Protoevangelium of James

[Fireinfolding]

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.

I wouldnt think it so strange they had different mothers, Its not like Jesus and His brothers would have had the same father either.

But your right, between me and you over the years, we both know where each other stands on this and we differ, but I did have to ask that first quiestion about cousins because I was curious given we hadnt touched on that before and seeing the context and how you would consider it written out.

Thats all, you are free sis

 

[Thekla]

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.

Actually, when dealing with Scripture on this issue, I am just trying to look at exactly what Scripture states.
I've spent hours and hours researching and trying to understand because I want to know accurately what Scripture does say - including on this.
If there were evidence in Scripture that she were not, then I would have to disagree with the ever-virginity.
I haven't found it.

And so on the adelphos issue, the way the language works there really is no way to tell what the relationship is. We don't know anything about Mary or her parents, or Joseph or his parents etc.

And like I said, every mention of adelphos that I do know about, they are related through a male.

About the ever-virginity: what Scripture does say is said in a way that is unfamiliar in English. People tend to read their opinions on both sides, and reading the translation doesn't help. People who think the adelphos are Mary's children just assume that people who think she was ever-virgin are kinda 'making things up'. But Greek is very different, so the translation really does get in the way.

Because of this, I think the discussion is about impossible on CF.

 

[razeontherock]

It's all Greek to me; I appreciate your patience though.

 

[Yab Yum]

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).

I must confess that I don't know a lot about Tertullian but I thought he was considered unreliable since he eventually lapsed. Jerome didn't like him anyway.

Jerome, De Viris Illustribus

He was presbyter of the church until middle life, afterwards driven by the envy and abuse of the clergy of the Roman church, he lapsed to the doctrine of Montanus, and mentions the new prophecy in many of his books. He composed, moreover, directly against the church, volumes: On modesty, On persecution, On fasts, On monogamy, six books On ecstasy, and a seventh which he wrote Against Apollonius. He is said to have lived to a decrepit old age, and to have composed many small works, which are not extant.

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 ...

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 ...

Here are more quotes from the same footnote you cite. The Church History of Eusebius. Book I., Chapter XII.—The Disciples of our Saviour, fn 212:

The second is the half-brother hypothesis which regards the brethren and sisters of Jesus as children of Joseph by a former wife. This has the oldest tradition in its favor (though the tradition for none of the theories is old or universal enough to be of great weight), the apocryphal Gospel of James, chap. ix., recording that Joseph was a widower and had children before marrying Mary. It is still the established theory in the Greek Church.

A second form of the cousin theory, which regards Jesus and James as paternal cousins--making Alphæus (Clopas) the brother of Joseph--originated with Lange. It is very ingenious, and urges in its support the authority of Hegesippus [c. 110 — c. April 7, 180 AD], who, according to Eusebius (H. E. III. 11), says that Clopas was the brother of Joseph and the father of Simeon, which would make the latter the brother of James, and thus just as truly the brother of the Lord as he. But Hegesippus plainly thinks of James and of Simeon as standing in different relations to Christ,--the former his brother, the latter his cousin,--and therefore his testimony is against, rather than for Lange's hypothesis. The statement of Hegesippus, indeed, expresses the cousinship of Christ with James the Little, the son of Clopas (if Alphæus and Clopas be identified), but does not identify this cousin with James the brother of the Lord.

So the plot thickens.

 

[Yab Yum]

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.


Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.


Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.


Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.


Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios"). Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother ("adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.


Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.


Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."


2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.


2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.


1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.


Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."


Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."


Amos 1:9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

 

[Fireinfolding]

Actually, when dealing with Scripture on this issue, I am just trying to look at exactly what Scripture states.
I've spent hours and hours researching and trying to understand because I want to know accurately what Scripture does say - including on this.
If there were evidence in Scripture that she were not, then I would have to disagree with the ever-virginity.
I haven't found it.

And so on the adelphos issue, the way the language works there really is no way to tell what the relationship is. We don't know anything about Mary or her parents, or Joseph or his parents etc.

And like I said, every mention of adelphos that I do know about, they are related through a male.

About the ever-virginity: what Scripture does say is said in a way that is unfamiliar in English. People tend to read their opinions on both sides, and reading the translation doesn't help. People who think the adelphos are Mary's children just assume that people who think she was ever-virgin are kinda 'making things up'. But Greek is very different, so the translation really does get in the way.

Because of this, I think the discussion is about impossible on CF.

Well we could end this cordially, with, maybe... maybe not

Hows that?

Works for me.

Its beyond me to even understand why it even matters so much Thelka.

It makes Jesus no less the Son of God, and Mary no more a sinner or any less pure if the opposite of what you believe were true.

