Tags
‘Miriam’, or as we Anglicise it, “Mary’ was one of the most common names in the Holy Land in the times of Christ, and it can confuse us at times. The Virgin Mary is the best known, and Mary Magdalen bids fair in our time to rival that (though not for reasons which would have pleased her, I suspect), but who is this other Mary who gets mentioned at Golgotha and at the Tomb? SS Matthew, Mark and John use different designations, but scholars are agreed they are talking about the same Mary. Matthew calls her the ‘other Mary’, Mark, ‘Mary the mother of James’ and John ‘Mary the wife of Clopas’. As so often in history, this woman is defined by her husband and her children. ‘James’ is the Apostle, James the less, the first bishop of Jerusalem (to distinguish him from St James the son of Zebedee and brother of St John)) who is identified as the son of Alphaeus. St. Jerome idenified Alpheus with Cleophas who, according to Hegesippus, was brother to St. Joseph (Hist. eccl., III, xi). That would have made Mary of Clopas the Virgin Mary’s sister in law. St Luke tells us that Clopas was one of those to whom the Lord appeared on the road to Emmaus. That would make one of the first men to see the Risen Christ the husband of one of the women who stood by the Cross on Golgotha – and his uncle according to the flesh, and therefore quite possibly his step-father after the death of Joseph – in other words not some obscure person. It may well be that he was the source of the story which Luke alone tells. According to Eusebius (Chapter 11) Simon (Simeon), the brother of James the less, succeeded James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem. So Mary had three sons, James the Less, Simon and Joses. We are told that the ‘brothers of the Lord’ were ‘James, Joses (or Joseph) Simon, and Judas (or Jude). If, as appears probably, Clopas looked after his sister-in-law and her son, then it is easy enough to see why the locals would have called Mary of Clopas’ children ‘brothers of the Lord’. In the fourtheenth century, Russian travellers to Constantinople reported seeing the incorrupt body of Mary of Clopas in one of the many monasteries there, which may or may not spoil the medieval legend that she and Mary Magdaelen went to France by ship after the Ascension. As that gets us into mad Dan Brown territory, it would be satisfying to think that the Russians were right. In fact we do not know what became of Mary of Clopas, but we can see from this short sketch that she was part of what was actually quite a close-knit family which stood with Jesus to the end – and beyond. We sometimes think of the Holy Family in terms of our own nuclear families, but it was not like that at all. Jesus had close family, at least two of whom wrote Gospels and at least two of whom were bishops of Jerusalem. But that was not all, as we shall see, other Apostles also had close family links with Jesus.
St Bosco said:
There is no evidence that there are mistakes or mistaken identities in the scriptures. The opposite is true. Scripture has been proven correct over and over again. Well, anyone can point to a verse or passage and say “It isnt true because of this reason and that reason” if it doesnt suit them.
Its like seeing a thread on a suit, you start pulling it and soon the suit falls apart.Scriptures couldnt be any more clear; Jesus had brothers and sisters. Now, if that doesnt suit you, you can say its not true, One can say they were cousins or a neighbors kids or close friends, or, one of the newest and shabbiest ones ive heard, ;;;;;;step brothers. Joseph was married befor. Once youve cut out a piece of the story, other items need adjusting. Well, these ambitious detractors have been busy adjusting the scriptures, and what they hand you is a religion, not the story of salvation as is written in the scriptures. The religion explains away any verses that dont mesh with it. For the life of me, i dont understand why people just refuse to believe what the bible says.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The problem with your version Bosco is that the Bible does not support it. Show me where it says that Joseph had been married before. Show me that the Greek ‘adelphos’ means brothers and only brothers? And whilst you are at it, explain why these ‘brothers’ have the same names as Mary of Clopsas’ sons?
I have taken what is in Scripture seriously and not added to it. Neither have I assumed that the Greek word has one meaning when it doesn’t. It is you, Bosco, who messes with Scripture to try to make it fit with what you think should be. I stick to what is there – and the Greek text – not the English translation.
I think in Californian that means you lose.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
” Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? ”
This identifies Jesus father, and his mother, and his brothers. Am i missing anything? The word brother is used a billion times in the bible. We are all brothers. Joseph wasnt a widower. I mentioned that because some people are using that to explain away solid doctrine.
Now , this one sentence quoted above, is what i believe to be true. I believe all scripture, by the way. I dont see me trying to make it fit my ideas. I just take it at face value. I dont invoke magical words like “greek” or “translation”.
Mary knew not a man, until after she
had Jesus. Not hard to believe. Its easier to believe the bible than to muddy the waters with maybes and probablys. Hey, its a free country. You can believe what you want, now that the inquisitors arent around anymore, for the time being.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, you are missing the fact that the Greek word adelphos does not necessarily mean uterine brother. You are also missing the fact that the Bible wasn’t written in English and the Jewish context.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
It just hit me that, you go from it might not mean brother to it dont mean brother.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Adelphos – the Greek word, means relation. James, Jude, Simon are indeed relations – they are the sons of Joseph’s brother – see not too hard. Of course you could be right and Joseph and Clopas both called their sons by identical names – that would have made it real easy in the family – NOT.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – (back from holiday) – simply on the point of Greek – we’re not all Greek scholars (although perhaps more of us should be) – and it strikes me that if God really did intend the Holy Scripture as a remotely useful way of communicating to us, then the basic meaning really should remain invariant under translation into different languages (provided serious people are doing it). We shouldn’t feel that we always have to be watching our backs wondering if the translators are fooling us.
