|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Our Lady's marriage
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's nonsense, Kaplan. Luther is no more the 'founder' of evangelicalism than Wesley is the 'founder' of Pentecostalism.
Of course, there are antecedents for certain core evangelical beliefs in both Lutheran, Calvinist and Zwinglian theology but that's different to him being 'The founder'.
I once had a conversation with Tom Smail the veteran Church of Scotland renewalist. He told me that his spiritual heritage lay in the Reformed tradition of Barth and Torrance rather than in evangelicalism. He regarded the evangelicals as 'aunt and uncle rather than mum and dad.'
If I've teased you with somewhat scoffing and 'puerile' jabs then that's wrong of me to do so, but I've become increasingly impatient with what I take to be your broad-brush and sweeping generalisations.
You aren't drawing lines through history with a calligraphic pen but a magic marker, a dirty great big thick tar brush or a paint roller.
You've also been reacting to mild criticisms or allusions to evangelicalism as if they presage some kind of pogrom against evangelicals.
Hence my frustration.
Frankly, I've sometimes wondered whether I've been dealing with Jamat here rather than the Kaplan I know of old.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Doh! I meant in each of 'Lutheran, Calvinist and Zwinglian' theologies not 'both' ...
On the antecedent thing ...
Wesley's been described as the 'grandfather of Pentecostalism.'
Fair enough, to an extent ...
Equally, whilst it's fair to say that Luther is some broad tribal antecedent to some extent, he's hardly the 'founder' of evangelicalism.
That's not how these things work.
Sure, he kick-started the Reformation but I'd argue that evangelicalism owes more to Calvin and Zwingli, with later Wesleyan input, than it does to Luther.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think this just comes back to this concept of tiny worldviews. Things that are self-evident to a [particular kind of] evangelical look completely different to everyone else because they've created special terms and ideas that make no sense to anyone else.
That said, I think it is possible to say that Luther was a common ancestor of both Evangelicals and other Protestants. And it is probably true to say that Evangelicals took, riffed and and expanded some of the ideas from Luther in the developing understanding of Evangelicalism. I don't think it is a contradiction to say that other non-Evangelical Protestants see him as a key figure in their own theological development, because these things are a process of evolution and we've got to quite different places despite starting from the same place at the Reformation.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course, which is another way of saying what I've been trying to say ... that it's entirely legitimate to see Luther as the common ancestor of evangelical and other Protestants but not as a 'founder' in the sense that this word implies ...
I'm sure Kaplan doesn't mean it like this, but it rather suggests some kind of Henry Ford type role in the foundation of Ford Motors ...
The issue I have with Kaplan, on his current form, not generally, is the lack of chiaroscuro.
He seems to be painting in very broad brush strokes, rather like Jamat.
Which is why I've been giving him a hard-time on this thread because I think he can do a lot better than that.
Just sayin'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
More guessing at marriage practice in Ancient Israel, which doesn't quite answer the OP...
The betrothal, which as I said was a contract between the groom and the bride's father for the "purchase" of the bride, made the wedding legal in Jewish law. However, by the time of Christ the bride price in the betrothal contract was merely a formality, if what I have read is true, and would only be paid to the bride's father in case of divorce or the death of the groom after marriage. By this point in Jewish history, dowries, which are payments from the bride's father to the groom (in the opposite direction of the bride price), were much more significant.
At some point, the bride would be brought to the groom's house in a festive procession and there would be a wedding feast, after which the bride would live with the groom.
One source I read said that this procession to the groom's house and wedding feast occurred AFTER an intermediate ritual consummation of the marriage that occurred at the bride's father's house. The groom would come to the bride's father's house, there would be a ritual consummation of the marriage that the source claimed would occur with family watching, and a husband could demand the bed sheets be examined afterwards for "proof" of the bride's "virginity" at the time of marriage (we all know now that this isn't how virginity works), but if the bride was found to be a virgin after being challenged in this way, the husband could never divorce her (if she was found to not have been a virgin, she would be stoned).
