|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Did Joseph "know" Mary?
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
I've just come down from the Virgin Mary thread.
The passage is Matthew's gospel, chapter 1, v 25,
"And (Joseph) knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son;and he called his name Jesus." AV
"but (Joseph) had no intercourse with her until her son was born. And he named the child Jesus." REB
This word "till/until" has a plain meaning in English. Afterwards things would be different, and Mary and Joseph would have had sex. The AV and the REB are very similar in their translations, despite the hundreds of years between them.
Is there any agreement among Greek scholars about what this means in Greek? Would there be an alternative translation?
[ 30. March 2004, 12:34: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Here is the above thread on the Virgin Mary, I hope
Virgin Mary
Ye-e-esss! It worked! Thank you, preview post.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
"And lo, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
At which point He ceases to be with us, right?
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
At which point he will be with us in a different way.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
Well for what is worth I think history continues to repeat itself on this subject, I've kept an open mind thus far but have now finaly rationalised my opinion.
Rather than listen to dogma and "religianity", I have to conclude from reading the bible (the inspired word of God), that Mary did not remain a virgin, nor did she ascend bodily into heaven after death(or before for matter of clarity), and those organisations who elevate her status detract from rather than add to the view of our lord, and are guilty of odolatry, and false witness.
Now saying that, I believe that despite people being indoctrinated over the centuries, or maybe because of that fact, God will look favourably on people with sincere hearts and happily forgive a few foibles like Maryism, and I have no problem accepting but at times disagreeing with other peoples opinions, on the basis that I know not what I know but know what I believe.
Ultimately it will be down to God to judge and not a simple minion like me.
If anyone wants to flame me feel free.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
At which point he will be with us in a different way.
bb
that's exactly what I'm wondering and asking; if this is a "boundary word" then what is the territory beyond the boundary? and how does it affect the future territory?
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634
|
Posted
Reader Alexis,
a) until in the sentence regarding Joseph is the wording of the gospel writer, whereas the other until is Jesus' reported words. Therefore it is not necessarily the case that the two people would have used the words in precisely the same way even if the latter is reported speech.
b) c'mon, hundreds words have more than one meaning. Those two instances are hardly next door sentences which might imply they were to be translated the same. e.g. the grass is 'green', I am 'green' with envy; 'however' - on the other hand, 'however' - no matter how much... And it's the same in Greek, (shakes old grey matter somewhat optimistically ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ) e.g. ex - from, or, out of. I definitely remember having long discussions with my NT Greek tutor about how to translate different prepositions etc and he was the editor of the Jerusalem Bible (i.e. odds are he was pro Mary but still would admit to words translating differently and it not helping his case in this instance) (Tangent - mind you, he was so brainy I'm sure he had a much better explanation).
Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Gosh, I_am_not_Job, either we were both taught greek by Fr Henry or there were two editors of the JB!
Priest:
For many Christians (not just RC and Orthodox) things like the continued virginity of Mary are not only matters of biblical exegesis but also of church traditions, as the posts on the purg thread made clear. They are early, strong and authoritative traditions - not some late, nutty innovation by anti-sex Catholics. They are things passed down from each generation of Christians to the next, claiming to originate from the apostles.
Whether one agrees with the doctrine or not (which personally I don't) I suggest a little more respect towards it and its contemporary adherents. You and I are in the minority, you know!
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
Reader Alexis,
b) c'mon, hundreds words have more than one meaning.
True. But how will you decide which meaning to use where? Your presuppositions? That's fine but then don't claim you are getting your theology from the Bible; in fact you are reading it into the Bible.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
Whether one agrees with the doctrine or not (which personally I don't) I suggest a little more respect towards it and its contemporary adherents. You and I are in the minority, you know!
Yes Sean, re-reading my post I realise it was a little too vitriolic, I appologise to anyone for offense caused, I should know by now never to post anything too serious whilst ill.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634
|
Posted
Sean D,
Yep, Father Henry. Saw you DOB so am guessing you were the year below me. Which college?
