pharoah

What does the above passage show about the author's attitude towards Jesus's family? These are the possibilities that I see.

A) The author never heard anything about Jesus having any brothers, which is why he never mentions them in his book, and why he has Jesus leave Mary in the care of the beloved disciple.

B) The author knew or had heard about James being the brother of Jesus but uses this passage as a way to disparage him because of tensions between the Jerusalem and Johannine communities. This also served the useful function of promoting the personality and theology of the beloved disiciple ahead of James.

I think that B is the better option simply because James as the brother of Jesus seems historically well-attested.

For the apologists, the passage presents historical difficulties that can't be easily smoothed over. Why would Jesus leave Mary in the care of someone other his own brothers, especially since I Corinthians 15 depicts James as an early convert?

BALDUCCI

Well, if this were a theologians forum, some scholar would claim that the greek word for brother used in passages that describe James as Jesus' brother, does not mean "blood brother" in this context, but "bro'"; although everywhere else when the greek word is used, it does mean "blood brother".....you know the kind of apologetic nonsense behind which these "scholars" hide.

John is widely suspected as being a synthetic piece, not a genuine effort to witness the life of Christ, and many scholars put Thomas ahead of John in terms of authenticity. I see John as having primarily a political purpose, written to support a gnostic fringe movement, and selected by the Christian fathers because it supported the supernatural claims being made about an obviously worldly national leader fighting againt Roman occupation. Jesus had to be made Rome friendly, and the most convenient way to do that, and make Christianity sort-of compatible with all the other faiths extant in the Roman empire (and facilitate conversion....our faith is much likke yours and your gods can become saints) was to elevate him into the supernatural realm that was incompatible with the Judiasm that Jesus himself preached.

So, of course, if he is the mystical son of god, he cant have brothers, and he cant be described as the King of the Jews, which is how he was crucified by the Romans

Solo

Are you sure there was a "Jerusalem community" for the Johanines to argue with when the gospel was written ?

Jiri

BALDUCCI

Of course; it is well described in the Acts which probably predate John

pharoah

Probably not in the latter redactions of the book, but it doesn't really matter. Even if the Jerusalem community was completely destroyed their influence still lingered, at least in the 1st century.

BALDUCCI

There was a Jesus Movement in Jerusalem until AD 70....the Acts clearly attest to that. After that the schism between the followers of Jesus and the Pauline schism went into diaspora. Pauline revisionism won because Rome chose for political reasons to embrace it...but remnants of the authentic tradition survive, for example in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church

Toto

A discussion between Mr. Logic and Chili has been split off here.

Doug Shaver

How about this?