However, this source seems to be pretty Christian fundamentalist, so I am not sure if it is reliable. Even if these things were true in pre-Exile Israel, they may not have been practiced in the same way, or at all, by the time Christ was alive. Still, Christ does talk about a bride waiting for the Bridegroom to come (as does the Song of Solomon), rather than the Bridegroom waiting for the Bride to arrive in a procession, so it could be that in Jesus' time a ritual consummation did occur in the bride's father's house before the bridal procession and the wedding feast. I just do not know.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
One source I read said that Halakhic scholars considered consummation essential for the validity of a marriage, but I do not know if a) this was the case in Jesus' time or was a ruling based on later Rabbinic scholarship or b) if "validity" means the same thing as it would later in the RCC and in the marriage law of European countries
I don't know if Jewish law at the time differentiated between annulment and divorce. If a marriage was never consummated because of the bride's refusal to do so, the husband could ask for a divorce, in which case the bride's father might ask for the bride price to be paid to him (as I said in the last post, it appears the bride price was rarely paid but the time of Christ). Would the husband be able to argue that the betrothal contract (with all its stipulations about what happens with the bride's property, etc., in case of divorce was "void" because of nonconsummation? Would this be the same as saying the marriage never took place?
Ancient Jewish law did not provide for a way for a wife to divorce her husband, but if he refused to consummate the marriage, could she claim that the betrothal contract was void (or that the marriage was "invalid") and therefore be able to return to her father's house, be considered unmarried, and marry again?
Absent any disputes over the legitimacy of children conceived in a marriage (since there was no sex in the marriage), arguing over whether a marriage was valid or not (or whether the betrothal contract had been voided or not, and whether or not this was the same thing) would be an argument over bride prices, dowries, property, the husband's duty to provide materially for his wife, the wife's freedom to leave her husband and marry again, etc. It would also touch upon the morality of a woman living with a man - but if they had gone through the formalities of obtaining a betrothal contract and did NOT have sex, it would be odd for anyone to accuse them of "living in sin." Their families would likely be very upset, especially the husband's family, to whom the offspring of the marriage would belong (and who especially wanted sons).
Therefore, absent the two families' expectations of children, any disputes over property and money, and the overall inconceivability in Jewish society at the time of a voluntarily sexless marriage, I do not know if the BVM and St. Joseph would have been considered to be a couple with an "invalid" marriage and if common decency would have required, if the two families did not force the couple to separate, that religious or secular authorities to do so. This is because modern language in the West about invalid marriages and annulments is heavily influenced by the RCC's theology of marriage.
So, to answer the OP, would Jewish society at the time consider a sexless marriage between the BVM and St. Joseph to be bizarre, irresponsible, a negation of the duty of husband and wife, etc? Yes, yes, and yes. Could it be used as grounds for either the husband or wife to declare the betrothal contract void and not need to fulfill the legal requirements of divorce? Perhaps. Would this mean that the marriage had never taken place? I do not know if Jewish society though about these things in that way (you have to admit, marriages that appear very real, long-lasting, and loving, that are said to have never taken place is something of an artifact of the legalism that the RCC inherited from Roman law rather than Jewish law).
And, all of that said, even if Jewish law at the time would have considered the BVM and St. Joseph unmarried, does that matter? It makes it appear unlikely that something like not being considered married by society would not have been mentioned, or at least defended, in Scripture or in other early Church writings. I find so much of Jesus' life to be incompatible with Jewish or Roman morality at the time (and not in accordance with the text of prophecy about the Messiah) - and also completely improbable based on modern science - that I am not bothered by yet one more very hard thing to believe about the BVM. Using Occam's Razor to examine religious beliefs seems ludicrous to me. Religious beliefs are based upon at least some degree of irrationality, and where to draw the line between religious tenets that can or cannot be attacked with rational argument is different for every person.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No doubt, but the distinctive doctrines which were central to his break with Rome were and remain central to evangelicalism's distinctiveness, so he was its founder malgre lui.
No other Protestant sects share those distinctive things with Luther? Just you guys?
Certainly the evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from the rest of Protestantism by, amongst other things, Luther's emphases on the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith.
That should not come as any startling novelty.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, which is another way of saying what I've been trying to say ... that it's entirely legitimate to see Luther as the common ancestor of evangelical and other Protestants but not as a 'founder' in the sense that this word implies ...
