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.
You mean those churches with “priests” wearing robes and stuff?
Is Jesus not God in your view? Or was Mary not His mother?
The vision in revelation is of the constellation Virgo, the virgin , when the sun is clothing her, and the moon is under her feet- with the stars as a crown..
It details the new moon day birth of the Messiah in the 6th month of our Heavenly Father’s calendar when the sun is ‘in Virgo’ ...
certainly not on December 25th either...and forget about the astrology mess.. it is astronomy..
Astronomy is throughout much of scripture if one studies the sun, moon and stars.. He did give them to us for signs, seasons, etc... they are not just dots up there...
16.Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Likewise, indeed. I have no need to elevate Mary.
Been happening since Genesis 3.
If the didn't, then they weren't married. Their marriage covenant was a sham.
.
Mary was a perpetual virgin.
What does that even mean anyway - perpetual virgin? And why is it so important for you to designate her as one?
.
Even Luther said so.
I really don't care what Luther said. I'm more of a Jan Hus man anyway. Besides, I choose to go by what the Bible actually says, which of course was Hus' original deal in the first place.
All that matters to me is that Mary was a virgin when she first conceived, which is what the Bible says. After that, it really doesn't matter to me. Yet I refuse to reject what the Bible says in order to put some 'perpetual' label on her. She is most blessed among women, and Jesus was her first born. That is good enough for me.
Amen to that.
Yep. Right there in verse 2.
There's also no Gospel which suggests Mary was born without original sin or was assumed into heaven. There is, however, Scripture which points to Jesus as having early siblings.
To do otherwise would have meant Mary and Joseph would have disobeyed God's command in Genesis 1:28. As righteous servants of God, that would have been quite out of character for them.
Are you familiar with the concept of living separate yet holy lives under one roof.
This is true of many parents of saints. And it was true of Mary and Joseph. They had no marital relations.
She was a perpetual virgin.
Sheesh. Earthly.
Yeah, Christian, robes, big mitres, a lot of priests have giant beards, believe Mary was always a virgin. The Orthodox.
Freegards
continence
noun
1. self-restraint or abstinence, especially in regard to sexual activity; temperance; moderation.
I’m really not a big fan of those guys.
Mother has different meanings. Does the Father have a mother? Is Jesus one with the Father?
That’s what I’m saying, spread it around a little. I mean it’s not just RCC people who think Mary was always a virgin. Take the extra two seconds and include the Orthodox in the expressions of non-big fannery. Then it will pretty much be all covered, except for maybe some Anglicans and Lutherans.
Freegards
There are a billion Catholics from what I’ve read, I don’t think Greek Orthodox and the other Orthodox amount to many.
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.