Protoevangelium of James

Standing Up · Mar 20, 2012

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
αδεληοις is used in Koine Greek to mean more than first-order siblings. It's used that way in the Septuagint. It's used that way in intertestamental Jewish literature. Why can't it be used that way in Matthew and Mark?

Why didn't Jerome use it that way? He rejected the brother definition from a previous Joseph marriage. He introduced the "brother" as cousin theory.

Anyway, we know it may mean spiritual brother or national ancestry. What it doesn't mean is what the Hebrew ach meant.

Mk. 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Thayers:
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ

Standing Up · Mar 20, 2012

Yab Yum said:
No, why would I do that?

Catholic Encyclopedia:
It is based on the canonical Gospels which it expands with legendary and imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile or fantastic.

Again, just because a document that may be a pseudoepigraph has no place within dogma does not mean it cannot be of use in other regards - to illustrate a belief at the time of writing, for example.

Except the PoJ wasn't the Christian belief at the time. I'll get another thread going on Clement of Alexandria. We've seen Tertullian's view, using the fact that Mary had other children as PROOF FOR the actual birth of Jesus (Emmanuel vs the gnostic beliefs).

Notwithstanding this, you have still not proven per your OP that "Jerome invented this theory, having rejected the PoJ book as spurious". Saint Jerome does not mention the Protoevangelium at all.

I've tried tracing back the Jerome theory (cousins), but without success. Hence, I have him as the originator. But feel free to see if you can trace it back further.

Here's a commentary on the 3 views (actual brothers, brothers by a former marriage, cousins):

Over against both of them is to be mentioned a third, which assumes only two Jameses, regarding the brethren of the Lord as his cousins, and identifying them with the sons of Alphæus. This theory originated with Jerome in 383 a.d. with the confessedly dogmatic object of preserving the virginity both of Mary and of Joseph in opposition to Helvidius.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Incidentally scripture is clear there are 3 James, not the 2 (James the greater and the comingled James the less with James the just, of Jerome.

Thekla · Mar 20, 2012

Standing Up said:
Why didn't Jerome use it that way? He rejected the brother definition from a previous Joseph marriage. He introduced the "brother" as cousin theory.

Anyway, we know it may mean spiritual brother or national ancestry. What it doesn't mean is what the Hebrew ach meant.

Mk. 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Thayers:
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ

It can be demonstrated to mean more than Thayers includes in the list of definitions, including cousin.

GratiaCorpusChristi · Mar 20, 2012

Standing Up said:
Why didn't Jerome use it that way? He rejected the brother definition from a previous Joseph marriage. He introduced the "brother" as cousin theory.

Anyway, we know it may mean spiritual brother or national ancestry. What it doesn't mean is what the Hebrew ach meant.

Mk. 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Thayers:
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ

Um, αδελφοι including cousin is exactly what I'm saying. αδελφοι can mean kinsman or relative as readily as "brothers." I agree with Jerome, and so does BDAG, the standard lexicon of New Testament and Koine Greek.

Also, did you even read definition number two?

SolomonVII · Mar 20, 2012

I've tried tracing back the Jerome theory (cousins), but without success. Hence, I have him as the originator. But feel free to see if you can trace it back further.

Only magical thinking would set dogma into the mystical unknown dephs of time where the evidence mysteriously disappears.
For the ancients, where dream and visions serve as evidence, this does not present a problem. For modern thinkers, it really should.
Without evidence that belief is continuous throughout the time period of the Church, such claims are not historic, but mythic.

SolomonVII · Mar 20, 2012

There is a passage in the Koran where Mary is referred to as the brother or Aaron. To ask a Muslim why this would not be Miriam, the same type of reasoning applies, where brother means something like when blacks call each other brother.

Of course it does! Why would anyone outside of the faith assume any different?

razeontherock · Mar 20, 2012

Snipped out of a post, the rest of which was equally excellent:

SolomonVII said:
In pre-modern times, people used to determine truth through the authority of this or that prestigious man. That is to say, "X is true because Aristotle says it is true", or "X is true because Plato said so".

This by and large remains the Catholic and EO way of making the argument. That is to say, "X is true because the pope says it is true, or "X is true because the Church says so".

From that point of view, I can see why you might think that your above argument might carry a lot of weight. In this case, the Protestant authorities would be Luther and Calvin and Zwingli, the grand poobahs of Protestantism.

