Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jdboy · 07-30-2013, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You present no evidence from antiquity or make unsubstantiated claims about brother and cousins.

I see you didn't look up the cousin/brother issue. Had you done so you may have learned something new. I did, and I learned something new.

Give it a whirl, aa.

I did and he's not to be confused with "James, the lord's brother. Another assumption?

Saint James, also called James, Son Of Alphaeus, or James The Less (flourished 1st century ad, ; Western feast day May 3; Eastern feast day October 9), one of the Twelve Apostles.

James may be he whose mother, Mary, is mentioned among the women at Jesus’ crucifixion and tomb (Mark 15:40, 16:1; Matthew 27:56). He is not to be confused with the apostle St. James, son of Zebedee, or James, “the Lord’s brother.” Depending upon the Bible consulted, he is probably the brother (Revised Standard and New English) or father (Authorized and Douay) of the apostle St. Judas (Jude). Nothing further is known of him, and a late legend of his martyrdom in Persia is spurious.

In the Western church, his identity with James, “the Lord’s brother,” was originally assumed in the feast of Saints Philip and James on May 1, the date of the dedication of the Church of the Holy Apostles, Rome, where supposed relics of these saints were brought about 560.

TedM · 07-30-2013, 03:58 PM

Thanks for the info. You may have missed part of the discussion.

This Mary, mentioned at the tomb is identified in one of the gospels as Jesus' mothers 'sister'. That would make (potentially) James Son of Alphaeus a cousin of some kind (given that 'sister' could also mean cousin). In Aramaic, 'cousins' would have simply been called brothers or sisters, if what I read is correct. There are two reasons to suspect this: First, Mary was married to Clopas. Clopas apparently can easily be rendered Alphaeus in the Greek (maybe vice versa-I forget). Secondly, the gospel says that Mary's son was named James! This would seem to be fairly strong evidence that one of Jesus' cousins was the apostle James, Son of Alphaeus.

If James the Son of Alphaeus is not James the Just, then we have a case of two James' that arguably would be called Jesus' brother. Actually, maybe even 3 if the gospel 'brother' James is neither one of those. That seems unlikely. 2 might not be though if you include cousins in the mix. Of course the other alternative is that James Son of Alphaeus was also James the Just.

I know James the Just is normally not considered to have been a disciple, but why is that? Is there support for that?

Did you look up anything that explained why 'cousins' might be called 'brothers' in the NT writings? Turns out there seems to be some real basis for that claim.

MrMacSon · 07-30-2013, 04:13 PM

So many James'; so many Jesus'; so many Marys.

Likely conflated & embellished in the final stories.

MrMacSon · 07-30-2013, 04:31 PM

brother more often meant 'brother-in-arms' than 'sibling'

aa5874 · 07-30-2013, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You present no evidence from antiquity or make unsubstantiated claims about brother and cousins.

I see you didn't look up the cousin/brother issue. Had you done so you may have learned something new. I did, and I learned something new.

Give it a whirl, aa.

You appear to be myopic. I have already addressed your brother/cousin claims. Your statements about brother/cousin are unsubstantiated.

Galatians 1.19 deals specifically with an apostle called the Lord's brother--not cousin or uncle.

Galatians 1:19 KJV

Quote:

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

It appears that the Pauline writers were aware of the word "cousin" because the Jesus cult writers claimed a Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.

See Eusebius "Church History" 6.25 and Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1.

Quote:

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first............ And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.

Now, examine Luke the Gospel commended by Paul.

Luke 1:36 KJV

Quote:

And, behold , thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

The Jesus cult writers and people of the Roman Empire including Jews knew the difference between cousin and brother/sister.

Examine Wars of the Jews attributed to a Jew of the 1st century.

Wars of the Jews 28.4

Quote:

Now the king had nine wives, (42) and children by seven of them......... he had also two wives that had no children, the one his first cousin, and the other his niece; and besides these he had two daughters, the sisters of Alexander and Aristobulus, by Mariamne...

I have utterly demolished your absurd cousin/brother arguments.

Toto · 07-30-2013, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

... There are reasons to not suspect that a Christian wrote the entire TF, and that a Christian had anything to do with the James phrase. Why would a non-Christian insert the James phrase? Because of a false story about James that he believed? That's rich. I mentioned the Josephean phrases in the TF. That's not to be ignored. It means something. Either we have 2 interpolators, or one who simply didn't care if it was not Josephean in some places and VERY Josephean in others..OR Josephus wrote some of it.

You tried this confused argument before, and it didn't fly. The interpolations have Christian fingerprints all over them (that's why we know there were interpolations.)

Quote:

I don't have the answers, and only lean one way at the moment, but to dismiss both passages because there were other Messiah claimants who Josephus didn't mention were called Christ is for me simply bizarre. If Jesus continued to be called Christ by a tribe of Christians in Josephus' time, I would not expect him to intentionally avoid mentioning that for ANY reason. Why should he? Because the others who died 50 years before and who have no followers once may have also been called Christ and he failed to mention that? That's just bizarre.

The word Christ or Messiah had definite political implications that Josephus wanted to avoid. Later on, Bar Kockba was hailed by Rabbi Aqiba as the Messiah/Christ, and that ended badly.

TedM · 07-30-2013, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It appears that the Pauline writers were aware of the word "cousin" because the Jesus cult writers claimed a Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.