Even growing up Catholic I couldnt see the relevance or why the big stink was being made over it. I still dont, only that some believe it and others dont, and even more dont care what went on betwen Joseph and Mary's private life that way.

 

[Thekla]

Well we could end this cordially, with, maybe... maybe not

Hows that?

Works for me.

Its beyond me to even understand why it even matters so much Thelka.

It makes Jesus no less the Son of God, and Mary no more a sinner or any less pure if the opposite of what you believe were true.

Even growing up Catholic I couldnt see the relevance or why the big stink was being made over it. I still dont, only that some believe it and others dont, and even more dont care what went on betwen Joseph and Mary's private life that way.

In my experience, it's only on CF that people make a big deal about it
Honest, I've never in my life spent so much time on this matter except in CF.

My dad was a Protestant Minister - and like many kids, I thought it a good idea to assume everything he said needed to be triple-investigated

As Christians go, he had an amazing faith and gift !
He read the NT in Greek, and he thought Mary was ever-virgin.
(He converted when he was in College - he wasn't raised as a Christian.)

I've found, over the years, I've come to agree with my dad - on this as well.

I don't expect everyone to agree - honest, I take no offense !

 

[OpenDoor]

The Protoevangelium of James has NEVER been accepted by Christianity.

 

[Fireinfolding]

In my experience, it's only on CF that people make a big deal about it
Honest, I've never in my life spent so much time on this matter except in CF.

My dad was a Protestant Minister - and like many kids, I thought it a good idea to assume everything he said needed to be triple-investigated

As Christians go, he had an amazing faith and gift !
He read the NT in Greek, and he thought Mary was ever-virgin.
(He converted when he was in College - he wasn't raised as a Christian.)

I've found, over the years, I've come to agree with my dad - on this as well.

I don't expect everyone to agree - honest, I take no offense !

I dont expect others to agree with me either, everyone of my freinds believes differently then me on something, and they are still my freinds.

And I never even give any of this (and many things we might discuss "here" on CF a thought either)... until I come here, and then forced to think about it.

Besides, I would rather not watch the sports channel my husband might have on

Im like... CF or football?

So I'll chose CF just because sports (or whatever he has on TV) is just less my thing.

Sometime I get lucky and theres actually a conversation Im glad for

Nite all

 

[Standing Up]

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?

Just to be clear and to move this to a conclusion, because the PoJ contradicts scripture, we can completely reject the notion that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. We are left then with 2 choices. The cousin theory or the fact that they were brothers (same mother, different father).

So, you believe the 'cousin theory' of Jerome, that James the Less and James the Just are the same person.

Good so far? If so, I'll start a new thread on the cousin theory (1 down, 1 to go as it were).

 

[Thekla]

Just to be clear and to move this to a conclusion, because the PoJ contradicts scripture, we can completely reject the notion that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. We are left then with 2 choices. The cousin theory or the fact that they were brothers (same mother, different father).

So, you believe the 'cousin theory' of Jerome, that James the Less and James the Just are the same person.

Good so far? If so, I'll start a new thread on the cousin theory (1 down, 1 to go as it were).

This assumes that the only reason for considering the adelphos to be sons of Joseph and not Mary is the Protevangelion.

Can you provide incontrovertible evidence that this is the case ?

 

[Standing Up]

I must confess that I don't know a lot about Tertullian but I thought he was considered unreliable since he eventually lapsed. Jerome didn't like him anyway.

Supposedly RC now embraces Tertullian.

Here are more quotes from the same footnote you cite. The Church History of Eusebius. Book I., Chapter XII.—The Disciples of our Saviour, fn 212:

The second is the half-brother hypothesis which regards the brethren and sisters of Jesus as children of Joseph by a former wife. This has the oldest tradition in its favor (though the tradition for none of the theories is old or universal enough to be of great weight), the apocryphal Gospel of James, chap. ix., recording that Joseph was a widower and had children before marrying Mary. It is still the established theory in the Greek Church.

A second form of the cousin theory, which regards Jesus and James as paternal cousins--making Alphæus (Clopas) the brother of Joseph--originated with Lange. It is very ingenious, and urges in its support the authority of Hegesippus [c. 110 — c. April 7, 180 AD], who, according to Eusebius (H. E. III. 11), says that Clopas was the brother of Joseph and the father of Simeon, which would make the latter the brother of James, and thus just as truly the brother of the Lord as he. But Hegesippus plainly thinks of James and of Simeon as standing in different relations to Christ,--the former his brother, the latter his cousin,--and therefore his testimony is against, rather than for Lange's hypothesis. The statement of Hegesippus, indeed, expresses the cousinship of Christ with James the Little, the son of Clopas (if Alphæus and Clopas be identified), but does not identify this cousin with James the brother of the Lord.

