Diogenes the Cynic

It's much earlier than Eusebious. Mark thought so too. There's no question that the Gospels describe Jesus as having literal siblings but that doesn't really help with establishing historicity because the Gospels assume that too.

I guess what I'm saying is that (Catholic prostests aside) the question really is not whether the Gospels say Jesus had siblings (they do) but whether the Gospels invented those characters themselves or inherited them from authentic history.

Amaleq13

Especially since the depiction of brother James in Mark's story (who thought Jesus was crazy) doesn't really match up with the Christian leader named James mentioned by Paul and the author of Acts.

Rick Sumner

I suppose that depends on what you're referring to. If you're suggesting that Paul used the term in such a fashion then yes, you're going too far. Firstly, while Mark may think such a use appropriate (despite the fact that he never employs such a use, strike one), that doesn't say much about what Paul would think of such a use (strike two). Secondly, why doesn't Paul think himself a "brother of the Lord," that being the case? Does Paul not think he is doing God's will? Does he think James is the only person who is?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I think you're missing a key thrust of Doherty's argument, which is that Mark didn't think so, and didn't much care one way or the other, since Mark wasn't writing an historical text.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

sorompio

But wasn't he the head of the church? Wouldn't that be a reason for a special title?

Julian

James is one of, at least, four prominent leaders (pillars) of the church based in Jerusalem preaching to the Jews. James certainly seem to have quite a hold over poor confused Cephas. There were no official leader of the church in those days.

The fact that Paul disagrees with him seem to speak against James being the actual brother of Jesus since I doubt that Paul would gainsay the flesh and blood of Jesus. It could be a later insertion based on Josephus, I guess. Or Josphus is the insertion based on Paul. Or there is a tradition we are not aware of.

Julian

Rick Sumner

The OP doesn't say anything about a "special title."

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Steven Carr

It is suprising that the family of Jesus had observed his literally Christ-like behaviour for 30 years without managing to catch on to what was happening.

I mean, didn't they wonder why Jesus was the only Jew who never made a sin offering?

yalla

I regard the reference in Galatians to "James, the brother of the lord" as not being a reference to a kin or family relationship but instead as to one who is within the family of Christ, similar to the use of "comrade" or "brothers" used in some unions.Also like the "brothers" to "brothers and sisters" to "siblings" in the Judean People's Front of "Life of Brian" when whatshisname changes his gender [Loretta?].
I tried counting the no. of times Paul uses kin terms in his epistles and lost count.
He calls people "son"/" brother"/ mother" so often I submit it they [and therefore the address in Galatians] cannot be intended to mean real "blood" family.
In 1 Cor.9.4 he says"..do we not have the right to be accompanied by a SISTER as wife..?".Now in the interest of consistency, those who claim James is meant to be a DNA sharing brother to JC, would, IMO, also believe that Paul is advocating incestuous marriage here, the same as that which applies to "the other apostles and THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD".
I don' think James was the bro of the lord and I don't think Paul did either.Others, later, may have wished to view him as such and hence the growth of legends ensued.

everettf

I was under the impression that if a virgin birth were possible, the baby would be female. No male dna.

Am I wrong?