Brother and sisters, oh my!

beamishboy said:

On the contrary, she says that the statement that Mary was married to Joseph was a Protestant unbiblical Tradition which of course puzzled me to no end.

Click to expand...

which is why I provided evidence to support my argument

As I explained to her, the truth is Protestants haven't got much doctrine concerning her except for the virgin birth.

Click to expand...

I agree

Thekla also says that Tradition has it that Mary and Joseph were not married at all. I now understand this to be the Orthodox Tradition only.

Click to expand...

again, please find the post where I stated this here in this thread

prodromos said:

We must be careful not to attribute to others, things they never suggested. Thekla has not remotely suggested "father" is not father and it does not help understanding one bit when you made such false claims. What she has told you is that there are different Greek words used which the translators have chosen to render as a single English word. Immediately, your understanding of these passages is limited due to a decision made by the translators. Thekla has no such limit as a native speaker of Greek. You would do well to take advantage of her insight and knowledge instead of attempting to refute everything she posts.

Joseph and Mary were betrothed. This is not unlike being engaged except that in Jewish culture a betrothal can only be ended by a divorce. Being betrothed has all the same legal consequences as being married in Jewish culture. Thus any child born to a couple betrothed is legally the son of the man even though they are not yet married. Thus it is perfectly correct for Mary to refer to Joseph as Jesus' father as that is what he was legally. Likewise it is perfectly correct to refer to the children of Joseph as Jesus' brothers and sisters even though they were not the children of Mary. Jewish culture makes no distinction between blood brethren and legal brethren. The English terms "step father/mother", "step son/daughter" and "step brother/sister" have no corresponding terms in Hebrew or Aramaic.

John

Click to expand...

Reposting this very clear post from John, for the benefit of BeamishBoy and others, to clarify Orthodox belief concerning the relationship between Joseph and Mary.

Mary

Thekla said:

ah, where did I state that the above is the EOrthodox position ?
(post # or citation)

Click to expand...

Ah...I understood you correctly!

CaliforniaJosiah said:

If YOU have a dogma, it's up to YOU to support it

Click to expand...

I would agree with you if that was the topic of this thread, but it isn't. This thread as I understand it from the OP is centered on whether the teaching of Perpetual Virginity contradicts Scripture. I think we have shown that it does not. The OP was only challenging the aspect of perpetual virginity vs. Scripture that says "brothers". And that has been reconciled.

Perhaps it would serve well to start a thread called "How did the teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity develop through Tradition?"

The "Adelphos doesn't mean Jesus had blood siblings" argument falls apart with this verse.

Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

If he was using the term as bretheren, as in for the apostles as has been forwarded before, there wouldn't be the distinct classifier of the Lord's brother. It would read I saw none of the other apostles, only James. (no need to add the honerific adelphos.)

Some will argue that it meant cousin. However, if you check out this verse:


<< Colossians 4:10 >>

International Standard Version (©2008)
Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. You have received instructions about him. If he comes to you, welcome him.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas's cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him);
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Aristarchus, who is a prisoner like me, sends greetings. So does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. You have received instructions about Mark. If he comes to you, welcome him.
King James Bible
Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him
American King James Version
Aristarchus my fellow prisoner salutes you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom you received commandments: if he come to you, receive him
American Standard Version
Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas (touching whom ye received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him),
Bible in Basic English
Aristarchus, my brother-prisoner, sends his love to you, and Mark, a relation of Barnabas (about whom you have been given orders: if he comes to you, be kind to him),
Douay-Rheims Bible
Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, saluteth you, and Mark, the cousin german of Barnabus, touching whom you have received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him:
Darby Bible Translation
Aristarchus my fellow-captive salutes you, and Mark, Barnabas's cousin, concerning whom ye have received orders, (if he come to you, receive him,)
English Revised Version
Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas (touching whom ye received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him),
Webster's Bible Translation
Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner, saluteth you; and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (concerning whom ye received commandments: if he should come to you, receive him
Weymouth New Testament
Aristarchus my fellow prisoner sends greeting to you, and so does Barnabas's cousin Mark. You have received instructions as to him; if he comes to you, give him a welcome.
World English Bible
Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, greets you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you received commandments, "if he comes to you, receive him"), Young's Literal Translation
Salute you doth Aristarchus, my fellow-captive, and Marcus, the nephew of Barnabas, (concerning whom ye did receive commands -- if he may come unto you receive him,)