Reader Alexis,
No, not my presuppositions, but the usual way in which one translates things - logic, context, previous use in passage and else where in the work, tradition etc. You seem just to be sticking to the last one which you have the right to do so, but you could empathize a little as to why from reading the biblical account lots of people are little sceptical as to how perfect Mary is in the traditional RC and Orthodox traditions. Tradition and scripture may have developed together, but the gospels were written pretty close to the time and Jesus' rebukes of Mary, her misunderstanding of who he was (at first) etc are pretty blatently represented.
Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Defining and/or translating prepositions is notoriously difficult. That's why I have not contributed to this thread up until now. It almost takes a native speaker to get the prepositions right all the time.
The Oxford English Dictionary has a huge number of definitions of the English preposition 'of'. I have been told there are a hundred and twenty-eight.
I think that trying to decide the exact meaning of the Greek preposition εωσ is a waste of time. You'll never know whether you're right.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
I think another problem with trying to define the semantics of an individual word is the danger of ignoring the consequences of contextual reference.
I.e. If Mary did not know Joseph "until" the birth of Jesus but we later hear of Jesus's brothers and sisters then contextually we may presume that "until" meant after the birth.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
I think another problem with trying to define the semantics of an individual word is the danger of ignoring the consequences of contextual reference.
I.e. If Mary did not know Joseph "until" the birth of Jesus but we later hear of Jesus's brothers and sisters then contextually we may presume that "until" meant after the birth.
That's if the word "eos" or in this case in the negative "ouk eos" actually means 'until'. Most evidence suggest it doesn't (in the sense that English is used).
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Marina,
I still haven't got the hang of the difference of the meanings.
"Until" in English is a word that stops action at the point it's used ina sentence. So is "before". Neither define what happens "after" the previous action or non-action.
So does "ews" define what happens after? (Thanks, Moo for the greek script.)
Priest said,
quote:
I think another problem with trying to define the semantics of an individual word is the danger of ignoring the consequences of contextual reference.
I.e. If Mary did not know Joseph "until" the birth of Jesus but we later hear of Jesus's brothers and sisters then contextually we may presume that "until" meant after the birth.
and I agree,but then we get into whether people agree on what "brothers and sisters" means. I'm used to the idea of "sister-cousins" and "brother-cousins" in Nepali culture, but my husband thinks there probably is a special word for them that he can't remember.
So how do we distinguish between Jesus' brothers and sisters and his cousins?
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
This is the second thread in recent times to suggest that the Bible shows a) that Mary did not remain a virgin and b) she did not ascend into heaven bodily. On both threads all the discussion has centred around a). What about b)?
I can't remember the Bible saying anything about the death of Mary, which means she could have died of old age, been horribly martyred, assumed into heaven, or eaten by a giant hamster without a single word of scripture being contradicted. So why do people reject the assumption, as I know many do?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
da_musicman
Shipmate
# 1018
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I can't remember the Bible saying anything about the death of Mary, which means she could have died of old age, been horribly martyred, assumed into heaven, or eaten by a giant hamster without a single word of scripture being contradicted. So why do people reject the assumption, as I know many do?
I think many people reject the idea as a simple kick back against putting Mary on a pedestal.If it is accepted that she ascended to heaven then it has to be accepted she was more special than us. It seems to me that those who don't revere Mary as much as the RC's wish or do her down to some extent in a way to redress the balance. I personally had never thought about how she got to heaven. I think she probably died a natural death but I have no reason for that other than that is the usual way it goes with people.
Posts: 3202 | From: The Dreaming | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
The whole thing with the Assumption is that Mary did in fact die a natural death. But then was taken into heaven. Whether that involved resurrection or not, I don't know. Someone more up on the dogma might be able to inform us how it runs... It's something along the lines of the idea that she's a prototype of us, of what will happen to us, just as our Lord is the forerunner, the first risen from the dead, etc.
Does it help to throw the spanner in the works: that John Calvin always held to the perpetual virginity of the BVM?
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I can't remember the Bible saying anything about the death of Mary, which means she could have died of old age, been horribly martyred, assumed into heaven, or eaten by a giant hamster without a single word of scripture being contradicted. So why do people reject the assumption, as I know many do?
For me the question is more, given the above, why would anyone accept the accumption? I would have thought that it would have been worth noting somewhere.
