Gospel of Mark

[Faith1960]

I’ve read here that when Scripture mentions Jesus’ “brothers” it means either his cousins or maybe even Joseph’s children prior to marrying Mary. In Mark 6:3 it says: “Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Doesn’t this sound as though they were speaking of Jesus’ immediate family?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I’ve read here that when Scripture mentions Jesus’ “brothers” it means either his cousins or maybe even Joseph’s children prior to marrying Mary. In Mark 6:3 it says: “Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Doesn’t this sound as though they were speaking of Jesus’ immediate family?

It does sound that way in English, but not in Greek. There are words of inuendo in English, and often times a meaning changes because a “weird” way of saying something is noticed. Just so, if these are Jesus’ siblings, and not just brothers and sisters – eg: not of the same mother – Some records of this statement in Greek go absolutely out of their way grammatically to distinguish Jesus from them in one quality, being the son of Mary. Of the children, isn’t Jesus the son of Mary, and the brother(hood) of James and Joses… would be a far more faithful rendering of the Greek in terms of meaning.

Would it help if I showed you the Greek, and pointed out some of its’ features?

The same statement is made in multiple Gospels; with extra clarification in some passages.

 

[Elena_Wayne]

Why not get a Greek Lexicon and check for yourself. I’m sure there are some free ones online. I’ve seen them before.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In the East, the tradition is that Joseph is an older man who was a widower at the time Mary was of age and was to leave the temple. Joseph had older children, who are the brothers and sisters of Jesus through Joseph.

 

[TimothyH]

Faith1960, look at the Gospel of John…

***Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother **and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. (John 19:25)*Mary, the mother of Jesus, was standing at the foot of the cross.

*There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome. These women had followed him when he was in Galilee and ministered to him. There were also many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem. (Mark 15:40-41)*Mark however, tells us that there was a woman named Mary “looking on from a distance” and that this Mary was the mother of James and Joses. So there are two different women named Mary, one the mother of Jesus at the foot of the cross and another also named Mary, who was the mother of James and Joses. This second Mary stood off at a distance, observing the crucifixion with the other women.

***Having bought a linen cloth, he took him down, wrapped him in the linen cloth and laid him in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance to the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses **watched where he was laid. (Mark 15:46-47)*Mark goes on to single out a woman named Mary who the mother of Joses, who were watching Jesus’ burial. Doesn’t this seem odd, to single out this woman named Mary as the mother of Joses but not of Jesus? Why not say “The mother of Jesus and Joses” or “The mother of Jesus who was being buried” or something like that.

There were in fact three women named Mary if you count Mary Magdelene. Mary was a very common name. As others have pointed out, there was no word for cousin or nephew in ancient Aramaic and ancient Hebrew.

*Abram took his wife Sarai, his brother’s son Lot, all the possessions that they had accumulated, and the persons they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan. (Genesis 12:5)*The NAB translation shows how the Hebrews called Lot “his brother’s son” to indicate that Lot was Abram’s nephew. Some translations use the term kinfolk because the translator understands that there is no world for cousin or nephew in either ancient language.

-Tim-

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Bishop Fulton Sheen had this to say in his essay “When did birth in the Virgin Birth begin?”

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

“One-texters” say that the Bible speaks of Our Lord as having brethren; therefore, they conclude, He was not born of a virgin. But this claim can be answered. When a preacher in a pulpit addresses his congregation, “My dear brethren,” it does not mean that everyone in the Church has the same mother. Secondly, the word “brother” is used in Sacred Scripture in the wide sense, to cover not only one’s relatives but also one’s friends; for example, Abraham calls Lot his brother: “Pray let us have no strife between us two, between my shepherds and thine; are we not brethren?” (Gen 13:8). But Lot was not his brother. Thirdly, several who are mentioned as brothers of Christ, such as James and Joseph, are indicated elsewhere as the sons of another Mary, the sister of the mother of Jesus and wife of Cleophas! “And meanwhile his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen, had taken their stand beside the Cross of Jesus” (Jn 19:25). Fourthly, James, who is particularly mentioned as the brother of Jesus: “But I did not see any of the other apostles, except James, the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19), is regularly named, in the enumeration of the Apostles, as the son of another father, Alphaeus (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15).

