jjramsey

And the laymen should at least know of those who do know of the language issues. "Brother of" vs. "brother into" was briefly mentioned on Crosstalk here and here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/12157
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/12204

Biff the unclean

LOL
It is astonishing that you guys cheerfully dub yourselves “scholar” while ignoring entire libraries of information on mythology and Catholic practice and then base your assumption on a single preposition.

Sorry but the claim to have met the “brother” of a fictional character, or someone else with first hand knowledge, by one of the authors of the fiction is a literary device. Edgar Rice Burroughs was fond of using it, which, by you scholarship, should mean that there is an Historic Tarzan and not just a plot idea borrowed from Kipling.

Julian

The catholic explanation that I have heard often is that the brothers of Jesus were from a previous marriage of Joseph. They were really only half-brothers so Mary can stay a perpetual virgin.

Julian

Vivisector

It might be worth noting that the single preposition occurs twice in the indisputed letters of Paul. Mark mentions Jesus's brothers on two occasions. Matthew preserves both of these occurrences; Luke, only one.

One possibility is that these authors used "brother" in its normal sense and were untroubled by the idea that Jesus had flesh-and-blood brothers. Theological difficulties with flesh and blood siblings occurred only later, associated with the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity and addressed by interpretations of "brother" not supported by the texts and, in some cases, direct modifications to the texts. Another other possiblity is that in each case, "brother" meant something other than indicated by a plain reading of the text.

The first possibility still makes the most sense to me. It seems that if I were to accept the second, I'd be guilty of what I've accused many Christians of - rejecting the plain reading of the text without good reasons for doing so.

Cheers,

V.

Vivisector

Same here.

Question for our Greek scholars - was there a term in common usage denoting step-siblings?

Regards,

V.

jgibson000

Burroughs himself stated that his character of Tarzan and the plot of Tarzan of the Apes was based primarily upon the story of Romulus and Remus, not Kipling's Mowgli.

In the light of how you got this one wrong, i.e., a "borrowing" that is relatively recent, and for which we have actual data from the author of Tarzan of the Apes himself to consult to check our assumptions about parallels and Vorlagen, I think it's safe to say that we have no good reason to trusts you and your assertions about the alleged parallels between Jesus and other ancient figures, the nature of the alleged "borrowng" that the evaggelists and Paul engaged in their prcclamations about the person of Jesus, and the particular Vorlagen that purportedly stands behind the Gospel stories.

Jeffrey Gibson

jakejonesiv

Hi jj,

My answer is that Matthew was stupid.

Matthew, in 2:23, had in mind some such passage as the following.

For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no
razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a
Nazarite unto God from the womb: Judges 13:5.

Matthew didn't know what Nazarene meant, confused it with Nazarite, and compounded the error by creating a ficticious town Nazareth to explain the whole thing.

I wouldn't get too concerned about Matthew contradicting himself. He does precisely that when he says the name Jesus was prophesied, and then proves it by quoting something about Emmanuel. Matt. 1:21-23.

For the love of Krishna, the guy couldn't even count to 14.

Jake Jones IV

Biff the unclean

That's pretty funny Jeff. Mowgli was copyrighted, Romulus was not. Which did you think Burroughs the pulp fiction writer would say was his inspiration; the one that might cost him money or the one that would not? I wonder when Remus became lord of the jungle beasts.

And anyway if ERB actually took from Roman myth how does that now make him claiming to have met someone who had a personal relationship with Tarzan of the Apes any more valid?

Rick Sumner

Have you read Tarzan, rather than watched the movies? It's a much different story in the book.

As an additional example (and a testament to how tough it can be to discern parallels), Yoda was a wizard masquerading as a humbug rather than a humbug masquerading as a wizard, but he is nonetheless inspired by the Wizard of Oz.

Finding and assessing parallels is a tricky business. We can really do no better than to take an author's word for it. Burrough's says it's based on Romulus and Remus, about the best we're going to do is take his word for it. It's curious that you seem to have forgotten how parallels can be hidden here--you remembered it clearly enough above in your Romeo and Juliet example. Application by convenience?

Comparing an ecclesiological epistle with Burroughs was a specious point to begin with, at any rate. Paul's letters have none of the hints one might suggest they find in the gospels of being written with the intent of fiction.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Biff the unclean

I must admit that not only have I read Tarzan, I have read every Tarzan with the exception of “The Tarzan Twins”.
Since I actually work with western lowland gorillas these days it’s hardly surprising that I wasted my youth that way.
We can do a lot better than that. We can read the stories ourselves and compare them ourselves.
We would be pretty silly to do that.
But I see that you are trying very hard to miss my point about ERB, so I’ll repeat it.
Had you read the first Tarzan novel you would know that he uses the same literary device that he uses at the beginning of every series he wrote. He claims personal knowledge of the hero. Tarzan ERB claims to have met someone who knows him. In the Mars series he claims to be the hero’s nephew IIRC. The purpose of doing so is to aid in the suspension of disbelief.

Hardly. Have you never heard of copyright laws? Have you never read the Jungle Books and, say, Jungle Tales of Tarzan? Do you not know that ERB had a share in the books, comics, merchandise, movies and radio Tarzan? The courts knew. Of course he claimed inspiration from Romulus & Remus, they were in the public domain. Kipling was not.

You are correct I shouldn’t compare them. Burroughs was the much better writer of the two, even though they both chose to write about superheroes.

Why is it that we don’t take the Gnostic gospel of John which was written in the first person and tells of meeting the lad himself instead of just his brother as evidence for an HJ?