I can't help but wonder if it was just a story put about to stop people from trying to rob her grave. "Hey, I've got the thigh bone of God's mummy! It is bound to have miraculous powers."
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Does it help to throw the spanner in the works: that John Calvin always held to the perpetual virginity of the BVM?
I never knew that Calvin was an eyewitness to the Incarnation. Fancy that.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
Sorry to be picky (especially after complaining recently about nitpickers on the Forum) ... but if you are not discussing Biblical Greek/exegesis etc and do turn to a discussion of the "assumption" ... well shouldn't it be in the thread on the Virgin Mary that is already open in Purgatory?
(BTW The Orthodox do not have the Assumption as a doctrine, on the 15th August they celebrate the Dormition (i.e. Falling Asleep) of the Theotokos (lit. God bearer, which is the title given to Mary by the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus. They believe that she did die. Liturgical texts and apocryphal texts point to her being taken into heaven three days after her death, but this is not a doctrine of the Orthodox Church)
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marina:
if you are not discussing Biblical Greek/exegesis etc and do turn to a discussion of the "assumption" ... well shouldn't it be in the thread on the Virgin Mary that is already open in Purgatory?
Ah, but it did start with a Bible passage, and no doubt we will get back to it in some distant time in the future.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
quote:
Originally posted by Marina:
if you are not discussing Biblical Greek/exegesis etc and do turn to a discussion of the "assumption" ... well shouldn't it be in the thread on the Virgin Mary that is already open in Purgatory?
Ah, but it did start with a Bible passage, and no doubt we will get back to it in some distant time in the future.
bb
Not quite - It was a spin off from a thread already running in Purgatory - so perhaps it should go back from whence it came
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Isn't Fr. Wansborough editor of the NJB, and not the JB? Or did he do both?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
For me the question is more, given the above, why would anyone accept the accumption? I would have thought that it would have been worth noting somewhere.
It *was* noted "somewhere." Just not in the Holy Scriptures.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
For me the question is more, given the above, why would anyone accept the accumption? I would have thought that it would have been worth noting somewhere.
It *was* noted "somewhere." Just not in the Holy Scriptures.
When was this belief first recorded? Hmm.. actually, don't we have a thread somewhere discussing the Assumption?
Sieg
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
When was this belief first recorded?
I'd guess in the Protoevangelium of James. Why?
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
I thought it was Pope Boniface VIII, but I'm no expert on papal edict.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
I hope that Mary and Joseph did have sex and have it regularly, afterall sex should be an important part of marriage, and feel that if they didn't then they were missing out on something important and their relationship was somewhat less than it could have been.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Astro, sex is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is a gift that is meant to build up and strengthen the unity of the husband and wife.
If the husband and wife are already perfect in unity, then there is no need for it. The relationship between husband and wife in that case is not in any way diminished by their lack of sexual relations. It is already perfect and complete, amd lacks nothing.
Most couples, of course, find their love and unity strengthened by sexual relations. But Mary and Joseph were hardly "most couples."
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Josphine wrote:
quote:
Most couples, of course, find their love and unity strengthened by sexual relations. But Mary and Joseph were hardly "most couples."
Why not? (And this is a serious question - honestly)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
homebild
Apprentice
# 1543
|
Posted
Hmmm...
Since I did not 'know' my wife until after we were married, this means my children have virgins for parents....
I get it now!
Goody!
--------------------
"A man's home is his hassle..."
Posts: 50 | From: Pennsylvania USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
Josphine wrote:
quote:
Mary and Joseph were hardly "most couples."
Why not? (And this is a serious question - honestly)
Well, to start with, Mary and Joseph both chatted with angels, received explicit instructions from God, and were reliable enough to be entrusted with the care of the Infant God himself, and were miraculously chosen for that task. That makes them quite unlike most folks, and would therefore make them, as a couple, quite unlike most couples.
And then there's the fact that Mary had God in her womb for 9 months. It's clear from Isaiah that being touched with a coal from the altar in Heaven had a pretty dramatic effect on Isaiah -- it would seem safe to assume that having God in your womb for nine months would have an even more dramatic effect. That alone makes her a very unusual woman, and one would expect that a couple half of which was such an unusual woman would therefore be an unusual couple -- unlike most couples in significant ways.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
But, Josephine, Mary did not just have God in her womb, she had a real, live, truly human, baby boy. I bet she was more aware of that than the "godliness' of the unborn. And then, giving birth, again, a very human experience.