The so-called brethren of Our Lord are nowhere mentioned in the Scripture as the sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary. Our Blessed Lord Himself used the term “brethren” in a large sense. “For one is your Master; and all you are brethren” (Mt 23:8). “And stretching forth His hand towards His Disciples He said: ‘Behold . . . my brethren’” (Mt 12:49). Nowhere in Scripture is it said that Joseph had begotten brothers and sisters of Jesus, as nowhere does it say that Mary had other children besides her Divine Son."

 

[Faith1960]

It does sound that way in English, but not in Greek. There are words of inuendo in English, and often times a meaning changes because a “weird” way of saying something is noticed. Just so, if these are Jesus’ siblings, and not just brothers and sisters – eg: not of the same mother – Some records of this statement in Greek go absolutely out of their way grammatically to distinguish Jesus from them in one quality, being the son of Mary. Of the children, isn’t Jesus the son of Mary, and the brother(hood) of James and Joses… would be a far more faithful rendering of the Greek in terms of meaning.

Would it help if I showed you the Greek, and pointed out some of its’ features?

The same statement is made in multiple Gospels; with extra clarification in some passages.

It would be great if you could show me the Greek. Thanks in advance.

 

[Epistemes]

It would be great if you could show me the Greek. Thanks in advance.

Do the research yourself. There are many, many great commentaries on Mark’s gospel from which you can come to your own concensus rather than relying on the regurgitations of others.

 

[Faith1960]

Do the research yourself. There are many, many great commentaries on Mark’s gospel from which you can come to your own concensus rather than relying on the regurgitations of others.

Thanks for the advice but Huiou Theou kindly offered to show me.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thanks for the advice but Huiou Theou kindly offered to show me.

I would second the advice, although it will be clear that what I am giving is far more than regurgitation. Even though I study the Greek, I can make mistakes and there is always more to learn about scripture. This particular passage is one where I think a mistake/copyist error might have occurred from the original, or at very least a tricky way of stating something has happened that is worth considering carefully just because it is odd.

file:///tmp/moz-screenshot.pnghttp://img695.imageshack.us/img695/3433/eeyore.jpg

The words specific for “carpenter” does not show up in the sentence, rather a word that could mean at most “skilled artisian” does. I say this because I have exhaustively checked all scriptural Greek for that word, and clearly the word is used for metal-workers, and other highly skilled craftsman. In that sense, it is strange to see the word “carpenter” used in English. This is not what the Greek says, but it is what tradition says Joseph was. The actual word is “tekt-On”, where the long O is for Omega and not omicron, if you get into an apologetics discussion. This isn’t a simple masculine single word; in my translation I used a vague word “of-the-children” because of that difference, which allows it to be a pun.

For now, just consider that the word’s spelling is best understood as “craftsmen” in the plural and that can be defended the most strongly in simple apologetics. The word is much like the English borrow words: TECHnical, ArchiTECT, and TECHnician. But to give a hint as to why I chose a different word – consider that these apolgetics about words are mere “childs-play”.

One of the previous posters mentioned “his brother lot’s son”, and claimed there is no word for cousin in Greek. That’s not strictly true, but it’s close. And if you look you’ll see another poster mention that Lot isn’t Abraham’s direct brother. There is a problem, then, in calling Lot Abraham’s nephew – and likewise it brings into question the incestuousness of Abraham marrying Sarai, his “niece”. Considering Genesis is part of the “Law”, or Torah, forbidding incest – the scribes or lawyers would have had to pay close attention to conflicting passages since people could argue for incest in certain circumstances if misinterpreted. (eg: King Herod with Herodias) The exact meaning, then, of these relationships is a problem in English.

