Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[Montalban]

When I want insanity, I go to the GA and GT boards

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7267954
A discussion of the new forum specific guidelines.

What TPTB fail to understand is that apologetics is a rough and tumble business and always has been. Read the Dialog with Trypho. Read the Justin Martyr's First Apology. Read Irenaeus. It is about disagreement and dispute.

Sure, we can enforce some rules of form and courtesy, but as long as there is an apologetics forum here, there will be confict. It's not apologetics if you're not arguing.

And life is not a Chick Tract--people are not convinced by a few well-placed bon mots. The Roman Road is a joke. Pascal's Wager is a loser. Shouting out a couple of verses from Revelations is not apologetics. Heck, it isn't even evangelism.

What's a bon mot?

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,

Please realize that when Protestants try to use the Early Church Fathers to prove Sola-Scriptura, they actually cherry-pick quotes from Fathers, take quotation out of context or more importantly, leave important information out of there suppose quotation that will lead one to the correct context of the quote.

I have dealt with Protestants like Simon who use the ECF to prove Sola-Scriptura, but after researching the suppose quotation of these Fathers, they leave important information out on purpose or ignore what they said in there other writings to better understand what the Father said. The Protestant that I had a debate with didn't really study the writings of Fathers, they simply "copy and paste" from a Anti-Catholic website to prove Sola-Scriptura.

This is the only way Protestant can use the ECF to prove there point.

Blessings,
Ramon

It seems like a knee-jerk reaction - this anti-Catholicism launched against those not even Catholic

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It seems like a knee-jerk reaction - this anti-Catholicism launched against those not even Catholic

We just didn't want the Orthodox to feel left out

 

[Thekla]

I actually thought all our little bickering of whether Mary had other children, or whether she was married (I just discovered in another thread that Orthodox don't believe she was ever married)

for clarity, I'll summarize the discussion which you apparently refer to:

1. people interpret the Bible through a bias/lens/tradition.
2. the claim that only some rely on extra-Biblical tradition is inaccurate.
3. using the claim that "Mary and Joseph married is based on the Bible alone", I argued that given the definitions of the words in Greek and no explicit statement that they did marry, such a conclusion must rely on tradition.
4. it is more accurate to say that everyone relies on extra-Biblical tradition to interpret the Bible.

as for the statement that I claimed that the EO believed Joseph and Mary never married, I asked you in that thread as well to provide a citation/post # as I do not recall making such a claim.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

4. it is more accurate to say that everyone relies on extra-Biblical tradition to interpret the Bible.

Not I.........

Matthew 22:11 And entering yet the King, to gaze of the ones the reclining, he saw there a Man not clothed cothing of wedding-feast: [Luke 16:19]

zeph 1:7 Hush! in presence of my Lord YHWH, that near Day of YHWH. That YHWH prepares a sacrifice, He sanctifies ones being called of Him.
8 And He becomes in Day of sacrifice of YHWH and I visit on the chiefs, and on sons of the King, and on all of ones being clothed clothing foreign. [Matt 22:11/Revelation 19]

 

[beamishboy]

for clarity, I'll summarize the discussion which you apparently refer to:

1. people interpret the Bible through a bias/lens/tradition.
2. the claim that only some rely on extra-Biblical tradition is inaccurate.
3. using the claim that "Mary and Joseph married is based on the Bible alone", I argued that given the definitions of the words in Greek and no explicit statement that they did marry, such a conclusion must rely on tradition.
4. it is more accurate to say that everyone relies on extra-Biblical tradition to interpret the Bible.

as for the statement that I claimed that the EO believed Joseph and Mary never married, I asked you in that thread as well to provide a citation/post # as I do not recall making such a claim.

Hi Thekla,

I have asked you in another thread to give an example of a real marriage described in the Bible as opposed to mere betrothal. Do you apply the same criterion to marriages apart from Mary and Joseph? What special words must the Bible have in order to show marriage and where are these used in real biblical examples?

I believe any part of the Bible can be dissected the same way so that even the clearest statement can be put to question. But that's not how the Bible should be read, in my opinion. Just as we conclude that Adam and Eve were married and so do the many many "married couples" in the Bible. You don't need tradition for that. It's like plain reading. The Gospel calls Joseph the husband of Mary. The angel says to Joseph to take her as his wife and the Bible says he did so. He was already betrothed, so what else did he do? Second betrothal?