God chose Mary and Joseph, IMO, because they were truly, wholly, absolutely, really, ordinary human beings. You wouldn't want Jesus to be brought up by people who weren't normal and ordinary, would you?
I think it would be imputing cruelty to God to expect God to not allow Mary and Joseph to have sexual knowledge of each other.
The experience of the Divine makes us more human - and since God made us sexual beings, then maybe Mary and Joseph got more out of sex than the rest of us.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
But, Josephine, Mary did not just have God in her womb, she had a real, live, truly human, baby boy.
So?
quote:
God chose Mary and Joseph, IMO, because they were truly, wholly, absolutely, really, ordinary human beings.
Hmmm. Let's see. Your opinion versus that of all the Fathers and even most of the Reformers. Hmmm. Nope, I'm sorry, I have to go with Tradition here.
quote:
You wouldn't want Jesus to be brought up by people who weren't normal and ordinary, would you?
Why wouldn't I?
quote:
I think it would be imputing cruelty to God to expect God to not allow Mary and Joseph to have sexual knowledge of each other.
Why? This places waaaay too much importance on sex. Sorta like our culture. Hmmm. Our oversexed culture (in which sex is used to sell everything from motorcycles to toothpaste) versus 2000 years of Orthodox tradition. Hmmmm.
Bzzt. Sorry. No contest.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Mousethief wrote
Why? This places waaaay too much importance on sex. Sorta like our culture.
No, I didn't say it was the most important thing about their marriage or their lives, or their dental hygiene, just that it is a basic part of their marriage and I don't think God would want to deprive them of it.
[tidied up quotes]
[ 06. April 2003, 14:51: Message edited by: babybear ]
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Daisymay, I think we will have to agree to disagree. You place far more importance on both sex and your own opinion for me to agree with you.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
I place far too much importance on sex and Daisymae's opinion, to agree with you, RA.
There are reasons why Joseph is plainly spoken of as not knowing her until she had the Baby. Like, reaffirmation that Jesus was/is God's singular Son perhaps.
The community around Jesus knew his brothers and sisters. Quit bending over backwards and stacking marbles with your tongue in an effort to get yourself into a position where you can squint at the Scriptures and say "No, He had no siblings, those are His cousins!"
If the God Who Spoke can start a life incarnate from single-cell-size, and stay cooped up in a uterus for 9 months, and poop and burp and dribble and wriggle, little swaddled tadpole, bless His heart!...
If He can stoop to handle and comfort and heal infected diseased possessed people...
Then why is it somehow shameful to think that His mother was a real woman with real needs and desires, a woman who was a good Jewish wife 2,000 years ago?
How would that be dishonoring her? Is married sexual intercourse/the flesh/life on Earth somehow inherently dirty and evil?
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
The community around Jesus knew his brothers and sisters. Quit bending over backwards and stacking marbles with your tongue in an effort to get yourself into a position where you can squint at the Scriptures and say "No, He had no siblings, those are His cousins!"
The answer to the question of whether αδελφο&iota meant simply 'brothers' as we use the word, or also included 'cousins' requires expert knowledge of ancient Hebrew relationship terms.
I don't have that knowledge and I suspect no one else here does either. The meaning of 'brother' in English is irrelevant. I do know that there are cultures where the mother and all her sisters are called 'mother'. The father's sisters are called 'aunt'. I don't know what these cultures mean by 'brother'.
The way to answer the question is to see whether any research has been done on ancient Hebrew relationship terms. Flat assertions don't cut it.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Then why is it somehow shameful to think that His mother was a real woman with real needs and desires, a woman who was a good Jewish wife 2,000 years ago?
How would that be dishonoring her? Is married sexual intercourse/the flesh/life on Earth somehow inherently dirty and evil?
This is Bulverism. You have decided that what I believe is false, and are attempting to explain why I believe it.
I don't believe she was a perpetual virgin for any of the straw-man reasons you give. I believe it because the Church has always taught it, and the "objections" to it are all quite modern.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Apologies for the double post.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The answer to the question of whether αδελφοι meant simply 'brothers' as we use the word, or also included 'cousins' requires expert knowledge of ancient Hebrew relationship terms.
