SR: There was no need to use “anepsos†because the men and women listed are not cousins.
DG: You’re presuming your conclusion.
Not really. Just pointing out the obvious. If the Greek writer had wanted to call them cousins, "anepsos" would be the word to use. It wasn't used, so the Greek writer meant something else. What else is on the table? Spiritual brother? Brother Israelite? As I pointed out before, there is simply no example in the NT corpus of "adelphos" meaning anything but "brother." I'll grant a metaphorical usage where warranted, but the context is all wrong for that, and as between you and me, I didn't think that was on the table as an option. My mistake if I assumed incorrectly.
In any event, any solution which requires us to mind-read the writer of the Biblical text is suspect out of the gate. The burden of proof is on you to show that the obvious first-order semantic value is not the correct understanding. I grant that sometimes an argument like that can be made, and I am not raising it as an insurmountable barrier. But in this exchange I don't think that burden has been met, so the ordinary, straightforward meaning must be accepted as true, regardless of much later developments in Marian dogma.
Whatever the etymological origin may be, it’s very plain that step-siblings and half-siblings have been called “adelphos†throughout he ages.
I do not dispute this. I have often warned others here of the etymological fallacy. Words do shift meaning over time. But the secondary relationships are just that, secondary. It is what we would call in the law a rebuttable presumption. The primary sense is the default sense. When we see "adelphos" in the NT corpus, we should expect it to refer to biological brothers or sisters, and typically that is exactly correct.
But if contextual clues suggest we should move on to one of the secondary senses, then sure, we should do that. The problem is no one here has yet made a cogent case for why these "brother/sister" passages concerning Jesus cannot be understood biologically, other than the standard offering that "X denomination has not believed that." That is not a substantive argument. It is a lame appeal to authority. I respect that folks have a right to defer to raw denominational authority if they wish. I find it unpersuasive.
SR: ... it is not surprising that someone rolling out such a series of possessives might opt for economy and drop excessively repetitive definite articles. <<
DG: Except when they didn’t in other places. Look at the use of the word, “kai†throughout the gospel.
There is some variation, to be sure. What you have failed to do, so far, is show how these minor elements of linguistic efficiency actually move the translation in your direction. If you want to give it another try, please feel free to do so. I'm always game to learn something new. :)
Yes, it is a problem for the Greek Orthodox Church’s theory. I mention them only because they know your interpretation of Greek is wrong, not because I subscribe to their theory.
Hmmm. Now it is you who is presuming the conclusion. Hard to avoid, isn't it. :)
The preferred Catholic explanation is that Joseph also had no child but Jesus, and that “adelphi†is merely an overly literal translation of the Hebrew word for kin (which I don’t happen to remember) . As I already noted, the Greeks reject this because they hold that Greek was the original language.
The word in Hebrew is, I believe, "ach." Again, the Lukan passage disproves this theory rather completely, as Luke uses "adelphos" for Jesus' brothers, and Luke was a native and highly competent writer of the Greek, and would not have engaged in that sort of cross-language ambiguity.
But perhaps more importantly, as an evangelical, I accept that the Holy Spirit chose the Greek as the vehicle for recording these inspired facts, and I am not in any position to speculate on hidden Hebrew or Aramaic meanings, unless the text explicitly invites it (Peter as Cephas, for example). Second-guessing clear choices of the Holy Spirit is not a safe hobby. I'm not for it.
Also, simply consider this: the ancient Church had nothing invested in the notion that Jesus was an only child other than the spiritual significance of Mary as a perpetual virgin. If anyone had read the Greek the way you do, why wouldn’t the ancient Greek Church simply have adopted your position? Why all the “origin stories’ and pious literature and legends about Mary’s life?
That is begging the question, baking your answer into your question. The later-developed belief in perpetual virginity (possibly an outgrowth of gnostic aversion to human sexuality) is precisely the kind of fabrication that would form a strong bias against what would otherwise be obvious references to physical siblings. But if the primary sources do not suggest perpetual virginity (and the Scriptures do not), then there is simply no reason to import that bias into the translation of the sibling passages. Otherwise your argument is fatally circular.
According to non-biblical literature, Mary grew up in the Temple of Jerusalem until she hit puberty. There, she was inspired by God to take a vow of perpetual virginity.
How do Anna and Simeon and Elizabeth all know that Mary being with child confirms the prophecy of the Messiah, that a Virgin will give birth to the Savior of Israel? How has Simeon witnessed this fulfilled WITH HIS OWN EYES? Because they all know she has pledged perpetual virginity.
The arguments you recite here amount to wild speculation against silence. We could build an entire fiction novel around all the possible unstated connections between the various characters in the nativity story. The writers of "Lost" and "Once Upon a Time" could no doubt have a field day reconstructing the story that way, what they call in the movies a "retcon," retroactive continuity with some later developed narrative. This allows the 'retconned" reader to go back to the original text and read into it all kinds of things that simply are not true.
For example, if you leave the Holy Spirit out of all these passages, sure, now you need a "backstory" to explain how they all knew so much. But hey, maybe it was the Holy Spirit after all? And if so, the fabricated backstory is just as unnecessary as yet another James Bond movie. Can you eliminate the Holy Spirit as the agent of supernatural knowledge in these events? I don't think you can:
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
(Luke 1:41)
And on and on it could go. Do you remember the backstory of how Peter really knew Jess us was the expected Messiah of God? That's right, there isn't one. The Father just revealed it to him:
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 16:17)
So you see, this is the sort of trap anyone can fall into when we try to fill in the supposed "gaps" in Scripture. There are things God has not told us, but these are things we don't need to know. Classified. Top Secret. Above our pay grade. He does tell us, and has already told us in His word, everything we need to know to have saving faith in Christ, and to live a life pleasing to Him. Why that isn't enough for some is beyond me.
Peace,
SR