I'm curious to see how you read other instances of marriage. For me, Bible reading must always be consistent. If those words in the Bible are not enough to mean Joseph and Mary were married, I really don't think there's a single married couple in the whole Bible.

 

[prodromos]

The Gospel calls Joseph the husband of Mary. The angel says to Joseph to take her as his wife and the Bible says he did so.

No, the English translation says that. Thekla has already told you that the Greek words have a broader range of meanings than the English translation of them permits you to see.

John

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

Can I second your excellent remarks a few posts ago about the need to see the bigger picture? An aggressive secularism on one side and a resurgent puritanical form of Islam on the other provide quite enough in the way of real enemies: in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East, Churches like my own still suffer the consequences of previous disunity - a long and continuing hard lesson.

On the Holy Family, long before there was any English language to translate the Scriptures into, men whose first language was the Greek in which the Scriptures were written, discussed the question of whether St. Mary and St. Joseph were married; so we cannot avoid a discussion by citing the way sixteenth century Englishmen interpreted a Greek word: had the Greek had one clear meaning, there would have been no discussion.

It seems to have been St. Jerome who decided that the 'brothers and sisters' mentioned in the Gospels were 'cousins', and his authority as the translator of what became the Vulgate, was sufficient to give a verdict accepted by many to this day. The early Church held a variety of opinions, one of the most widespread of which we can see in the Protoevangelion of St. James, which sees St. Mary as St. Joseph's betrothed, and the 'brothers and sisters' as the product of St. Joseph's first marriage.

If those who were closer to the source of Holy Tradition and who lived and breathed the atmosphere of the sub-Apostolic times had no agreement on these things, it would appear unlikely we can reach a definitive verdict. Those who feel strongly that the Catholic Church has this wrong may be led, by their zeal, to make comments about St, Mary which they might not really wish to be making; those who feel strongly that the Protestants have this wrong, may be led into extravagant defences of St. Mary which give rise to the very suspicions they are trying to dispel: and so the cycle repeats itself.

Peace,

Anglian


Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

We just didn't want the Orthodox to feel left out

I've always thought straw-man was the best way of 'including' people.

 

[Montalban]

Hi Thekla,

I have asked you in another thread to give an example of a real marriage described in the Bible as opposed to mere betrothal. Do you apply the same criterion to marriages apart from Mary and Joseph? What special words must the Bible have in order to show marriage and where are these used in real biblical examples?

I believe any part of the Bible can be dissected the same way so that even the clearest statement can be put to question. But that's not how the Bible should be read, in my opinion. Just as we conclude that Adam and Eve were married and so do the many many "married couples" in the Bible. You don't need tradition for that. It's like plain reading. The Gospel calls Joseph the husband of Mary. The angel says to Joseph to take her as his wife and the Bible says he did so. He was already betrothed, so what else did he do? Second betrothal?

I'm curious to see how you read other instances of marriage. For me, Bible reading must always be consistent. If those words in the Bible are not enough to mean Joseph and Mary were married, I really don't think there's a single married couple in the whole Bible.

Firstly, why don't you answer her question and show where the EO believe Mary was not married? Again you give the sense of not wishing to acknowledge a mistake

Secondly your 'plain' reading is the exact problem. Whatever you've concluded as logically arrived at is 'right', but it's still based on your assumptions. You simply assume your assumptions are correct. There's no place in the Bible to show Mary and Joseph were married. Therefore any guess of yours that they were is just a guess. If you want to continue to pretend that its otherwise then I need remind you of another thing you like to assume; arrogance.

 

[Montalban]

No, the English translation says that. Thekla has already told you that the Greek words have a broader range of meanings than the English translation of them permits you to see.

John

You forgot that Beamishboy has that rare insight into 'real' meaning in the Bible - that is, whatever he's concluded is right, is in fact right.

 

[Anglian]

It might be interesting to see what light the ECFs throw upon this, since all our information comes from Holy Tradition (which, to remind those unfamiliar with the Orthodox usage, includes the words of Scripture itself).

I have already mentioned the Protoevangelion, which whilst never accepted as being by St. James, nonetheless had a wide circulation in the eastern Churches, and certainly records an early tradition. St. Jerome wrote much on this, but it would be interesting to see what the other early Fathers wrote.

Peace,

Anglian

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

I believe any part of the Bible can be dissected the same way so that even the clearest statement can be put to question. But that's not how the Bible should be read, in my opinion. Just as we conclude that Adam and Eve were married and so do the many many "married couples" in the Bible. You don't need tradition for that. It's like plain reading. The Gospel calls Joseph the husband of Mary. The angel says to Joseph to take her as his wife and the Bible says he did so. He was already betrothed, so what else did he do?

If you want a 'clear reading' then you should note the evidence that Jesus had no literal brothers because, when on the cross he commends his mother to the care of John.

The culture of the day would have demanded that a brother of his (another son of Mary) do this.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Much of the argument over the 'brother and sisters' of the Lord, and of St. Mary's perpetual virginity, have been rehearsed in the scholarship on this topic, and to help get us started, I'm going to try to summarise what the literature on this suggests to me:

• the NT does not raise the question of St. Mary's continued virginity after the birth of Jesus
• the question is one raised by the early Church and focuses upon the exact relationship to Christ of His 'brothers and sisters
• When the discussion turned here, no one could identify that without doubt these other children were those of St. Mary - or that they were not.
• the conclusions we reach tend to depend upon which Church tradition we receive.

There are two indirect references in Matthew 1:25 (Joseph knew Mary “not until she had bore a son”) and in Luke 2:7 (Mary “gave birth to her firstborn son”) which some from the Protestant traditions claim must mean St. Mary had subsequent children; it is not clear that these verses must be read as such, and many Biblical scholars are of another view. The Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For instance, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.
Likewise, the term prôtotokos, "firstborn," as applied to males is has a unique Jewish meaning. In Exodus 13:2, the Lord says: "Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." Moses, in Exodus 13:12, adds: "You shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb." In Israel a firstborn was defined as such not because he was the first among other siblings, but because he was the first “to open” his mother’s womb, whether his mother would have other children or not. In Numbers 3:40, the Lord ordered to Moses: "Number all the firstborn males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward." A one-month-old child could not be declared a first-born because he had other siblings. The term "firstborn" refers above all to the law, and is thus applicable not only to the eldest of several, but also to an only son. Luke insists, three times, on showing how Jesus was presented into the Temple as the law demanded for every firstborn male child (cf. Luke 2:22.23.27).

Thus, in the scholarly literature, discussion has turned away from some fairly sterile discussions over the exegesis of these texts to a discussion of the brothers and sisters.

Here, three lines of argument emerged quite early on:

• The Helvidian one--named after the tract Against Helvidius written around 383 by Jerome--maintained that the "brothers and sisters" are Jesus' true blood siblings and children of Joseph and Mary
  
• The Jeromian one, opposing Helvidius, concluded that the "brothers and sisters" are Jesus' cousins
• The Epiphanian one--named after the fourth-century Bishop of Salamis, Epiphanius, who stated that the "brothers and sisters" are children of a previous marriage of Joseph.

We cannot resolve this by reference to much later English translations, which, themselves, had to choose from a variety of meanings attached to the word in both Hebrew/Aramaic and koine Greek.
Neither Aramaic nor Hebrew distinguishes between blood brother and cousin. The Hebrew word ah, in its literal meaning, applies to any close male relative of the same generation. Once someone belongs to this circle--whether as sibling, half-brother, step-brother or cousin--he is an ah. Within this circle no further word distinction is made. For ancient Hebrew, one belongs either to the family in-group or not.

John P. Meier, one of the leading scholars in this area, wrote that, in Matthew 13:50, "the final 'punch line' of Jesus carries full weight only if the mother, brothers, and sisters all have a close, natural relationship to Jesus." [John P. Meier, “The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus in Ecumenical Perspective.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992) 1-28, page 13.] Yet, what Jesus says there still carries full weight if the "brothers and sisters" were half-brothers or half-sisters of his, since such half-brothers and sisters would also belong to the closest family circle.


Koine Greek distinguishes between an adelphos, "brother," and an anepsios, "cousin." Since the New Testament was written in ancient Greek, the sponsors of the Helvidian interpretation argue that wherever the word "brother" is used it refers to a true sibling. They concede that if we can suppose an original Hebrew or Aramaic that preceded the Greek text, we may accept that the New Testament authors felt bound to translate the original Hebrew or Aramaic expression word-by-word into Greek. But when such an original text or fixed expression cannot be supposed, they continue, we need to acknowledge that the authors of the New Testament made the distinction between "brother" and "cousin," since they were writing Greek. A complex discussion of this appears in much of the scholarly literature, with references to the cultural anthropology of the Holy Land at that time; suffice it to say here that, again, no consensus has emerged.

The three lines set out above are still there is the modern scholarship. Which is why scholars have, more recently, been turning back to the ECFs to examine what basis existed for the three positions.

To that, we may now wish to turn?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[prodromos]

It might be interesting to see what light the ECFs throw upon this, since all our information comes from Holy Tradition (which, to remind those unfamiliar with the Orthodox usage, includes the words of Scripture itself).

I believe the Coptic Tradition has a young James accompanying Joseph, Mary and the Christ child on their flight into Egypt, is that not true? Do you know if this is recorded in something similar to the Protoevangelion or does it form a part of the feast days in your liturgy?

John

 

[Thekla]

Hi Thekla,

I have asked you in another thread to give an example of a real marriage described in the Bible as opposed to mere betrothal. Do you apply the same criterion to marriages apart from Mary and Joseph? What special words must the Bible have in order to show marriage and where are these used in real biblical examples?

I believe any part of the Bible can be dissected the same way so that even the clearest statement can be put to question. But that's not how the Bible should be read, in my opinion. Just as we conclude that Adam and Eve were married and so do the many many "married couples" in the Bible. You don't need tradition for that. It's like plain reading. The Gospel calls Joseph the husband of Mary. The angel says to Joseph to take her as his wife and the Bible says he did so. He was already betrothed, so what else did he do? Second betrothal?

I'm curious to see how you read other instances of marriage. For me, Bible reading must always be consistent. If those words in the Bible are not enough to mean Joseph and Mary were married, I really don't think there's a single married couple in the whole Bible.

LOL, you won't give up --

1.its off topic
2. undertaking your "project" on your own will encourage you to read the Bible.
3. Your claims are outside the scope of my statements

 

[Anglian]

I believe the Coptic Tradition has a young James accompanying Joseph, Mary and the Christ child on their flight into Egypt, is that not true? Do you know if this is recorded in something similar to the Protoevangelion or does it form a part of the feast days in your liturgy?

John

Dear Podromos,

Yes, we do indeed receive such a tradition, and it is one of our feast days. The so-called 'Arabic Infancy Gospel', the earliest text of which survives is in a fifth century Syriac text which seems to date from earlier, is the main source, as it seems to have collected existing oral traditions. St. Aphrodisius is said to have sheltered them, and the great monastery at Wadi Natroun is only one of the many places in Egypt associated with the flight of the Holy Family.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[prodromos]

Dear Podromos,

Yes, we do indeed receive such a tradition, and it is one of our feast days. The so-called 'Arabic Infancy Gospel', the earliest text of which survives is in a fifth century Syriac text which seems to date from earlier, is the main source, as it seems to have collected existing oral traditions. St. Aphrodisius is said to have sheltered them, and the great monastery at Wadi Natroun is only one of the many places in Egypt associated with the flight of the Holy Family.

Thank you Anglian. I remember seeing Coptic icons with young James depicted leading the donkey. It left a good and lasting impression on me. I also note that Joseph is depicted as an elderly man in this scene, so the understanding that he was elderly certainly preceded Chalcedon. I believe that the understanding accepted by some in the Catholic Church that Joseph was a younger man originated in the belief that Joseph too remained a virgin all his life, which possibly came from Jerome. It would explain why he insists on the brethren being cousins and not step brothers.

John

 

[prodromos]

.

 

[Anglian]

Dear prodomos,

Thank you for the icon. I attach two Coptic ones to this post.

My own Church certainly receives the tradition that St. Joseph was an older man.

Peace,

Anglian