Do you mean 'Greek'? αδελφοι is a Greek word, not a Hebrew one.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
But I thought Orthodox tradition says that Joseph was older, had been married before and the references to Jesus' brothers and sisters were actually Joseph's children and thusly Jesus' half-siblings. At least that's what my priest says.
Here's a weblink that reflects that view:
Orthodox answer
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bessie rosebride:
But I thought Orthodox tradition says that Joseph was older, had been married before and the references to Jesus' brothers and sisters were actually Joseph's children and thusly Jesus' half-siblings.
Spot on. It's the RCC who call them cousins.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Do you mean 'Greek'? αδελφοι is a Greek word, not a Hebrew one.
I can't really say what Moo meant, but the gospels were written in greek relating conversations that would have originally been in Aramaic. Therefore, the questions "what Aramaic word is the most likely original that was translated αδελφοι?" and "how would Aramaic speakers have understood that word - as modern english 'brother', 'half-brother', 'cousin' or something else?" become relevant.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't really say what Moo meant, but the gospels were written in greek relating conversations that would have originally been in Aramaic. Therefore, the questions "what Aramaic word is the most likely original that was translated αδελφοι?" and "how would Aramaic speakers have understood that word - as modern english 'brother', 'half-brother', 'cousin' or something else?" become relevant.
That's the point I was making, Alan.
The people who said, 'Here are his brothers and sisters.' were speaking of a Jewish relationship system. In order to know what they meant we need to know what the words 'brother' and 'cousin' meant to them. It doesn't make any difference what language they were speaking.
In an earlier post I mentioned a culture where the mother and all of her sisters were called 'mother'. The question here is who was called 'brother' by the Jews of Jesus's time.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
I've been re-checking the protevangelicon of James (the less?) and I don't find it, or some of the comments on it, very convincing.
Mary is handed over by Anna and Joachim, her parents, to serve as a virgin in the temple. She was a levite. What other records of little girls being handed over to the temple to live there as virgins do we have?
Then lots are drawn and Joseph wins Mary as his wife!
James was said to be the son of Joseph the Betrothed and Salome. So he is a half-brother of Jesus? And which James is this?
Then later on, not in the same document, I came across the idea that Mary was not only a virgin when she conceived and up to his birth, but that the birth took place without pain ![[Cool]](cool.gif) (These ideas are in the Odes of Solomon and the Ascension of Isaiah.) and without destroying her hymen ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) (St Ambrose of Milan says,"The manner of her birth did not break the seals of virginity.") so she remained perpetually virgin if Joseph did not have penetrative sex with her.
The whole idea of perpetual virginity seems to be close to a massive urban and orbin myth. The more I think about it and read about it, the more I think it's unreal.
I don't see any evidence that Mary and Joseph were not a normal married couple.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanuensis
Idler
# 1555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't really say what Moo meant, but the gospels were written in greek relating conversations that would have originally been in Aramaic. Therefore, the questions "what Aramaic word is the most likely original that was translated αδελφοι?" and "how would Aramaic speakers have understood that word - as modern english 'brother', 'half-brother', 'cousin' or something else?" become relevant.
Although we should probably admit that "brother" is by far and away the most likely translation.
James the brother of Jesus is known from the New Testament and from historical tradition as the leader of the Jewish church in Jerusalem. I wonder (genuinely) what the RC and Orthodox churches make of him?
--------------------
What's new?
Posts: 547 | From: Cornwall | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanuensis:
James the brother of Jesus is known from the New Testament and from historical tradition as the leader of the Jewish church in Jerusalem. I wonder (genuinely) what the RC and Orthodox churches make of him?
Well I'm sick to the teeth of this, but since you claim to be genuine here I'll answer you.
He's Joseph's son from an earlier marriage. Tradition has it that he went with Joseph, Mary, and Jesus to Egypt.
And if you're at all interested, tradition also has it that John the Beloved was Jesus' nephew, a son of Joseph's daughter Salome.
Daisymay, we told you we didn't think they were your average, run-of-the-mill couple.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