The discussion here is quite interesting, but it’s over ‘bible trivia’ who’s who – not really the issue of Salvation, but on the particular issue of the brothers of Jesus, I’m inclined to agree with Bosco (I hasten to add that I don’t know Greek) that those listed really were his brothers (or half brothers).
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Hope you enjoyed your holiday Jock. I am taking a couple of days off this week. Poor Jess is at work already.
The meaning is perfectly clear and was until the reformation. The arguments I deploy were common in ancient times when people understood Greek. You won’t find anyone who actually spoke koine Greek holding the opinions which you and Bosco hold. You won’t find Luther or Calvin holding them either. It is the self-will of later Protestants which insists on placing a meaning there no one but a few ehertics ever placed there until recently.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – thanks. The holiday was very nice, but not for the intended purpose (bird watching). Things seem to be happening later this year ……
Does it change anything at all (theologically, doctrinally or otherwise) if they were half brothers rather than cousins?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That wuld depend whether one went with Helvidius. The tradition that Mary was a Virgin goes back as far as we can trace, and there seems no reason to abandon it. I don’t think it changes anything that matters, but I am rather against changing what has been believed at most times by most people. I suppose I lack the nerve to insist on my own interpretation.
Sorry the bird watching was not as good as it should be – everything is late this year. I did the first cut of the lawn here yesterday – and came in suffering from near hypothermia!
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
The greek word doesnt necessarily mean brother. I understand that the greek language was very specific. But, hey, what do i know?
” the fact that the Greek word adelphos does not necessarily mean uterine brother. ”
This is a maybe.You dont consider this a “maybe” Am i correct in assuming you take, in this instance, the word brother NOT to mean real brother. Well then, Elizabeth wasnt a cousin to Mary, because it might not mean real cousin. That street sign that says “right turn only” it might mean left turn only or , either way is cool. Jesus might not be the real Son of God. He might be gods nephew. With that logic, i can take apart the whole bible. I might not be the great and powerful Bosco. I might be that man behind the curtain.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The Greek word covers a variety of close relationships. Mary of Clopas was married to Joseph’s brother, Clopas, and unless you think there were two sets of kids with identical names in that family and is Joseph’s family (and why would you since only one lot of kids are named) there you have the so-called ‘brothers’. Pretty simple Bosco, so you should grasp it.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
C, after pulling all my hair out by the roots after this “discourse”, I find myself wondering if there are enough aspirins in all of England to treat your headache.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I agree it is hard going. C will be back later 🙂 x
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Down to the pharmacy, I guess. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
🙂 xx
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Elizabeth was called a cousin. No one has disputed that. Why would the authors, who knew Jesus, call people who werent Jesus bros and sis, brothers and sisters? Cousin is accurate for Elizabeth but brother isnt accurate for Jesus.
The words “probably and “maybe” dont substitute for hard hitting facts of history. I seem to be the odd man here, because i believe what the scriptures say. If one has an agenda to push, one can and does feel free to twist or deny any scripture. No one has botherd to mention that it is unthinkable for Mary not to consummate her marriage.; Kids were old age insurance. Plus,its fun making them.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
It’s funny how those who will accept nothing but the KJV Bible and usually cite Luther for their source fail to recognize that Luther and most other Protestant sects held to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This is a new teaching for Protestants which brings up a scriptural battle that was fought in the first 2 centuries of the Church and has been settled. Why they wish to go against their own founders is beyond me.
From Wikipedia – just type in “Perpetual Virginity of Mary” to get the citations they list in the footnotes:
“Martin Luther believed that Mary did not have other children and did not have any marital relations with Joseph. The Latin text of the 1537 Smalcald Articles, written by Martin Luther, used the term “Ever Virgin” to refer to Mary.[68] The perpetual virginity of Mary was Luther’s lifelong belief, even after he rejected other Marian doctrines.[68][71][72]
Huldrych Zwingli directly supported perpetual virginity and wrote: “I firmly believe that [Mary], … forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”[73] Like Zwingli, the English reformers also supported the concept of perpetual virginity, but often varied on their reasons for the support.[69] Luther and Zwingli’s support of perpetual virginity was endorsed by Heinrich Bullinger and was included in the 1566 Second Helvetic Confession.[74]
John Calvin was less emphatic in his open support of the idea, and neither flatly accepted or rejected it.[69] He cautioned against the idea of “impious speculation” on the topic of perpetual virginity.[74] However, Calvin rejected arguments against Mary’s perpetual virginity based on the mention in Scripture of brothers of Jesus that were interpreted to imply that Mary had other children.[75]
The Anglican reformers of the 16th and 17th century supported perpetual virginity “on the basis of ancient Christian authority”.[68] In the 18th century, John Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, also supported the doctrine and wrote that: “… born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”[68][76][77]”
LikeLike
NEO said:
I’ll follow them later but be warned that there weren’t many Marian doctrines that Luther rejected, he venerated Mary all his life, he did reject some doctrines (dogma, whatever) because of the ease in which (he felt) they could degenerate into idolatry. But he remained a devotee of Mary his whole life.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Yes he did.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Document them, cause I haven’t seen it in my reading.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
I don’t understand your comment. You said “he remained a devotee of Mary all his life” and I agreed with you that “yes, he did”. The documentation about Luther’s belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was given in the Wikipedia entry.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Duh, I apologize, somehow I read that to say that he did drop many of his Marian beliefs, and not what you said.