Founder, ancestor...
Thoughtful evangelical writers on evangelical history (eg Bebbington, Stott, Noll) all acknowledge Luther's original and indispensable role.
Any history of modern evangelicalism must, after the NT, start with at least something more than a nod in Luther's direction to be taken seriously.
Which is not to say that modern evangelicalism, or even early eighteenth century evangelicalism, sprang fully formed from Luther like Athene from Zeus's head.
It is to say no Luther, no evangelicalism (unless you want to wander of into alternative "what if" history).
quote:
The issue I have with Kaplan, on his current form, not generally, is the lack of chiaroscuro.
He seems to be painting in very broad brush strokes, rather like Jamat.
Which is why I've been giving him a hard-time on this thread because I think he can do a lot better than that.
"Can do better...."
I choose to be amused rather than pissed off by your pompous assumption of a schoolmasterly role in assessing the performances of the Ship's contributors.
Well I'm sure that we'll all try a lot harder next term, Sir, because we're all too aware that kindly meant rebukes and exhortations can give way to lines, or even (Molesworthian orthography) KANES!
[ 06. July 2017, 23:10: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Thanks for all of the information stonespring. It's all interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Certainly the evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from the rest of Protestantism by, amongst other things, Luther's emphases on the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith.
That should not come as any startling novelty.
The evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from Lutheranism—the branch of Protestantism that Luther actually was the founder of—by the evangelical section's adherence to Luther's emphasis on the primacy of Scripture in revelation and on justification by faith? Really?
Yeah, the Reformed tradition and other Protestant traditions aside, that does come as a startlingly novel idea.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from Lutheranism—the branch of Protestantism that Luther actually was the founder of—by the evangelical section's adherence to Luther's emphasis on the primacy of Scripture in revelation and on justification by faith?
Depends on whether you define evangelical in doctrinal terms, or more broadly, but at a doctrinal level most evangelicals would regard Lutherans as fellow evangelicals.
I certainly do.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from Lutheranism—the branch of Protestantism that Luther actually was the founder of—by the evangelical section's adherence to Luther's emphasis on the primacy of Scripture in revelation and on justification by faith?
Depends on whether you define evangelical in doctrinal terms, or more broadly, but at a doctrinal level most evangelicals would regard Lutherans as fellow evangelicals.
I certainly do.
Well, of course it depends on how you define "Evangelical," which can mean anything from simply Protestant or Lutheran to the more contemporary Bebbington Quadrilateral or American conservative definitions.
So how are you defining it? Because most Lutherans I know would not consider themselves "evangelical" according to the definition that you have seemed to be using.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Certainly the evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from the rest of Protestantism by, amongst other things, Luther's emphases on the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith.
Let's make sure I'm understanding you. Any Protestant group that emphasizes the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith, is Evangelical?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So how are you defining it? Because most Lutherans I know would not consider themselves "evangelical" according to the definition that you have seemed to be using.
Evangelicalism can involve many features, but its two most basic distinctive features vis a vis other Christian traditions (including some forms of liberal Protestantism, and heights of the candle Protestantism) are its soteriology (justification by faith) and its theology of revelation (primacy of Scripture).
That doesn't mean that other Christian traditions don't contain elements of both these distinctives, but they don't prioritise them, or identify by them, to the same degree.
There are therefore good grounds for evangelicals to regard Lutherans as fellow evangelicals, and the Lutherans I know self-identify as evangelicals, though of course other Lutherans would not.
Recognition is not always reciprocal.
For example, I regard the RC and Orthodox as my fellow Christians, but doubtless there are members of both traditions who would not think that I am a Christian at all.
[ 07. July 2017, 02:40: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Certainly the evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from the rest of Protestantism by, amongst other things, Luther's emphases on the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith.
Let's make sure I'm understanding you. Any Protestant group that emphasizes the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith, is Evangelical?
In blunt terms, is 'evangelical' not a term that simply implies you are a Christian who wants to convert others to the truth? You could theoretically be evangelical in any context. Greenies are pretty evangelical.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Evangelicalism can involve many features, but its two most basic distinctive features vis a vis other Christian traditions (including some forms of liberal Protestantism, and heights of the candle Protestantism) are its soteriology (justification by faith) and its theology of revelation (primacy of Scripture).