Joseph isn’t explicitly mentioned in the passages referring to the event, except for one, Luke 4:22. And the names of the children, or Josephs profession are not mentioned in Luke, but it only says, “son”, as in :
“isn’t son he-is of Joseph being?”. (Yoda word order…matching the Greek…)



Notice, in Matthew that incestuous Herod is mentioned immediately after this passage; and that quite possibly some of the people in the synagogue knew that Mary was pregnant before she had come to live with Joseph. (People do count the months of pregnancy…)

The negative of the question suggests that they are beginning to ask, is this really Joseph’s son?

There is another hint in Matthew 6:4 where Jesus uses the word “kinsmen” to answer them. Kinsmen is not used for close relatives, in general; It is a word that has a mildly dirty connotation, but refers to the fact that even if you don’t like someone in the family – they are family. It can very easily mean “cousin” and is the reason I avoid saying that Greek doesn’t have a word for cousin. (There’s nothing quite like being contradicted by the very sentence after the one being discussed…)

Luke is the most Greek of the writers, being of Gentile origin, and it is only Luke who specifically mentions Joseph. Although Luke is the only one to mention Joseph, notice he doesn’t mention Joseph’s trade. It wasn’t important to the argument going on, and is even a bit avant garde that the other gospels do seem to mention it; if we say “archtect” it captures the technical skill and prowess of the person involved, whereas if we say “carpenter”, it is a much lower ranking. Neither of the other Gospels clarifies this by reducing the standard of “teknOn” to wood craft – and in a sentence talking about someone’s lowly standing that is odd.

a little hyperbole:
…Is this not the architect’s son, …
…the stone which the builders rejected has become the corner stone…

There is an allusion to the fact that those who rule Israel are known as the builders. And it is in this passage that Jesus is expelled from the “Synagogue”, a place of local rule where the people are “lead-together-with”.

Even on synagogues today, you will see them labeled “Beth Israel” literally meaning – House of Israel. They are foremost, family and tribe.

I’ve got to stop now for a bit, but I’ll post again later and take a look at the two synoptic (seiing-together-with) gospels Matthew and Mark, and the specific grammar of the Greek sentences. It’s going to be technical, but I’ll do my best to be clear about what I show you.

Peace.
–Andrew.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/<a%20href="http://www.hitupmyspot.com/"><img%20src="http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o262/poopypooppoop34/funny-yoda-dog-costume.jpg"></a><br><a%20href="http://www.hitupmyspot.com/s/index.php?q=Funny+Yoda">%20Funny%20Yoda%20<BR>Myspace%20Graphics</a>

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thanks for the advice but Huiou Theou kindly offered to show me.

I would second the advice, although it will be clear that what I am giving is far more than regurgitation. Even though I study the Greek, I can make mistakes and there is always more to learn about scripture. This particular passage is one where I think a mistake/copyist error might have occurred from the original, or at very least a tricky way of stating something has happened that is worth considering carefully just because it is odd.

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/3433/eeyore.jpg

The words specific for “carpenter” does not show up in the sentence, rather a word that could mean at most “skilled artisian” does. I say this because I have exhaustively checked all scriptural Greek for that word, and clearly the word is used for metal-workers, and other highly skilled craftsman. In that sense, it is strange to see the word “carpenter” used in English. This is not what the Greek says, but it is what tradition says Joseph was. The actual word is “tekt-On”, where the long O is for Omega and not omicron, if you get into an apologetics discussion. This isn’t a simple masculine single word; in my translation I used a vague word “of-the-children” because of that difference, which allows it to be a pun.

For now, just consider that the word’s spelling is best understood as “craftsmen” in the plural and that can be defended the most strongly in simple apologetics. The word is much like the English borrow words: TECHnical, ArchiTECT, and TECHnician. But to give a hint as to why I chose a different word – consider that these apolgetics about words are mere “childs-play”.