...
I have utterly demolished your absurd cousin/brother arguments.

That's a good find in GLuke. However, you have to find it in GMark, which was first, and mentions the brothers. The first portion of Gluke may have been added later (some think so) by someone who knew(or made up -- yikes!) the 'cousin' relationship. So, while you've given food for thought, you haven't demolished the argument.

Appreciate the effort though.

TedM · 07-30-2013, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

... There are reasons to not suspect that a Christian wrote the entire TF, and that a Christian had anything to do with the James phrase. Why would a non-Christian insert the James phrase? Because of a false story about James that he believed? That's rich. I mentioned the Josephean phrases in the TF. That's not to be ignored. It means something. Either we have 2 interpolators, or one who simply didn't care if it was not Josephean in some places and VERY Josephean in others..OR Josephus wrote some of it.

You tried this confused argument before, and it didn't fly. The interpolations have Christian fingerprints all over them (that's why we know there were interpolations.)

But it doesn't address the very Josephean aspect..I'm glad to drop it though..much to do.

Quote:

I don't have the answers, and only lean one way at the moment, but to dismiss both passages because there were other Messiah claimants who Josephus didn't mention were called Christ is for me simply bizarre. If Jesus continued to be called Christ by a tribe of Christians in Josephus' time, I would not expect him to intentionally avoid mentioning that for ANY reason. Why should he? Because the others who died 50 years before and who have no followers once may have also been called Christ and he failed to mention that? That's just bizarre.

The word Christ or Messiah had definite political implications that Josephus wanted to avoid. Later on, Bar Kockba was hailed by Rabbi Aqiba as the Messiah/Christ, and that ended badly.

What possible implication would there be for Josephus? He wasn't advocating that Jesus was the Messiah. He was just reporting that some other people were. That's what historians do, right?

aa5874 · 07-30-2013, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It appears that the Pauline writers were aware of the word "cousin" because the Jesus cult writers claimed a Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.

...
I have utterly demolished your absurd cousin/brother arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

That's a good find in GLuke. However, you have to find it in GMark, which was first, and mentions the brothers. The first portion of Gluke may have been added later (some think so) by someone who knew(or made up -- yikes!) the 'cousin' relationship. So, while you've given food for thought, you haven't demolished the argument.

Appreciate the effort.

I will go EARLIER than gMark.

You are only confirming your lack of knowledge of the NT and writings of antiquity. You seem to have gathered your information for your cousin/brother argument from Chinese Whispers or rumors.

Let me now remind you that gMark first mentioned John the Baptist and the author of gLuke merely claimed that his mother Elizabeth was the Cousin of Mary.

Now, there is another Jew who wrote in the 1st century, a contemporary of Pilate, his name is Philo.

This Jew of Alexandria will COOROBORATE that in the 1st century and before gMark was composed that people in the Roman Empire knew the difference between cousin and brother.

Examine Philo's On Embassy to Gaius with a speech by the Emperor Gaius on the death of his cousin.

Quote:

Having assembled all the chief magistrates, he said: "I am desirous that he who is my cousin by birth and my brother in affection, in accordance with the instruction of Tiberius who is now dead, shall be a partner with me in my absolute authority.

Philo has demolished you.

TedM · 07-30-2013, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Philo has demolished you.

Not so fast. Greeks had a word for cousin. That doesn't mean that they always used it though:

I won't be responding to this issue though. I have too much else to do. I don't necessarily accept all that they are saying, but it is interesting:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm

Quote:

...beyond a doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His "brethren". But as "brethren" (or "brother") is applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Genesis 13:8, 14:14-16; Leviticus 10:4; 1 Chronicles 15:5-10, 23:21-22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship.

A more in depth discussion is found herehttp://www.catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord

Quote:

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

No Word for Cousin

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for "brother" and did not use adelphosin one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what "brethren" or "brother" or "sister" means in any one verse, we have to look at the context.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2013, 03:58 PM	#92
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	Thanks for the info. You may have missed part of the discussion. This Mary, mentioned at the tomb is identified in one of the gospels as Jesus' mothers 'sister'. That would make (potentially) James Son of Alphaeus a cousin of some kind (given that 'sister' could also mean cousin). In Aramaic, 'cousins' would have simply been called brothers or sisters, if what I read is correct. There are two reasons to suspect this: First, Mary was married to Clopas. Clopas apparently can easily be rendered Alphaeus in the Greek (maybe vice versa-I forget). Secondly, the gospel says that Mary's son was named James! This would seem to be fairly strong evidence that one of Jesus' cousins was the apostle James, Son of Alphaeus. If James the Son of Alphaeus is not James the Just, then we have a case of two James' that arguably would be called Jesus' brother. Actually, maybe even 3 if the gospel 'brother' James is neither one of those. That seems unlikely. 2 might not be though if you include cousins in the mix. Of course the other alternative is that James Son of Alphaeus was also James the Just. I know James the Just is normally not considered to have been a disciple, but why is that? Is there support for that? Did you look up anything that explained why 'cousins' might be called 'brothers' in the NT writings? Turns out there seems to be some real basis for that claim.

07-30-2013, 04:13 PM	#93
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	So many James'; so many Jesus'; so many Marys. Likely conflated & embellished in the final stories.

07-30-2013, 04:31 PM	#94
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	brother more often meant 'brother-in-arms' than 'sibling'

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.