesis by simply asserting, "there certainly was an Aramaic word for 'cousin' that could have been used in this inscription but was not." For this argument to work, several premises have to be granted:

Fact is, the word "BROTHER" was used on the ossuary, and Jimmy Akin is trying to make us all believe it should have been "COUSIN." The easy and blunt thing to notice here is. THE WORD COUSIN IS NOT ON THAT BOX but the word COUSIN is in Luke 1:36. If it was used in Luke, then why Not on the box?

Because James was the BROTHER of Jesus, not a COUSIN.

If you want to see the rest of the article, click the URL below. But understand this. Jimmy Akin merely repeats assumptions, lies, and twists facts as he has done above. I believe I made that crystal clear by simply using common sense, and then using his words. Plus, nowhere does Jimmy Akin prove his side of the story in his article, as did the actual Scientists that authenticated the box, or the historians that verified the words, or the preachers that shared the Scriptures that tied the two together. Jimmy Akin shared ONLY his …  O P I N I O N !

One more tidbit from Jimmy Akin's article. He said, regarding Witherington's facts... "Witherington behaved irresponsibly by asserting in popular print that there is such a word. In so doing he misled people of multiple religious persuasions, disturbed the faith of some, confused others, and sparked a round of needless arguments."

Jimmy... You just did exactly what you accused Witherington of doing with the word "cousin." And we now have it in POPULAR PRINT as well. Difference is, you TRULY twisted words, to confuse the masses. We have God’s WORD on that!