Sorry, My bad 🙂
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
That’s what I thought. Our fingers and our brains kinda hop all over the place at times. 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
Ain’t it the truth, hope you had a great Easter. 🙂
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
I did Neo, how about you?
LikeLike
NEO said:
Pretty good, SF, quiet and contemplative mostly.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
A good way to spend your time during this Holy season.
LikeLike
NEO said:
It was, it suited me perfectly.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
As it would me as well.
LikeLike
NEO said:
🙂 Hard to find time for it seems
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
We just have to make quiet time for ourselves as nobody is going to just give it to you. Quiet time is prayer time and we all need more of it. 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
And that is beyond all doubt 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
Uh, after the parenthesis insert ” regarding the veneration of the saints” I hate it when my fingers miss part of the message.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
I know the feeling well. I hate it when that happens. 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
🙂 no kidding, it can be a real pain.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Hope you had a nice Easter Bosco. Here’s a chance for me to practice my Bible Greek, so here goes. Luke uses the word suggenhs when referring to Elizabeth, which literally means ‘generated of’. As tradition had it that she was a cousin, that was how the word was translated. Matthew 13:56 uses the word C mentioned adelfoi. Two quite different words.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
I’ll bet C got back from the pharmacy and washed down a handful of aspirins with a glass of Scotch and fell asleep in his arm chair. That’s my best guess. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Pretty close to it, SF 🙂
LikeLike
Joseph Richardson said:
Thanks for this — a jobs very well done. Lately I’ve been drawn a lot to the identification of James the Less (the Just), Simon (or Simeon), and Jude as the sons of Clopas and Alphaeus — and on this identification as some of the clearest biblical support for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. You don’t seem to have mentioned it here, but as I’m sure you’re aware, St. Jude, the author do the Epistle of Jude, identifies himself as “the brother of James” (Jude 1). Also, in St. Luke’s lists of the Apostles, in Luke and in Acts, the Apostle Judas (not Iscariot) is listed after James the son of Alphaeus, and though recent translations read “Judas, son of James,” the Greek literally reads Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου, Judas of James, which could just as well been meant to relate his connection as the brother of James. The Douay-Rheims Bible reads exactly that.
I don’t know if Mr. Bosco will pay attention to my comment or deign to read posts by me on this subject, but I’ve made a couple, drawing directly from Scripture. It is quite evident that the Apostle James, called the “brother” of the Lord, was not a literal brother.
In particular, this comment further expands something I’ve been meaning to make a separate post about:
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you Joseph. Those are excellent links which, should Bosco’s mind be open, he might find most useful.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
I like the guy Richardson, but his articles are hard for me to follow. Actually, i cant follow them. After all is said and said and said, somehow, as hard as i try, i just can bring myself not to believe the scriptures. To some it comes naturally. For me, i can muster the courage.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Bosco, I’m doing it simply for you tomorrow – so look out for it.
LikeLike
Joseph Richardson said:
Mr. Bosco: I, likewise, am perfectly willing to make things simple for you if you indeed are open. I have done my best in recent posts to present a very basic argument from Scripture.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You have done a good job Joseph. I have one coming up tomorrow, which makes reference to your excellent piece, but puts it in terms I hope Bosco can grasp.
LikeLike
Joseph Richardson said:
Thank you, dear friend. I look forward to it. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I liked your pieces very much.
LikeLike
Joseph Richardson said:
Thank you so much. I can only hope to make mine as deep and as erudite as yours.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You do an excellent job, and I admire what you are doing there – keep it up 🙂
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good brother Richardson, good brother Chalcedons works pale in comparison to your erudite works. I can follow good brother Chalcedon for the most part, but yours put me sleep. Im no good at endless genealogies of catholic early writers. Neither will i ever be. I waste enough time already. Yes, you two good brothers should make your ideas simpler for poor ol Bosco. Bosco isnt all that sharp, you know.
LikeLike
Tom McEwen said:
The problem that Bosco has with those who understand different then him is:
When Jesus called out from the shore to the Apostles on the boat, he suddenly stood up whereas a King James Bible fell out of his pocket onto the sand.
This Bible was written in God’s true language. Shakespeare English, perfectly understandable for everyone and without the seven books later added by the Roman church of ignoble memory.
More important Bosco has that Bible dropped by the Lord.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Very amusing Tom.
I am writing more on this subject. Tomorrow’s post will be the first of a series on Jesus’ background.
LikeLike
Pingback: How many women were at the foot of the Cross? | All Along the Watchtower