So the plot thickens.

To SUMMARIZE:

There's only 3 theories about the brothers of Jesus.

1) Sons of Joseph (the 1/2 brother mentioned above)--this is the PoJ view, which is rejected as contradictory to scripture itself. Apart from the PoJ, this view has zero support.

2) Cousins--Jerome started. I'll probably start a new thread on this.

3) Brothers (same mother, different father). Scripture and the tradition of Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Clement of Alexandria.

3 theories. That's it. #1 is rejected because the PoJ is spurious ravings (Aquinas). It contradicts scripture. There is no other support (that I know of) for this theory.

#2 is left.

#3 is left.

 

[razeontherock]

Responding in context to post #74: Sup, she's right; you committed some sort of logical fallacy there. Just because PoJ sez it and PoJ is false, doesn't mean it is wrong on this point. (That would be what, ad hom?)

 

[Standing Up]

The Protoevangelium of James has NEVER been accepted by Christianity.

I agree with you. It contradicts scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

Responding in context to post #74: Sup, she's right; you committed some sort of logical fallacy there. Just because PoJ sez it and PoJ is false, doesn't mean it is wrong on this point. (That would be what, ad hom?)

Ad hom (against the man) is when someone calls me biased to scripture and tradition.

When trying to determine truth, we agree to use scripture. And I've agreed to use very early tradition.

PoJ was supposedly written c150ad. It is spurious. What's left? C175 was Clement of Alexandria arguing both against the PoJ and the EV. So, even if there is another source from say 400ad that says Joseph had sons from a previous marriage, the writing is far removed from apostolic times to be useful. Besides, we know Clement and Tertullian and Cyril all argued that they were brothers (same mother, different father).

The cousin theory appears c400 with Jerome. Again, too late to tie-to-apostles with any sort of honesty.

Folks are really trying to hold on to their ever-virgin ideas, rather than look at the brothers of Christ. But I'm willing to look at other evidence for the sons of Joseph by another wife theory. Bring it forth.

 

[Standing Up]

Here's Pseudo-Matthew written c600 (reviving the rejected PoJ myth):

And they went away from Capernaum into the city which is called Bethlehem; and Joseph lived with Mary in his own house, and Jesus with them. And on a certain day Joseph called to him his first-born son James

Who wants to use this for their evidence of #1 from post #75???

 

[razeontherock]

Ad hom (against the man) is when someone calls me biased to scripture and tradition.

Ok so ad hom isn't it; but your logic went against the PoJ, assuming every statement it made must be wrong, because it is rejected. That doesn't fly.

Some state there are other reasons for adhering to your reason #1, despite PoJ. Those need to be addressed

C175 was Clement of Alexandria arguing both against the PoJ and the EV.

we know Clement and Tertullian and Cyril all argued that they were brothers (same mother, different father).

The cousin theory appears c400 with Jerome. Again, too late to tie-to-apostles with any sort of honesty.

These points here need to be addressed too!

 

[Standing Up]

Responding in context to post #74: Sup, she's right; you committed some sort of logical fallacy there. Just because PoJ sez it and PoJ is false, doesn't mean it is wrong on this point. (That would be what, ad hom?)

You might appreciate this from Origen. I just wonder if he knew what he was writing.

“... is not this the carpenter’s son? And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, “Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary.
ANF09. The Gospel of Peter, The Diatessaron of Tatian, The Apocalypse of Peter, the Vision of Paul, The Apocalypse of the Virgin and Sedrach, The Te - Christian Classics Ethereal Library


Anyone else see it?

 

[Thekla]

Tertullian isn't really known in the east (Africa was under Rome, iirc, except Egypt).

From Clement and Cyril can definitive statements of theirs on the matter be quoted and sourced in thread ?

Cyril of Jerusalem uses "the Virgin Mary"; this is used as a name, not an adjective plus a name, in Greek.

A name cannot be given in that sense unless the name applies to the person's life in general.

So to see his explanation would be helpful.

Because of the terminology, it is not enough to provide a quote that uses the term "adelphos"; more information is needed to make a determination.

I also keep getting the sense that folks do not know how this "ECF thing" works

 

[Thekla]

I still want to know from those who hold that Mary had more children:

given that the genetic material from a male fetus continues to circulate in a mother's blood for up to three decades following birth (only discovered in the late 70s, iirc),

how would this effect subsequent children (who are thus exposed to Jesus' genetic material from conception) ?