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.
Who said that all of Scripture needs interpretation?
Scripture is Scripture. It says what it says.
My parents are Saints and so am I, but they most definetly were married and acted as married people do. As am I.
I don’t agree. The Bible is clear on Jesus having siblings. They used different words to describe other relationships etc. It’s very clear. The reason it matters is because many people are praying to Mary in hopes she will intercede for them. That is dead smoking wrong and directly against biblical teachings. To say that won’t affect salvation is wrong because Jesus tells us how to be saved.
That there friend is dead wrong. I don’t even know how you can come to that conclusion. Father of lies is doing a good job of deceiving people.
Yes, she is our sister in Christ. This cult like adoration and putting her way up on a pedestal is scary. Jesus Christ is the reason I have salvation, his death for me took away all my sins. Nothing else needs to be done, it was the perfect sacrifice.
Scripture is Scripture. It says what it says
30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Acts 8:30
Yes and she’s also queen of heaven. I’d laugh at the absurdity, except it’s not funny how many good people are being led astray.
Why laugh? Don't you believe Jesus honors His Mother?
Great passage. Thanks.
Uh, dude? That’s Michal, King David’s daughter. He was ticked at her and so she had no children by him. We’re talking about Mary. Wow, dude.
Whoops, David’s wife, not daughter. It’s contagious
I am quite aware of the topic of conversation..i was merely responding to your quote. The use of the word “until” does not necessarily mean that something happened after that...hence my quote...
It makes more sense to me than any thing else that Jesus was Mary.s only child and was the youngest.
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?”
At that time Jesus must have been about 30 years old but they did not really know him, yet they seemed to be familiar enough with his brothers and sisters.
Every one knew James, (I am the brother of James ) the scriptures mentioned indicate that his brothers did not have the respect for him that would be seen if he had of been an older brother.
Any one from a big family knows that it would be highly unlikely that if Jesus had younger brothers some of them would be ready to follow him any where.
Yet there was none followed him.
This has been said so many times it is wore out just like the arguments against it, but if marry had other children they would have taken care of her rather than her being taken care of by the apostle John.
who knows. maybe the brothers moved away or died. Joseph apparently had already passed away when Jesus was murdered.
who knows. maybe the brothers moved away or died. Joseph apparently had already passed away when Jesus was murdered.
things worked out the way they did
I am glad someone appreciated it. It seems real cut and dry to me and Les is a very good bible study teacher.
No...It is against the will of God...
This is true of many parents of saints. And it was true of Mary and Joseph. They had no marital relations.
Complete anti-biblical fabrication...
Or we're ignoring what the Bible says.
And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call him Jesus. He shall be great, and men will know him for the Son of the most High; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob eternally; his kingdom shall never have an end. But Mary said to the angel, How can that be, since I have no knowledge of man?Mary was told that, in the future, she would conceive and bear a son. Yet she asked, "how can that be...?"
Mary's statement only makes sense if she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity.
Additionally, the term, "overshadow," was a euphemism for the marital act, when the husband "casts his shadow" over his wife.
Song of Solomon Chapter 2I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love. Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples: for I am sick of love. His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me.
Luke 1:35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.
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.