you can see that indeed the translation to Cousin is used, and understood. Not one translates to "Brother, despite the adamant assertion that they had no word for it. Context is important. I dare say that if they are able to identify the relationship as Cousin, they would do so. They did in this instance.

(Either that, or the author was slightly cracked, of course, but that's a third choice that I find highly unlikely.)

One would have to explain why it was clearly cousin in the above passage, but the others are left vague (if indeed the PV is accurate, and Jesus had no blood siblings.)

double post.

Uphill Battle said:

The "Adelphos doesn't mean Jesus had blood siblings" argument falls apart with this verse.

Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

Click to expand...

hi Uphill

thanks for providing support for your argument; I do think you should read the counter-evidence in the thread, though.

I do agree that anepsios is used, but it is only once, and by Paul in reference to Barnabus after their disagreement. This in itself is not much. But there are further considerations:

1. so far, the argument has not been precisely which of the various meanings are meant by adelphos in the common language of the time. In fact, per common Semitic usage, many relationships other than cousin also fall under the term adelphos.

2. Paul and the Gospel writers are not necessarily "interchangeable" in their usage; even Paul uses some terms differently when addressing different audiences (between epistles).

in sum: the use of anepsios does not by itself limit the term adelphos which can include anepsios (anepsios is a subset of adelphos)

Thekla said:

hi Uphill

thanks for providing support for your argument; I do think you should read the counter-evidence in the thread, though.

I do agree that anepsios is used, but it is only once, and by Paul in reference to Barnabus after their disagreement. This in itself is not much. But there are further considerations:

1. so far, the argument has not been precisely which of the various meanings are meant by adelphos in the common language of the time. In fact, per common Semitic usage, many relationships other than cousin also fall under the term adelphos.

2. Paul and the Gospel writers are not necessarily "interchangeable" in their usage; even Paul uses some terms differently when addressing different audiences (between epistles).

in sum: the use of anepsios does not by itself limit the term adelphos which can include anepsios (anepsios is a subset of adelphos)

Click to expand...

I've read it. This particular debate has raged on and on.

I'm just presenting the most logical, straightforward thought patterns. Ones that don't have to explain itself to justify itself. For instance, until not meaning until... etc.

I DID of course, not mention the third option, that the EO forward, regarding Joseph being very old, and the brothers being from a previous marriage:

I find it highly unlikely that the author would need to state that Joseph didn't have sex with her UNTIL (there is that pesky word again) they were married. If he was in his dottage... It likely wouldn't be considered at all.

again, nothing cut and dried, on either side of the argument. I just feel that when you put the pieces of the puzzle on the same table, you can see ways they DO fit... and ways they don't, even if you're incompetent so complete the puzzle in it's entirety.

Uphill Battle said:

I've read it. This particular debate has raged on and on.

I'm just presenting the most logical, straightforward thought patterns. Ones that don't have to explain itself to justify itself. For instance, until not meaning until... etc.

I DID of course, not mention the third option, that the EO forward, regarding Joseph being very old, and the brothers being from a previous marriage:

I find it highly unlikely that the author would need to state that Joseph didn't have sex with her UNTIL (there is that pesky word again) they were married. If he was in his dottage... It likely wouldn't be considered at all.

again, nothing cut and dried, on either side of the argument. I just feel that when you put the pieces of the puzzle on the same table, you can see ways they DO fit... and ways they don't, even if you're incompetent so complete the puzzle in it's entirety.

Click to expand...

per the until issue: again usage comparisons throughout the Bible (LXX & NT) leave at the very least no conclusive evidence.

I, like you ( to express it differently), think both "sides" of the argument must eventually fall back on tradition to make their case. Neither side can conclusively be proven using "Bible alone".

I don't know about that. I fall back on what it says in the bible, and the most logical explanation of the content.

I don't have to have exterior context or explainations or apologetics to maintain what I believe in the matter.

secondarily, it's not of much import to me if I'm wrong. Let's say for instance, I am incorrect in my assessment. The sum total effect of my error is that I am wrong, oh well. I'm wrong much of the time. My local body of believers doesn't hold any dogmatic declaration regarding Mary's presumptive, or presumptive lack of progeny.

The other side of the coin, however, has far more to lose if they are wrong. Dogmatic declarations regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary have been forwarded, and given the two claims (one of "the fullness of truth regarding Christ) and the other (absolute immutability of dogma) would basically have those claims cut out from under them, given it were in error.

My personal opinion is that if you need a network of apologietic strings to maintain a perceived truth, it might be a good idea to examine it further, rather than accept it simply because tradition demands it.

Thekla said:

I, like you ( to express it differently), think both "sides" of the argument must eventually fall back on tradition to make their case. Neither side can conclusively be proven using "Bible alone".

Click to expand...

Indeed. Not to mention that this James in question has already been shown to be the son of different woman.

no. It's been asserted as such. But much like the other apologetics in the matter, it ignores a few details.

for instance, is there one man named James? No. Is there one woman named Mary? No.

I repeat, the straightforward, undiluted interpretation is that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I don't have a dogma I need to find a way to support on the matter, There is no counter-dogma to PV.

Those who hold to PV, however, have to make sure that they are able to blend scripture to their later held traditions... in which some stretch credibility thin.

Uphill Battle said:

no. It's been asserted as such. But much like the other apologetics in the matter, it ignores a few details.

for instance, is there one man named James? No. Is there one woman named Mary? No.

I repeat, the straightforward, undiluted interpretation is that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I don't have a dogma I need to find a way to support on the matter, There is no counter-dogma to PV.

Those who hold to PV, however, have to make sure that they are able to blend scripture to their later held traditions... in which some stretch credibility thin.

Click to expand...

The argument that Mary did not have other children did not in this discussion rely on "dogma" or "apologetic strings"; rather I relied on linguistic and cultural analysis, specifically (again) Hebraisms/Aramaicism in the NT, parallel usage in the LXX, and NT usage of the LXX.

Given known vernacular language and cultural customs of the time and region, this is an "undiluted interpretation". As I also stated, the available knowledge base shifts the "plain reading" of the text. As all persons approach any text (and life) from a knowledge base, variants in interpretation are inevitable. One's own bias is often invisible to oneself, making one's own reading of the Bible the default "plain reading" - variant readings can then appear "not plain" when measured against one's own.

Uphill Battle said:

I'm just presenting the most logical, straightforward thought patterns. Ones that don't have to explain itself to justify itself. For instance, until not meaning until... etc.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, that has never been argued. However "until" is the English translation of a Greek expression that has much broader usage than the English word "until" has, and that has been demonstrated from other passages in scripture which use the same expression. It is a common usage in Greek which the English translation fails to convey so your logical, straightforward thought patterns are based on a strictly limited subset of the Greek term's usage.

I DID of course, not mention the third option, that the EO forward, regarding Joseph being very old, and the brothers being from a previous marriage:

I find it highly unlikely that the author would need to state that Joseph didn't have sex with her UNTIL (there is that pesky word again) they were married. If he was in his dottage... It likely wouldn't be considered at all.

Click to expand...

The expression used is probably the most economical and concise way of expressing in Greek that Jesus birth was not the result of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary. That is all the author is expressing. He is not presenting intimate details of the supposed sex life of Mary and Joseph as they have absolutely no bearing on the Gospel message, yet the typical Protestant reading of this text demands that Matthew is indeed supplying unnecessary private detail.

John

prodromos said:

To my knowledge, that has never been argued. However "until" is the English translation of a Greek expression that has much broader usage than the English word "until" has, and that has been demonstrated from other passages in scripture which use the same expression. It is a common usage in Greek which the English translation fails to convey so your logical, straightforward thought patterns are based on a strictly limited subset of the Greek term's usage.

Click to expand...

I won't argue further on that, it wasn't really the main point. The REAL point would be why the author would need to mention it at all.

The expression used is probably the most economical and concise way of expressing in Greek that Jesus birth was not the result of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary. That is all the author is expressing. He is not presenting intimate details of the supposed sex life of Mary and Joseph as they have absolutely no bearing on the Gospel message, yet the typical Protestant reading of this text demands that Matthew is indeed supplying unnecessary private detail.

John

Click to expand...

I'd think the author would need lessons in economical and concise methods of expressing that Jesus birth was from a virgin!

for instance: Jesus was born of a virgin. Voila! and even more specifically, since it's supposedly of supreme doctrinal importance, "Mary remained a virgin."

It's hardly like the concept of virginity was unrecognizable, it's a very hot topic in the bible.

as for the last bit, I would think that the EO and RC delve far more into the "unnecessay private detail" with their dogmatic declarations of perpetual virginity! We just don't believe it, and explain why. On a day to day basis, Protestants aren't concerned with those private details whatsoever. EO and RC (and a few others) spend their time praising Mary for those "private details" which you refer to.

MrPolo said:

I would agree with you if that was the topic of this thread, but it isn't. This thread as I understand it from the OP is centered on whether the teaching of Perpetual Virginity contradicts Scripture. I think we have shown that it does not. The OP was only challenging the aspect of perpetual virginity vs. Scripture that says "brothers". And that has been reconciled.

Perhaps it would serve well to start a thread called "How did the teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity develop through Tradition?"

Click to expand...

I regret that you have misunderstood the topic of this thread. The topic of the thread was to ascertain the correct understanding of the five passages in the OP in regards to the relationship of Jesus and His brothers and sisters. The dogma (not teaching or doctrine, but dogma) of Perpetual Virginity is, obviously, related to the OP, but is not the substance of the OP.

The OP was in relation to brothers and sisters, not merely brothers.

Thus far there have been no interpretations forwarded that were not summarized in the OP. In fact, one has been entirely ignored, and for good reason, I might add. The supporting arguments for the others have not varied from the summary statements in the OP.

At this point in the tread, I would summarize the conclusions drawn as follow:

1. All five passages penned by three different authors use exactly the same words for brothers and sisters in Koine Greek and there are no textual differences among the ancient manuscripts of these passages.
2. All other instances in the New Testament were these selfsame words occur are typically translated as brother and sisters and are understood to be exactly that - brothers and sisters.
3. All known English translations of all five passages translate these words as "brothers and sisters." These English translations include those given the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church and the official recognition of the Orthodox Churches.
4. The hundreds, if not thousands, of translators who translated these passages over a space of centuries and often using various manuscripts are in complete and unanimous agreement as to what these words mean. Otherwise, they would have used other words in their translations.
5. The assertion that these words could possibly carry other meanings in Aramaic is not inaccurate. It is highly probable that this possibility was grasped and understood by the various translators, but rejected as highly improbable with the result being their unanimity of translation.
6. The assertion has been made that the Bible is entirely silent about the issue, thereby permitting Tradition to add its voice to the issue. This is erroneous because there are five distinct biblical passages which state clearly that Jesus had at least four brothers (who are specifically named) and at least two sisters.
7. There is then the difficult choice to be made between dogmatic Tradition and the clear teaching of the Bible. Some have chosen Tradition and ignored or rejected the Bible and others choose to believe the Bible and not Tradition.