But really, given the form that the argument has taken so far, by Standing Up and myself and CJ and others, you have not really been able to grasp fully the arguments that are being made here.
The point of view is not that something is true because some great figure of the past has said so, but to look at it from the modern view of finding the evidence from history.

The point seems to have been lost

Fireinfolding · Mar 20, 2012

Thekla said:
It can be demonstrated to mean more than Thayers includes in the list of definitions, including cousin.

Would sisters read as cousins as well in that context?

Like if we change brother/ adelphos of
and his sisters/ adelphē to cousin and his cousins

Wouldnt it read similiar to this?

Mk. 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the cousin of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his cousins here with us? And they were offended at him.

Well, given his own countrymen are they that are saying that (and countrymen is likewise in the definition of adelphos) but here they are distinguished between. And yet in the same context adlephos is mentioned, Jesus uses the word cousin/syggenēs (along with countrymen and his own house)

Matk 6:1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.

These "said"

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother adelphos of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Matk 6:4 But Jesus said unto them (his own countrymen) A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, syggenēs and in his own house

Jesus speak of three, a prophet is without honour in, his own country, and his own kin/cousin syggenēs and those of his own house (as opposed to his own countrymen) which are they noting "Is this not"...the son Mary, brother adelphos of James ...and are not his sisters adelphē with us?

To Mary of Elisabeth...

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

Fireinfolding · Mar 20, 2012

Thayers: Adelphos
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ

This just fits without having to twist anything...

Mk. 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Gal 1:9 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Thekla · Mar 20, 2012

Fireinfolding said:
Would sisters read as cousins as well in that context?

Like if we change brother/ adelphos of
and his sisters/ adelphē to cousin and his cousins

Wouldnt it read similiar to this?

Mk. 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the cousin of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his cousins here with us? And they were offended at him.

Well, given his own countrymen are they that are saying that (and countrymen is likewise in the definition of adelphos) but here they are distinguished between. And yet in the same context adlephos is mentioned, Jesus uses the word cousin/syggenēs (along with countrymen and his own house)

Matk 6:1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.

These "said"

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother adelphos of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Matk 6:4 But Jesus said unto them (his own countrymen) A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, syggenēs and in his own house

Jesus speak of three, a prophet is without honour in, his own country, and his own kin/cousin syggenēs and those of his own house (as opposed to his own countrymen) which are they noting "Is this not"...the son Mary, brother adelphos of James ...and are not his sisters adelphē with us?

To Mary of Elisabeth...

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

Adelphi (female) has pretty much the same range of meanings.

So this would also include in-law, spouse, uncle, nephew, same tribe, cousin/s.

In the Scriptures, I have found that where the relationship is known it is through some common male. (I don't recall with secular literature whether this is the case, though I think so.)

The head of the household can also be considered a common male.

If the adelphos/i had a range of relationships (not the same relationship in each case), adelphos would be the easiest term to use.

I've not seen suyyenis translated as "cousin"; it just means related (from "born with").

I don't know, but it seems that since adelphos is usually an indication of a common male, suyyenis here might indicate relationship through a female.

Thekla · Mar 20, 2012

Fireinfolding said:
This just fits without having to twist anything...

Mk. 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Gal 1:9 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Although if you're used to using "adelphos", and know it's a general term, it would seem to be "twisting" to make it mean one thing without any other information given.

So I think this may be a matter of what is "natural" to people - and what is natural differs based on language and culture.

Fireinfolding · Mar 20, 2012

Thekla said:
Adelphi (female) has pretty much the same range of meanings.

So this would also include in-law, spouse, uncle, nephew, same tribe, cousin/s.

In the Scriptures, I have found that where the relationship is known it is through some common male. (I don't recall with secular literature whether this is the case, though I think so.)

The head of the household can also be considered a common male.

If the adelphos/i had a range of relationships (not the same relationship in each case), adelphos would be the easiest term to use.

I've not seen suyyenis translated as "cousin"; it just means related (from "born with").

I don't know, but it seems that since adelphos is usually an indication of a common male, suyyenis here might indicate relationship through a female.

I must wait for an interpreter sis, not sure what you just said, but maybe SolomonVII or Standing Up can help me out when one of them shows up.