One of the previous posters mentioned “his brother lot’s son”, and claimed there is no word for cousin in Greek. That’s not strictly true, but it’s close. And if you look you’ll see another poster mention that Lot isn’t Abraham’s direct brother. There is a problem, then, in calling Lot Abraham’s nephew – and likewise it brings into question the incestuousness of Abraham marrying Sarai, his “niece”. Considering Genesis is part of the “Law”, or Torah, forbidding incest – the scribes or lawyers would have had to pay close attention to conflicting passages since people could argue for incest in certain circumstances if misinterpreted. (eg: King Herod with Herodias) The exact meaning, then, of these relationships is a problem in English.

Joseph isn’t explicitly mentioned in the passages referring to the event, except for one, Luke 4:22. And the names of the children, or Josephs profession are not mentioned in Luke, but it only says, “son”, as in :
“isn’t son he-is of Joseph being?”. (Yoda word order…matching the Greek…)



Notice, in Matthew that incestuous Herod is mentioned immediately after this passage; and that quite possibly some of the people in the synagogue knew that Mary was pregnant before she had come to live with Joseph. (People do count the months of pregnancy…)

The negative of the question suggests that they are beginning to ask, is this really Joseph’s son?

There is another hint in Matthew 6:4 where Jesus uses the word “kinsmen” to answer them. Kinsmen is not used for close relatives, in general; It is a word that has a mildly dirty connotation, but refers to the fact that even if you don’t like someone in the family – they are family. It can very easily mean “cousin” and is the reason I avoid saying that Greek doesn’t have a word for cousin. (There’s nothing quite like being contradicted by the very sentence after the one being discussed…)

Luke is the most Greek of the writers, being of Gentile origin, and it is only Luke who specifically mentions Joseph. Although Luke is the only one to mention Joseph, notice he doesn’t mention Joseph’s trade. It wasn’t important to the argument going on, and is even a bit avant garde that the other gospels do seem to mention it; if we say “archtect” it captures the technical skill and prowess of the person involved, whereas if we say “carpenter”, it is a much lower ranking. Neither of the other Gospels clarifies this by reducing the standard of “teknOn” to wood craft – and in a sentence talking about someone’s lowly standing that is odd.

a little hyperbole:
…Is this not the architect’s son, …
…the stone which the builders rejected has become the corner stone…

There is an allusion to the fact that those who rule Israel are known as the builders. And it is in this passage that Jesus is expelled from the “Synagogue”, a place of local rule where the people are “lead-together-with”.

Even on synagogues today, you will see them labeled “Beth Israel” literally meaning – House of Israel. They are foremost, family and tribe.

I’ve got to stop now for a bit, but I’ll post again later and take a look at the two synoptic (seeing-together-with) gospels Matthew and Mark, and the specific grammar of the Greek sentences. It’s going to be technical, but I’ll do my best to be clear about what I show you.

Peace.
–Andrew.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/<a%20href="http://www.hitupmyspot.com/"><img%20src="http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o262/poopypooppoop34/funny-yoda-dog-costume.jpg"></a><br><a%20href="http://www.hitupmyspot.com/s/index.php?q=Funny+Yoda">%20Funny%20Yoda%20<BR>Myspace%20Graphics</a>

 

[Faith1960]

I would second the advice, although it will be clear that what I am giving is far more than regurgitation. Even though I study the Greek, I can make mistakes and there is always more to learn about scripture. This particular passage is one where I think a mistake/copyist error might have occurred from the original, or at very least a tricky way of stating something has happened that is worth considering carefully just because it is odd.

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/3433/eeyore.jpg

The words specific for “carpenter” does not show up in the sentence, rather a word that could mean at most “skilled artisian” does. I say this because I have exhaustively checked all scriptural Greek for that word, and clearly the word is used for metal-workers, and other highly skilled craftsman. In that sense, it is strange to see the word “carpenter” used in English. This is not what the Greek says, but it is what tradition says Joseph was. The actual word is “tekt-On”, where the long O is for Omega and not omicron, if you get into an apologetics discussion. This isn’t a simple masculine single word; in my translation I used a vague word “of-the-children” because of that difference, which allows it to be a pun.