I'm struggling to think of any Protestant tradition that doesn't teach justification by faith or the primacy of Scripture as revelation. This definition seems so broad as to be meaningless. You seem to be saying simply that evangelical = historic Protestantism. While that is certainly an historically defensible usage of the word, it doesn't really reflect common contemporary usage.
Perhaps cultural/geographic differences are at play, but those two "basic distinctive features" are not, as best I can tell, what distininguish Evangelicalism, as that term is typically used in the US, from Lutheranism, the Reformed tradition, Wesleyanism or other historic forms of Protestantism. As I hear the term used here, at least, what distinguishes Evangelicalism from other forms of Protestantism are things like a particular emphasis on the cross and the atonement viz a viz the individual; an emphasis on evangelizing others and on conversion and a personal, individual relationship with Christ, perhaps with a corresponding de-emphasis on sacraments; and an inerrantist or literalist approach to Scripture, or at least an approach to Scripture that leans in those directions.
quote:
There are therefore good grounds for evangelicals to regard Lutherans as fellow evangelicals, and the Lutherans I know self-identify as evangelicals, though of course other Lutherans would not.
That may be true, but are you sure that those Lutherans who self-identify as evangelicals (as I recall the one Lutheran I can think of who posted in this thread specifically said she does not) are not using "evangelical" in the traditional Lutheran sense (a la the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, or Evangelical Catholic as opposed to Roman Catholic or Anglo-Catholic) rather than in the more contemporary sense?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In blunt terms, is 'evangelical' not a term that simply implies you are a Christian who wants to convert others to the truth?
I would say that in blunt, or basic terms, it refers to an emphasis on the centrality of the Gospel and on spreading the Gospel. But the reality is that over the centuries it has acquired a variety of meanings.
ETA: This tangent really does need a separate thread.
[ 07. July 2017, 03:39: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In blunt terms, is 'evangelical' not a term that simply implies you are a Christian who wants to convert others to the truth?
No. That's "evangelistic."
"Evangelical" has historical meaning, and was coined (or adopted) by a specific group of people for a specific reason.
Words bluntly mean what they are used to mean by the people who use them (as a whole, not individuals).
[ 07. July 2017, 05:18: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Host
# 9153
|
Posted
In case anyone missed the hostly direction on the last page, this is a further request to drop the tangent about evangelicalism or take it up on another thread.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I will start a separate thread as promised. I haven't done so far as I have to think of a way of framing it that doesn't lay me open to the broad-brush charge of side-swiping at evangelicalism.
My 'pomposity' is meant to amuse not piss off, but if I am being pompous then Kaplan's being hypocritical by taking a gratuitous side-swipe at RCs and Orthodox by because some among them mightn't regard him as a Christian, particularly when he knows darn well that there are plenty of people within his own evangelical tradition who wouldn't regard RCs and Orthodox as Christians.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
As for regarding all Lutherans as being Evangelicals, that would be akin to regarding all Anglicans as evangelical or all Presbyterians, or all Methodists as evangelical purely because they aren't Catholics.
Some Lutherans are evangelical. Others aren't.
As Nick says, it depends on how we define the term.
Meanwhile, I'll stop sitting as judge and jury on Kaplan's posting style when he takes the plank out of his own eye and stops making gratuitous side-swipes at other traditions in the way he accused others of doing vis a vis evangelicalism and when he sharpens his pencil instead of using a whopping big Magic Marker pen.
It would also help if he reads what people say rather than what he thinks they are saying.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Gamaliel, take your grievances to Hell.
mr cheesy, stop junior hosting.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In blunt terms, is 'evangelical' not a term that simply implies you are a Christian who wants to convert others to the truth?
No. That's "evangelistic."
"Evangelical" has historical meaning, and was coined (or adopted) by a specific group of people for a specific reason.
Words bluntly mean what they are used to mean by the people who use them (as a whole, not individuals).
Oh, OK, fair enough.
