Eusebius on the brothers and cousins of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrianH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BrianH said:
I do not think they are the children of Cleopas. That is a later tradition that no one put forth until Jerome and not the case.
Click to expand...
Why do you not consider Saint Jerome’s writings to help in this case? I think he makes good points:
How then, says Helvidius, do you make out that they were called the Lord’s brethren who were not his brethren? I will show how that is. In Holy Scripture there are four kinds of brethren— by nature, race, kindred, love.
Click to expand...
Then he goes on to give examples from scripture. Just because these individuals were called brethren of the LORD does not mean they were actually sons and daughters of Saint Joseph of the line of David and his wife the Virgin Mary.
But then again, that’s just one man’s opinion.
Peace.
 
JSSebastianoP said:
Why do you not consider Saint Jerome’s writings to help in this case? I think he makes good points:

Then he goes on to give examples from scripture. Just because these individuals were called brethren of the LORD does not mean they were actually sons and daughters of Saint Joseph of the line of David and his wife the Virgin Mary.
But then again, that’s just one man’s opinion.
Peace.
Click to expand...
Well I think that is they were cousins someone would have said so sooner. Plenty of others said otherwise maybe even two hundred years earlier.
I also agree with Schaff’s analysis and think it involves scriptural and historical gymnastics. In history, especially if there is a theological agenda we must look at the simplest solution. I am also not sure why the cousins would travel with Mary and never mention any other family members etc.
 
From Book I, Ch 12:
  1. Afterwards he says he appeared unto James, who was one of the so-called brethren of the Saviour. But, since in addition to these, there were many others who were called apostles, in imitation of the Twelve, as was Paul himself, he adds: Afterward he appeared to all the apostles. 1 Corinthians 15:7 So much in regard to these persons. But the story concerning Thaddeus is as follows.
Click to expand...
From Book II, Ch 1:
  1. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, as Eusebius appears to know who James the Just’s father is, but does not here (or anywhere else I’ve seen) tell us Mary is his mother.

From Book III, Ch 7:
  1. But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited the graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ—during which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the first bishop there,** the one who is called the brother of the Lord**, were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the surest bulwark of the place. Divine Providence thus still proved itself long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by repentance for what they had done they might obtain pardon and salvation; and in addition to such long-suffering, Providence also furnished wonderful signs of the things which were about to happen to them if they did not repent.
Click to expand...
Poking around in his writings, I notice Eusebius very often uses the qualifier “who is called” when referring to the James in question.

From Book IV, Ch 5:
  1. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.
Click to expand...
I’ve also noticed Eusebius often simply refers to the James as James the Just, and not James, the brother of Jesus.

From Book VII, Ch 19:
Chapter 19. The Episcopal Chair of James.
Click to expand...
The chair of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour himself and the apostles, and who, as the divine records show, was called a brother of Christ, has been preserved until now, the brethren who have followed him in succession there exhibiting clearly to all the reverence which both those of old times and those of our own day maintained and do maintain for holy men on account of their piety. So much as to this matter.
Click to expand...
 
It has been stated that a theological bias was used by some in stating that the brethren of the Lord ex. James, Simon, Jude is used in finding a solution for the brethren of the Lord.

This is probably true, but the theology grew out of a Sacred tradition passed on by the Apostles not the other way around. We see challenges to the perpetual Virginity for example with Jerome and Helvidius and both Eastern and Western Churches have held to the View of Mary’s perpetual Virginity even though there has been disputes as to who actually the Brethren were (cousins, step brothers etc.) In fact, the reformer such as Luther and Calvin believed in the perpetual Virginity. So, we never see through history a drastic change where someone puts forth the charge of Mary perpetual virginity and then it is attacked as false because the prevailing view of the Church is that Jesus had blood brothers as we see with so many other ideas such as gnosticism, Nestorianism, Arianism etc.

Eusebius, Tells us why James is called the Brother of the Lord in Book II chaper 1.

“Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.”

James is not a child of Mary, but is still a Brother of the Lord. So, with this I would say that there is still no mention of Children of Mary in the ancient writing, and ancient writing do give us a clue that the word Brother of the Lord was used for those who were relatives of Jesus, but NOT children of Mary.
 
cfrancis said:
From Book I, Ch 12:
From Book II, Ch 1:
This is interesting, as Eusebius appears to know who James the Just’s father is, but does not here (or anywhere else I’ve seen) tell us Mary is his mother.

From Book III, Ch 7:
Poking around in his writings, I notice Eusebius very often uses the qualifier “who is called” when referring to the James in question.

From Book IV, Ch 5:

I’ve also noticed Eusebius often simply refers to the James as James the Just, and not James, the brother of Jesus.

From Book VII, Ch 19:
Click to expand...
You found some I did not find and I appreciate that greatly:thumbsup:
If it is as it appears, Eusebius view is that James was the Son of Joseph, I will dig some more when I have time.
 
BrianH said:
A different take on the old brothers of Jesus discussion. We have beat to death what the Bible does or does not say concerning this. I would be curious to hear what others think about these passages from his history of the church. The book can be found on the New Advent site. I hope we can stick to the text and avoid the same old arguments. I would like to have a historical discussion about what he wrote about tradition and of course scripture. I have underlined some of the more interesting points.
Click to expand...
I am familiar with him and some of his writings. I’m glad in one sense that you made a thread out of this because it validly needs to be discussed instead of merely dismissed like so many other things that Catholics consider anti-Catholic. On the other hand a good point and reference made by you will ultimately be dragged around, slandered and beaten about by those same characters here that absolutely will not hear of anything that rivals their glass house beliefs. It is a shame indeed. The facts are that many of the Early Church Fathers wholeheartedly disagreed with Catholicism to be on several counts. I do thank you for bringing Eusebius up for obvious reasons.
 
SIA said:
I am familiar with him and some of his writings. I’m glad in one sense that you made a thread out of this because it validly needs to be discussed instead of merely dismissed like so many other things that Catholics consider anti-Catholic. On the other hand a good point and reference made by you will ultimately be dragged around, slandered and beaten about by those same characters here that absolutely will not hear of anything that rivals their glass house beliefs. It is a shame indeed. The facts are that many of the Early Church Fathers wholeheartedly disagreed with Catholicism to be on several counts. I do thank you for bringing Eusebius up for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
While it appears Eusebius does not disagree with the particular Catholic point in question, the same as you state regarding the ECF can be said for your beliefs, as has been pointed out in other threads: many (if not a majority) of the ECF do not agree with Protestantism.
As has been pointed out before, many could not agree on what constituted Scripture!
 
cfrancis said:
While it appears Eusebius does not disagree with the particular Catholic point in question, the same as you state regarding the ECF can be said for your beliefs, as has been pointed out in other threads: many (if not a majority) of the ECF do not agree with Protestantism.
As has been pointed out before, many could not agree on what constituted Scripture!
Click to expand...
What exactly do you define as Protestantism?
 
I think the point he is making is that one would be hard pressed to find a lot of things for example in the Ante Nicene Fathers that discounts TRADITONAL Anglicanism or some Protestant groups
But that is another topic 😃
 
BrianH said:
I think the point he is making is that one would be hard pressed to find a lot of things for example in the Ante Nicene Fathers that discounts TRADITONAL Anglicanism or some Protestant groups
But that is another topic 😃
Click to expand...
Exactly. Thanks.
 
BrianH said:
I think the point he is making is that one would be hard pressed to find a lot of things for example in the Ante Nicene Fathers that discounts TRADITONAL Anglicanism or some Protestant groups
But that is another topic 😃
Click to expand...
Traditional Anglicanism??? Uh…you mean as far back as Henry VIII?
If, however, SIA is implying “traditional Anglicanism” stretches back to the Apostles, then he’s forced to deal with that which he attempts to ply to Catholics: the discussion of matters of doctrine before the doctrine is formally declared, to include the canonization of Scripture.
Seems to me, based on the attempt in the “Here are some Church father quotes I found on the internet and they seemed as if they support my agenda” thread, SIA is reaching…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top