Adam

I Cor 15:6 reads "adelphois", same as Mt. 28:10. John 20:17 reads "adelphous". I Cor 15:1 reads "adelphoi". Mark 6:3 reads "adelphos" (and sisters read "adelphai"), but the parallel Mt. 13:55 reads "adelphoi". I Cor. 15:1 is clearly the wider sense, Mt. 13:55 is surely biological brothers, but the spelling is identical.

outhouse

The unknown authors are only parroting, what they heard through oral tradition.

Not only that, if it made their story better, they would have used the family term, to keep the theme flowing.


He probably had a family, but using the gospels proves nothing with certainty.

Toto

Where do you get this nonsense???? :huh:

No, the spelling is the same. The word is the same. The variations are just different case endings. Only the context tells you whether "brother" is fellow believer or biological brother

outhouse

My apology

Its been a few years since going over Meier "A Marginal Jew" on this topic debated a few years ago.

You are correct but there is more to it then that. It brings up the debate, if origin was translated from hebrew.




I think this is what I was refferencing poorly too.
http://biblesuite.com/greek/80.htm


. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18, and often. That 'the brethren of Jesus,' Matthew 12:46, 47 (but WH only in marginal reading); f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i. e. Clopas) and Mary a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which ἀδελφός like the Hebrew אָח denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord's brethren are distinguished from the apostles. See further on this point under Ἰάκωβος, 3. (Cf. B. D. under the word ; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N. T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matthew 13:55.)




The word Adelphotes as apposed to Adelphos, was another usage

Chili

You are right, but where the HJ fails is that there was no physical Jesus crucified as the gospels present it happened, wherein blood and water was gushing from his chest, fuck, why not, and then was burried and after three days walked away from that.

After that, one of them, James here, goes back to Galilee, dapper as can be, while the real Jesus goes to Jerusalem, and then later this same Jesus went 'poof' and up he went while Christ just stayed with no more to say.

outhouse

HJ does not "fail"


The unknown authors from another culture who lived in a different geographic location then where some real events unfolded, did not fail, as their writings have left their mark on humanity. They wrote theology through mythology as did those previous to them had done.


This does not make what "has" historicity vanish