One can be evangelical or evangelistic. Is one necessarily the latter if one is the former?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Jamat, take the discussion on evangelicalism and matters arising elsewhere, as already instructed by the Hosts. Now.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Kaplan's being hypocritical by taking a gratuitous side-swipe at RCs and Orthodox because some among them mightn't regard him as a Christian, particularly when he knows darn well that there are plenty of people within his own evangelical tradition who wouldn't regard RCs and Orthodox as Christians.
Which was precisely my point - that evangelicals are notorious for doing it, but that in fact both sides do it.
"Sideswipes" don't come into it.
quote:
Some Lutherans are evangelical. Others aren't.
Which is what I said.
quote:
As Nick says, it depends on how we define the term.
The Lutherans I know are evangelical in the sense in which we generally use it.
Others are evangelical in the continental sense.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Host
# 9153
|
Posted
Kaplan - there are now three separate requests from hosts asking for the tangent to continue on a new thread.
And someone's started one. HERE.
This is the fourth request, and probably the last polite one.
Take the discussion there. This thread is about Our Lady's Marriage. If you don't want to discuss that, don't post on this thread.
Your co-operation would be appreciated.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I'm resurrecting this thread because a Thought has just occurred to me about the NT references to Jesus' brothers.
Matthew 13:55 says 'Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?'
'The carpenter's son' is translating the Greek phrase ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός, in which, AIUI, both 'son' and 'carpenter' have a definite article, i.e. 'the son of the carpenter'. Surely this implies that Joseph only had one son? Otherwise it would have to be something like 'one of the sons of the carpenter'. Or does Greek not work like that?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I like it. Nicely obvious and nobody's ever pointed it out before. Not here anyway. Genius therefore. So, as Joseph only had one son, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas must have been his ... nephews ... ? They couldn't have been Jesus' YOUNGER brothers by Mary as the bible says she is perpetually virgin because she's the ark.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm resurrecting this thread because a Thought has just occurred to me about the NT references to Jesus' brothers.
Matthew 13:55 says 'Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?'
'The carpenter's son' is translating the Greek phrase ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός, in which, AIUI, both 'son' and 'carpenter' have a definite article, i.e. 'the son of the carpenter'. Surely this implies that Joseph only had one son? Otherwise it would have to be something like 'one of the sons of the carpenter'. Or does Greek not work like that?
I don't know about Greek, but I don't think that it works in the way you are thinking in English. If I say: "Prince Charles is the son of Queen Elizabeth", I don't think that I am saying that he is the only son, and thus Andrew and Edward are not her sons. If the article has any effect, it is perhaps to emphasise the word 'son', in distinction to 'cousin' or 'nephew'.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I will point out that Jesus is not the biological son of the carpenter, so if you are going to posit "brother" to perforce be biological but "son" to not be, what is your justification?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
I don't know about Greek, but I don't think that it works in the way you are thinking in English. If I say: "Prince Charles is the son of Queen Elizabeth", I don't think that I am saying that he is the only son, and thus Andrew and Edward are not her sons. If the article has any effect, it is perhaps to emphasise the word 'son', in distinction to 'cousin' or 'nephew'.
That's true.
I wonder why English does that? It only seems to be true of family relationships, but unfortunately for my hypothesis that's what we're discussing.
So 'Prince Charles is the owner of Duchy Originals' and 'Prince Charles is the author of the Black Spider Memos' imply a single owner and a single author. But 'Prince Charles is the grandson of the Queen Mother' and 'Prince Charles is the brother of the Duke of York' somehow don't.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
'Prince Charles is the owner of Duchy Originals' and 'Prince Charles is the author of the Black Spider Memos' imply a single owner and a single author. But 'Prince Charles is the grandson of the Queen Mother' and 'Prince Charles is the brother of the Duke of York' somehow don't.
Could it be the inadequacy of the English verb "to be" to denote uniqueness?
The first two examples given describe something that the subject did that no one else could have done. The second two describe something that happened to the subject that could have happened to others as well.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm resurrecting this thread because a Thought has just occurred to me about the NT references to Jesus' brothers.
Matthew 13:55 says 'Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?'
'The carpenter's son' is translating the Greek phrase ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός, in which, AIUI, both 'son' and 'carpenter' have a definite article, i.e. 'the son of the carpenter'. Surely this implies that Joseph only had one son? Otherwise it would have to be something like 'one of the sons of the carpenter'. Or does Greek not work like that?
I don't know about Greek, but I don't think that it works in the way you are thinking in English. If I say: "Prince Charles is the son of Queen Elizabeth", I don't think that I am saying that he is the only son, and thus Andrew and Edward are not her sons. If the article has any effect, it is perhaps to emphasise the word 'son', in distinction to 'cousin' or 'nephew'.
I don't feel that 'a son' necessarily implies more than one either!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's also a wee problem with "the carpenter" in that phrase. Are we to assume there was absolutely no other carpenter in that vicinity? Seems unlikely, given Sepphoris just down the road. But people do use "the" loosely sometimes to mean "you know, the dude we usually think of when we're saying 'carpenter'."
I could totally hear one of our community saying of LL, "Isn't that the pastor's son?" Even though there are more pastors than one in our community, and LL has an older half brother.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nazareth was a one carpenter town.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I will point out that Jesus is not the biological son of the carpenter, so if you are going to posit "brother" to perforce be biological but "son" to not be, what is your justification?
Utterly irrelevant. We're discussing what the people of the town thought at the time, not what you know. They undoubtedly knew that Jesus was what he was presented by Mary and Joseph as -- their son.
Unless you're proposing that Mary and Joseph went around Nazareth broadcasting to all and sundry that, no, Jesus wasn't actually Joseph's son but a miracle, which we know because Mary and an encounter with an angel.
That would really have worked well.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Point.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's also a wee problem with "the carpenter" in that phrase. Are we to assume there was absolutely no other carpenter in that vicinity? Seems unlikely, given Sepphoris just down the road. But people do use "the" loosely sometimes to mean "you know, the dude we usually think of when we're saying 'carpenter'."
There's that, and then also that its Joseph the carpenter as opposed to Joseph the fisherman. All sorts of possibilities.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's also a wee problem with "the carpenter" in that phrase. Are we to assume there was absolutely no other carpenter in that vicinity? Seems unlikely, given Sepphoris just down the road. But people do use "the" loosely sometimes to mean "you know, the dude we usually think of when we're saying 'carpenter'."
Yes, 'the' (in English at least) means pretty much 'you know the one I'm talking about'. So I agree 'the carpenter' probably* means something like 'the carpenter in our social circle, as opposed to the other lot'.
But I don't think 'the son' could mean 'the son in our social circle', because the same passage implies that James and Joseph and Simon and Jude are also around somewhere, i.e. they ought to be in the social circle too.
* 'Probably' inasmuch as I've seen people claim tekton means anything from a jobbing day-labourer on a building site to a senior civil engineer. In the latter case he could genuinely be the only tekton around.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I will point out that Jesus is not the biological son of the carpenter, so if you are going to posit "brother" to perforce be biological but "son" to not be, what is your justification?
Utterly irrelevant. We're discussing what the people of the town thought at the time, not what you know. They undoubtedly knew that Jesus was what he was presented by Mary and Joseph as -- their son.
Unless you're proposing that Mary and Joseph went around Nazareth broadcasting to all and sundry that, no, Jesus wasn't actually Joseph's son but a miracle, which we know because Mary and an encounter with an angel.
That would really have worked well.
John
Bliss, which caps the post I deleted at the time. To the effect that in Nazareth, this normal, large family of at least nine was well known without invoking any second and third order complexities at all. The disciples James and John being Jesus' local first cousins and all. Not mentioned with the other four? Who have to doctrinairely be His older brothers therefore?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I thought that the traditional approach to that question was that these were half-brothers, sons of a now-widowed Joseph by a previous marriage.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I don't do traditions. Except as traditions. I made a wish at a money tree at Portmerion last week. It was an extravagant one leaving me 51 weeks to learn Welsh.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
When I am sitting at the bedside of a dying patient, either one who has long trusted in God's love through Christ, or one who through their final illness is at last getting to grips with 'what life is really all about', somehow the 'perpetual virginity of Mary', and question of whether Jesus had brothers or sisters never seems a priority, if it even comes up at all.