Heres what strongs is showing I only see it translated cousin once not twice as it shows, but the page screws up in trying to get to it, so I cant tell.

syggenēs

kinsman 7, cousin 2, kinsfolk 2, kin 1

1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood
2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman

But there again, is the word countrymen in syggenēs (used for cousin or kin etc) just as countrymen is also in the definition of adephos, but as we can see in the contex of Mark it speaks directly to own countrymen taking offense (because he come into his own country) . So if we changed all the words to cousins (on the assumption they are all the same) then his cousins (countrymen) which are noting his cousin (James) and also his cousins (sisters) were offended at him. Then Jesus would have said, a prophet is without honor among his own cousins and his own cousins and his own house (which is just full of cousins)

See what I mean?

But the words are all different within the context

Ok, I'll wait till someone helps me with what you are trying to point out to me.

Fireinfolding · Mar 20, 2012

Thekla said:
Although if you're used to using "adelphos", and know it's a general term, it would seem to be "twisting" to make it mean one thing without any other information given.

So I think this may be a matter of what is "natural" to people - and what is natural differs based on language and culture.

I know how it can be used, looking at the context helps.

But we both know that doesnt help between our different viewpoints, I do realize this.

Yab Yum · Mar 20, 2012

SolomonVII said:
Only magical thinking would set dogma into the mystical unknown dephs of time where the evidence mysteriously disappears.
For the ancients, where dream and visions serve as evidence, this does not present a problem. For modern thinkers, it really should.
Without evidence that belief is continuous throughout the time period of the Church, such claims are not historic, but mythic.

Well perhaps this is why we should consider not just who "invented" what, but actually consider whether the arguments, e.g. what Jerome says, make sense.

I mean, again, we didn't have a fully-fledged substitutionary atonement until Abelard does this mean that this is "magical thinking" since this belief is not "continuous throughout the time period of the church"?

Thekla · Mar 20, 2012

Fireinfolding said:
I must wait for an interpreter sis, not sure what you just said, but maybe SolomonVII or Standing Up can help me out when one of them shows up.

Heres what strongs is showing I only see it translated cousin once not twice as it shows, but the page screws up in trying to get to it, so I cant tell.

syggenēs

kinsman 7, cousin 2, kinsfolk 2, kin 1

1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood
2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman

But there again, is the word countrymen in syggenēs (used for cousin or kin etc) just as countrymen is also in the definition of adephos, but as we can see in the contex of Mark it speaks directly to own countrymen taking offense (because he come into his own country) . So if we changed all the words to cousins (on the assumption they are all the same) then his cousins (countrymen) which are noting his cousin (James) and also his cousins (sisters) were offended at him. Then Jesus would have said, a prophet is without honor among his own cousins and his own cousins and his own house (which is just full of cousins)

See what I mean?

But the words are all different within the context

Ok, I'll wait till someone helps me with what you are trying to point out to me.

Sorry about that !

Suyyenis means "born with". I'm not sure why they translate it cousin. Relative or kinsman would do.

Adelphos actually means about 12 different things.

But every time I've seen it in Scripture, when there is an explanation, the relationship is through a male. Like Herod and Phillip, who have the same father, but not mother. Joseph and his adelphos (in Acts) - all eleven of his adelphos have the same father Joseph does, but only Joseph and Benjamin were the children of Rachel. The same with Abraham and Lot.

If you look at 2 Chronicles 23, it says that adelphos married their adelphi (in the Greek). Actually, Kish and Eleazer's children married each other; they were cousins, but called adelphos. Again, these adelphos are related through a common male - their grandfather.

So again, every time I've seen adelphos, and we have a way of knowing how they are related, they are related through a father, or head of household, or grandfather, etc. I've asked here if anyone knows of "adelphos" in Scripture who are not related (legally or biologically) through a male. No-one responded.

I thought I would add this: in one case when adelphi was used for a wife, the couple were living in the husband's father's home.

Thekla · Mar 20, 2012

Fireinfolding said:
I know how it can be used, looking at the context helps.

But we both know that doesnt help between our different viewpoints, I do realize this.

Not always, though.

For example, with Herod and Phillip.

Fireinfolding · Mar 20, 2012

Thekla said:
Sorry about that !

Suyyenis means "born with". I'm not sure why they translate it cousin. Relative or kinsman would do.