Please correct any inaccuracies in the above statements.

per issue 5:

5. The assertion that these words could possibly carry other meanings in Aramaic is not inaccurate. It is highly probable that this possibility was grasped and understood by the various translators, but rejected as highly improbable with the result being their unanimity of translation.

Click to expand...

can supporting evidence be found for this ? As the Aramaic meaning (consistent with at least some Arabic cultures, and arguably vernacular Greek (koine) language), would there be any reason to alter terminology in subsequent texts ? Additionally, can early translations be a. shown to understand these passages conclusively against Aramaic meaning b. be shown not to have carried the term with a "default interpretation" consistent with their own (different) cultural understanding of the term, generating a different "tradition of meaning" c. and finally, as the LXX was replaced, lost the template that supports the Semiticised understanding of the term.

per rebuttal to issue 5:

That being said, how is it they managed with the reference for Cousin, that I had previously posted?

bbbbbbb said:

What I am observing here is that the apologists for the RCC and EOC dogmas are allowing Tradition to trump the clear teaching of the Bible. As of yet, and it is very early in this thread, I have not encountered a reasonable interpretation of these passages that does not force them into meaning something that the authors, not to mention all of the translators in the English translations I now, stated simply and clearly. I am not denying that there might be a reasonable interpretation out there, but I am waiting to see it.

On a parallel note, I am frankly puzzled that our blessed friends in the RCC and EOC choose to take a hyperliteralist stance concerning the Eucharist, but deny the plain and literal teaching of these multiple passages. Is the sole purpose of Tradition to trump Holy Scripture?

Click to expand...

Greetings:
I am one of those "EOC" persons of whom you somewhat (mis)spoke.
Firstly, it is not our practice to separate Tradition and scripture, as is yours. There are two types of 'tradition to us,' capital T and lower case t: The lower case t are matters of popular piety, received as such, meaning no formal authority. Capital T Tradition, such as the Triune nature of God, are immutable and non-negotiable. Such 'dogmatic' matters are found through the reading of scripture, but not necessarily verbatim (IOW, you won't find "Trinity" in the scripture).

Now the issue of the so-called 'brothers and sisters' of Christ has been debated at some length in recent times. Oddly, this debate has been held in English, yet the scripture over which the debate rages was, and is, Greek. The term used to describe the 'brothers' of Jesus is the same one used to refer to the brothers in the Christian Church. Now, unless the first century Church consisted of, quite literally, one very large, proto-Mormon family of 3000 and 5000 and Lord knows how many more, we must be open to reading 'brothers' as friends in the Lord, cousins, kin, or brothers (half, whole, whatever).

So, your contention that we are denying "the plain and literal teaching" of the scriptures is misguided and patently false.

As California Josiah mentioned, there is no way to determine precisely what the relationship was between James/Jude etal/ and our Lord, so what you have done is, essentially, departed from- or perhaps added to, the text.

We have interesting logic, if not proof, that Jesus had no siblings:
Jesus gave care of His Mother to John the Beloved. Now, admittedly, there are alternate ways of viewing Jesus' action in this regard, but also admittedly, our logic in our interpretation is also compelling- certainly to us. Our conclusion is that Mary had only Jesus, we do not know for certain the relationship between He and James, for example.
Oh, and yes, we believe that she remained a Virgin, in accordance with the teaching of the Christian Church throughout most of its history (yes, I know, the argument from history is no proof per se, but is a significant corolary).

In sum, there are no "proofs" either way. It would be most advisable for either side of this argument to resist the urge to claim proof.

Now, my belief:
Ever Virgin
Mostly, it's emotional reasoning on my part which leads me to believe so, for it seems quite sensible for a woman who knew she gave Virgin Birth to God's own Son to have hesitation in rejoining her life as previously scheduled.

I would note to my Protestant "brothers"
that our appeal to belief in God HAS NO PROOF either. Nor does the inerrancy of scriptures have proof. Logic, coupled with a choice of a favorable argument, gives birth to belief.
I retire.