For now, just consider that the word’s spelling is best understood as “craftsmen” in the plural and that can be defended the most strongly in simple apologetics. The word is much like the English borrow words: TECHnical, ArchiTECT, and TECHnician. But to give a hint as to why I chose a different word – consider that these apolgetics about words are mere “childs-play”.

One of the previous posters mentioned “his brother lot’s son”, and claimed there is no word for cousin in Greek. That’s not strictly true, but it’s close. And if you look you’ll see another poster mention that Lot isn’t Abraham’s direct brother. There is a problem, then, in calling Lot Abraham’s nephew – and likewise it brings into question the incestuousness of Abraham marrying Sarai, his “niece”. Considering Genesis is part of the “Law”, or Torah, forbidding incest – the scribes or lawyers would have had to pay close attention to conflicting passages since people could argue for incest in certain circumstances if misinterpreted. (eg: King Herod with Herodias) The exact meaning, then, of these relationships is a problem in English.

Joseph isn’t explicitly mentioned in the passages referring to the event, except for one, Luke 4:22. And the names of the children, or Josephs profession are not mentioned in Luke, but it only says, “son”, as in :
“isn’t son he-is of Joseph being?”. (Yoda word order…matching the Greek…)

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o262/poopypooppoop34/funny-yoda-dog-costume.jpg

Notice, in Matthew that incestuous Herod is mentioned immediately after this passage; and that quite possibly some of the people in the synagogue knew that Mary was pregnant before she had come to live with Joseph. (People do count the months of pregnancy…)

The negative of the question suggests that they are beginning to ask, is this really Joseph’s son?

There is another hint in Matthew 6:4 where Jesus uses the word “kinsmen” to answer them. Kinsmen is not used for close relatives, in general; It is a word that has a mildly dirty connotation, but refers to the fact that even if you don’t like someone in the family – they are family. It can very easily mean “cousin” and is the reason I avoid saying that Greek doesn’t have a word for cousin. (There’s nothing quite like being contradicted by the very sentence after the one being discussed…)

Luke is the most Greek of the writers, being of Gentile origin, and it is only Luke who specifically mentions Joseph. Although Luke is the only one to mention Joseph, notice he doesn’t mention Joseph’s trade. It wasn’t important to the argument going on, and is even a bit avant garde that the other gospels do seem to mention it; if we say “archtect” it captures the technical skill and prowess of the person involved, whereas if we say “carpenter”, it is a much lower ranking. Neither of the other Gospels clarifies this by reducing the standard of “teknOn” to wood craft – and in a sentence talking about someone’s lowly standing that is odd.

a little hyperbole:
…Is this not the architect’s son, …
…the stone which the builders rejected has become the corner stone…

There is an allusion to the fact that those who rule Israel are known as the builders. And it is in this passage that Jesus is expelled from the “Synagogue”, a place of local rule where the people are “lead-together-with”.

Even on synagogues today, you will see them labeled “Beth Israel” literally meaning – House of Israel. They are foremost, family and tribe.

I’ve got to stop now for a bit, but I’ll post again later and take a look at the two synoptic (seeing-together-with) gospels Matthew and Mark, and the specific grammar of the Greek sentences. It’s going to be technical, but I’ll do my best to be clear about what I show you.

Peace.
–Andrew.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/<a%20href="http://www.hitupmyspot.com/"><img%20src="http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o262/poopypooppoop34/funny-yoda-dog-costume.jpg"></a><br><a%20href="http://www.hitupmyspot.com/s/index.php?q=Funny+Yoda">%20Funny%20Yoda%20<BR>Myspace%20Graphics</a>

Thanks so much, Andrew.