Adelphos actually means about 12 different things.

But every time I've seen it in Scripture, when there is an explanation, the relationship is through a male. Like Herod and Phillip, who have the same father, but not mother. Joseph and his adelphos (in Acts) - all eleven of his adelphos have the same father Joseph does, but only Joseph and Benjamin were the children of Rachel. The same with Abraham and Lot.

If you look at 2 Chronicles 23, it says that adelphos married their adelphi (in the Greek). Actually, Kish and Eleazer's children married each other; they were cousins, but called adelphos. Again, these adelphos are related through a common male - their grandfather.

So again, every time I've seen adelphos, and we have a way of knowing how they are related, they are related through a father, or head of household, or grandfather, etc. I've asked here if anyone knows of "adelphos" in Scripture who are not related (legally or biologically) through a male. No-one responded.

Much better (yall smart folks must come down to us not so smart folks) and yes I know how they are used in various places. I just cannot assume Joseph had a former wife with children (thus Jesus brothers being so in that way) there isnt evidence of that. We all assume to some degree but there are assumptions that are more ridiculous to assume then others. For example, for me to assume, Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus is not far fetched at all, in fact quite common. But when there is no mention of Joseph having been previously married its stretching that assuming much further then what is naturally assumed between the two. For example we know Abraham's wife was Sarah, when Sarah died he again took a wife Keturah. So we are told

Then ofcouse assuming can reach the "most ridiculous" which might be to assume Mary had children through an affair (of some kind). I think (on that point) we could safely say (together as one voice) against such an assumption, "absolutely not".

Depends on the assumption obviously

Thekla · Mar 20, 2012

Fireinfolding said:
Much better (yall smart folks must come down to us not so smart folks) and yes I know how they are used in various places. I just cannot assume Joseph had a former wife with children (thus Jesus brothers being so in that way) there isnt evidence of that. We all assume to some degree but there are assumptions that are more ridiculous to assume then others. For example, for me to assume, Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus is not far fetched at all, in fact quite common. But when there is no mention of Joseph having been previously married its stretching that assuming much further then what is naturally assumed between the two. For example we know Abraham's wife was Sarah, when Sarah died he again took a wife Keturah. So we are told

Then ofcouse assuming can reach the "most ridiculous" which might be to assume Mary had children through an affair (of some kind). I think (on that point) we could safely say (together as one voice) against such an assumption, "absolutely not".

Depends on the assumption obviously

Well, at least no-one is suggesting that

But in the case of Herod and Philip, we can assume they had the same parents. What Scripture doesn't mention is all of the other stuff about Herod and his family - including that he and his adelphos had different mothers.

The NT does not go into a lot of detail about certain things - and does give a lot of detail about others. Why would Scripture talk about who these "adelphos" were ? That's not the point of the account.

Just like Scripture doesn't say how Elizabeth and Mary are related. I think it's probably through a female. Why doesn't Scripture call John the Baptist a relative (or cousin, or whatever) of Christ ? Guess there was no need.

There are many other reasons to think the adelphos were not children of Mary - these in Scripture. But these use terms and language that are unfamiliar to people. And it doesn't seem worth discussing.

Fireinfolding · Mar 20, 2012

Thekla said:
Not always, though.

For example, with Herod and Phillip.

Not always though what?

Yes I do know we need to plummet the depth of every brother in existence to keep Mary an Ever virgin. Because thats what this is really about. But just say (for the sake of argument) there were no brothers of Jesus born of Mary (just as you believe) that (in itself) still would not convince me of her ever virginity.

Which is why there can sometimes be a tension in these conversations, I cannot be convinced brothers or not, its not a doctrine I seek to defend, I dont have her ever virginity to protect, on the otherhand the otherside might. But they might be under the impression that "if we can prove Jesus brothers werent of Mary (somehow) we would convince them", which is not really the case.

Though I see somewhat of the same thing done quoting protestants (now) who in the past like Luther who confessed Mary's ever virginity (way back when) but thats not effectual either. I dont come around to believe something because they might have.

razeontherock · Mar 20, 2012

Thekla said:
adelphos married their adelphi

Hey, none of that funny business! This is America, and marriage is between one man and one woman.

Protoevangelium of James

On and on

On and on

Thekla

Guest

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency