Posted on 05/31/2014 4:33:21 PM PDT by narses
In my previous article, I wrote about the “Hebraic” use of the Greek adelphos: as applying to cousins, fellow countrymen, and a wide array of uses beyond the meaning of “sibling.” Yet it is unanimously translated as “brother” in the King James Version (KJV): 246 times. The cognate adelphe is translated 24 times only as “sister”. This is because it reflects Hebrew usage, translated into Greek. Briefly put, in Jesus’ Hebrew culture (and Middle Eastern culture even today), cousins were called “brothers”.
Brothers or Cousins?
Now, it’s true that sungenis (Greek for “cousin”) and its cognate sungenia appear in the New Testament fifteen times (sungenia: Lk 1:61; Acts 7:3, 14; sungenis: Mk 6:4; Lk 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21). But they are usually translated kinsmen, kinsfolk, or kindred in KJV: that is, in a sense wider than cousin: often referring to the entire nation of Hebrews. Thus, the eminent Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, lists sungenis not only under “Cousin” but also under “Kin, Kinsfolk, Kinsman, Kinswoman.”
In all but two of these occurrences, the authors were either Luke or Paul. Luke was a Greek Gentile. Paul, though Jewish, was raised in the very cosmopolitan, culturally Greek town of Tarsus. But even so, both still clearly used adelphos many times with the meaning of non-sibling (Lk 10:29; Acts 3:17; 7:23-26; Rom 1:7, 13; 9:3; 1 Thess 1:4). They understood what all these words meant, yet they continued to use adelphos even in those instances that had a non-sibling application.
Strikingly, it looks like every time St. Paul uses adelphos (unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way. Yet we often hear about Galatians 1:19: “James the Lord’s brother.” 137 other times, Paul means non-sibling, yet amazingly enough, here he must mean sibling, because (so we are told) he uses the word adelphos? That doesn’t make any sense.
Some folks think it is a compelling argument that sungenis isn’t used to describe the brothers of Jesus. But they need to examine Mark 6:4 (RSV), where sungenis appears:
And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” (cf. Jn 7:5: “For even his brothers did not believe in him”)
What is the context? Let’s look at the preceding verse, where the people in “his own country” (6:1) exclaimed: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. It can plausibly be argued, then, that Jesus’ reference to kin (sungenis) refers (at least in part) back to this mention of His “brothers” and “sisters”: His relatives. Since we know that sungenis means cousins or more distant relatives, that would be an indication of the status of those called Jesus’ “brothers”.
What about Jude and James?
Jude is called the Lord’s “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus’ blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James‘ brother. This is far too strange and implausible to believe.
Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19: dealt with above). It’s true that Scripture doesn’t come right out and explicitly state that Mary was a perpetual virgin. But nothing in Scripture contradicts that notion, and (to say the same thing another way) nothing in the perpetual virginity doctrine contradicts Scripture. Moreover, no Scripture can be produced that absolutely, undeniably, compellingly defeats the perpetual virginity of Mary. Human Tradition
The alleged disproofs utterly fail in their purpose. The attempted linguistic argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity from the mere use of the word “brothers” in English translations (and from sungenis) falls flat at every turn, as we have seen.
If there is any purely “human” tradition here, then, it is the denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary, since it originated (mostly) some 1700 years after the initial apostolic deposit: just as all heresies are much later corruptions. The earliest Church fathers know of no such thing. To a person, they all testify that Mary was perpetually a virgin, and indeed, thought that this protected the doctrine of the Incarnation, as a miraculous birth from a mother who was a virgin before, during and after the birth.
What arrogance. Who said you had the authoritative interpretation of scripture?
Mary is your Blessed Mother. Her assent allowed you to be saved (hopefully). Show some respect.
Why is it so important that protestants think Mary was not a virgin? Could it be that holiness is a characteristic lacking in protestant theology. Mary as an example of faithfulness and holiness is too difficult an example to strive for? Total depravity demands it?
I just had a thought. Maybe protestantism is just like communism in that regard. It doesn't build up, it just tears down. Take from the rich and give to the poor. It would explain a great many things.
Free access huh? Gee,it’s such a shame that the middle ages didn’t have Obama-mandated free internet for all the illiterates so they could read and study the Bible. I mean it would’ve made it so much easier rather than this hand copy the bible business in the languages of the day and then chain it up in the Church or library so it wouldn’t be stolen.
She’s not my blessed mother, she’s my sister in Christ, and an very honored person in the God’s history of this world! She has no more power/authority, than you or I. Jesus is OUR HOPE and REDEEMER, we need no other!
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The hymn you posted was all about “He” (as it should be) not about Mary, like I said she’s an arrow pointing to Christ, but no one that we should worship, or look to for anything other than a good example of saving faith in Christ, Himself (Alone)!
Just to get you straight, about “Mother of God” you aren’t saying that Mary was there from the beginning with God in creation are you? You aren’t saying that she was part of the Trinity (or would it be a Quadrinity?) I hope not.
Because I do know that Jesus (as both God and man) as separate from the Father, yet very much a part of the same being who is The Father/Son/Spirit ONLY came from God when he became flesh. I hope you’re not saying something different.
Yeah I got a chuckle out of that too
Catholic Truth will be here long after Obama departs the White House. Did you think The United States of America was going to last forever anyway?
Nice and concise. Amen.
Did you hear the one with Groucho? LOL!
You raise a profound question given whose Catholic water Obama has been carrying... 'social justice' and all. Mary had children with Joseph, get over it.
We have 'catholic truth' veep saint Biden, former speaker of the peoples House, mommy Pewlouise, now working for sainthood Boner, Roberts who himself passed a tax increase without representation. I could go on and on pointing out the literal reality of who has dirty hands in making sure the United States of America would NOT last forever.
Yet it says he was not an only child. Were the others immaculately conceived too? Why is it so important to some to "prove" she remained a virgin when the real story is the initial virgin birth?
By what tenet/canon is she required to have remained a virgin after bringing Jesus into the world? It might make some feel better to envision her as an eternal virgin, but would God do that to Joseph after hitting him with the initial surprise? God meant for husbands and wives to unite in order to procreate - why is it so hard to think of Mary as a good wife after her initial task was done?
Because the historical-critical method is lacking in understanding what has taken place. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Consecrated to God as the new Tabernacle and Temple of the Lord.
2 Samuel 6:23- and she bore no children until the day she died...”. Did she have children after she died? The fact is, the ide that Jesus had siblings other than cousins is a relatively new concept...
yes but i see it now !! the whole world changes if Mary and Joseph had sex...SHUN THE NON-BELIEVERS!!!!
SHUUUUUNNN!!
Well I do have to wonder about people who have a pre-occupation with the subject. It usually stems from an unwillingness to grow in Holiness.
Fundies are just like commies. Tear everyone else down.
“Yet it says he was not an only child.”
No, not at all. And why would that matter to you (since you appear to reject the teaching authority of the Church)?
“The reason most of Christendom throughout history believed that is because they were told that by a church that would not give them free access to the Bible. “
Luther did not have full access to the Bible? How odd.
Mother means the one who gave birth.
Mary is the mother of God Incarnate, the Word become flesh.
Why is this hard to say?
The Incarnation was not “normal.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.