The question that seems to arise, at least to me, in this long tedious trudge through the thread is: does it REALLY matter if Mary had other children; does it materially effect who Jesus is and what he has accomplished. Given the lack of decisive evidence, and the lack of excitement (or even mentioning) of the subject within the scriptures, the answer appears to be, no, it doesn't really matter. Take your choice, but don't let it be a cause for divorce or anything unloving that might ruin a good friendship.
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's already happened Alisdair. That's the history of the ever schisming Church.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's another potential complication with the "the's" (and now I hate you all for forcing me to use a bastard plural apostrophe).
In Hebrew, at least, to make a phrase like "the carpenter's son" you create a chain of nouns: son-the-carpenter. And one of the peculiarities of that setup is that if one noun is definite (takes the "the"), they BOTH are considered to do so. Which means that AFAIK you can't really say "a son of the carpenter"(or is it "the son of a carpenter" or both)? My memory's going here.
But in any case, if Aramaic has the same setup, which seems very likely though I can't swear to it, and the townspeople were speaking Aramaic (almost certainly), well, then, our quibble becomes unsolvable. They just didn't handle their definite/indefinite issues in a way that would allow us to dissect them as we wish.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I feel your pain.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
Take your choice, but don't let it be a cause for divorce or anything unloving that might ruin a good friendship.
Absolutely. I, at the moment apparently the most vocal Orthodox on the ship about these kind of things, have never let it destroy a friendship. Then again it rarely comes up in day-to-day conversation. Where "rarely" means "never." It's only on the SOF that I get into such discussions at all.
Referring to Mary as "ever-virgin" is woven throughout our liturgical works. It's not something we argue about or contemplate; for the post part it's just part of the background of faith. It's certain Protestants that have to dig and push. Sorry, but that's just truth. I've never seen an Orfie log into a majority-Protestant board and start harping on it and confronting people about it. (Nor indeed have I witnessed an Orfie on an Orfie board harp about it, where there would be no point.)
But when the Prots start saying things like "How can any person in their right mind believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary?" I feel it my duty to respond. Both to clear my name from the roster of the wrong-minded, and because a question is being asked that I am in a place to answer.
This comes up perennially on the SOF, like snails in a garden. Frankly I (and some of the Catholics here, by their admission) find it tiring.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But in any case, if Aramaic has the same setup, which seems very likely though I can't swear to it, and the townspeople were speaking Aramaic (almost certainly), well, then, our quibble becomes unsolvable. They just didn't handle their definite/indefinite issues in a way that would allow us to dissect them as we wish.
Fair enough, in that case I agree we can't conclude anything from the use or non-use of the definite article in Greek!
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
mousethief: quote:
But when the Prots start saying things like "How can any person in their right mind believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary?" I feel it my duty to respond. Both to clear my name from the roster of the wrong-minded, and because a question is being asked that I am in a place to answer.
As a Prot (I hope an open minded one) I'd like to say how much my understanding has been enlarged by you, and the glorious Josephine. You haven't always changed my mind, but I can now see the reasons behind many positions that I couldn't understand at all previously.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
As a Prot (I hope an open minded one) I'd like to say how much my understanding has been enlarged by you, and the glorious Josephine. You haven't always changed my mind, but I can now see the reasons behind many positions that I couldn't understand at all previously.
Thank you for saying so. And I'll tell the glorious Josephine you mentioned her in this respect. To me that is one of the most important by-products of the Ship -- to understand somebody else's religious or churchly POV where before one didn't.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In my broken way I second Robert.
Talking of broken, I watched the eponymous superb BBC series recently in which Sean Bean, who should get a BAFTA with Jimmy McGovern the writer, played a magnificently 'real' Roman Catholic priest.
If he presided next door to my char evo church, whose door I only darken on a Friday night for a year now, I'd go and bow my head, hands closed.
I LOVED the liturgy, including the alien invocation of Mary, Ever Virgin. It was beautiful. I learned from an excellent nun decades ago that her Italian peasant mum could not relate to God in the male, the masculine, even in the face of Christ, as that was about power adumbrated with abuse. She related to God through Mother Mary. It blew me away. No come backs.
Yet here I've been satirically hostile to the doctrinaire hostility.
Leopards, spots.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