 

[Faith1960]

In the East, the tradition is that Joseph is an older man who was a widower at the time Mary was of age and was to leave the temple. Joseph had older children, who are the brothers and sisters of Jesus through Joseph.

Once during his homily, one of my priests said that this isn’t true.

 

[TimothyH]

One of the previous posters mentioned “his brother lot’s son”, and claimed there is no word for cousin in Greek. That’s not strictly true, but it’s close.

My post referencing the lack of word for cousin in Greek should have referenced Aramaic and not Greek. That was a mistake on my part and my comment was based on the article titled “Bad Aramaic Made Easy” by Jimmy Akin on this website. Reference catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp

Your response to the OP was very informative. Thank you for taking the time to do so. I see how translating from the ancient Greek is not necissarily a matter of word for word meaning.

-Tim-

 

[Huiou_Theou]

My post referencing the lack of word for cousin in Greek should have referenced Aramaic and not Greek. That was a mistake on my part and my comment was based on the article titled “Bad Aramaic Made Easy” by Jimmy Akin on this website. Reference catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp

Your response to the OP was very informative. Thank you for taking the time to do so. I see how translating from the ancient Greek is not necissarily a matter of word for word meaning.

-Tim-

You’re welcome Tim. That’s a good article by Jimmy Akin. When I get into an apologetic on the Greek, I often hear the complaint against the Aramaic arguments being, “But they wrote the new testament in Greek, and so that’s what we have to deal with”. I’m studying Hebrew, slowly, as it is more difficult for me than Greek, but that only puts me part way toward what Fr. Mitch and others can do. Aramaic dialect issues are beyond my knowledge. But, Jimmy makes a very good set of points about how ones native dialect would influence how they write; and I am sure that it also affects how they would translate, because I see it occasionally.
Takes a bit more study… groan. But fortunately, most of the Catholic apologetic actually gets stronger when handled in Greek so its not too bad…
Keep studying and praying!

Your brother in Christ, --Andrew.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Once during his homily, one of my priests said that this isn’t true.

Which isn’t true, that there is an eastern tradition – or that Joseph didn’t have older children? Sometimes it’s hard to tell exactly what a priest meant.

I think there is a writing called the protoevangelum of James, which isn’t a gospel and priests have to constantly tell people not to take as gospel – but it does contain references to Mary, her virginity, and Joseph’s status as a widower.

I think I’m in the minority position, but I don’t think Joseph had older children.

On to the passages:
Let’s start with Mark since that’s the most problematic, and just look at the sentence simply first.

Mark 6:3 ουχ ουτ-ος εστιν ο τεκ-τ-ων ο υιος της μαρι-ας και αδελφ-ος ιακωβ-ου και ιωση-τ-ος και ιουδα και σιμων-ος και …

The word in red is the one that we have been discussing, which is problematic. In Matthew’s gospel, he spells it differently (and clearly deciding this issue a different way) – but here in Mark it isn’t clear. The letter “o”, means “the (one)” and it means “male”, do you see that letter making a sandwich out ofo tek-t-On o. Literally, I will write it as – “the of-children/workmen the son of-the Marias.”.
This isn’t a very strong apologetic yet, because strictly speaking “of-children” would not have the extra ‘t’. It would just be ‘tekOn’

However, the way Mark wrote his sentence is weird.
The Ending of the word ‘On’ (ων) is normally the plural genitive, which means it carries the meaning “of”, eg: belonging to (generation). There is an exception to this, and that is when a Greek verb is made into a noun – like an arbitrary English phrase “the ‘jumped’ fence” would sound – eg: where I am adding “being” to an action “jump” in the way I am using it – it now tells you “which” fence. In Greek, adding the noun ending “On” (ων) ending to a verb is like adding be “ing” to the Greek word and would make it a singular male adjective.

But that makes the sentence quite strange, and it is in the mouth of Jesus’ enemies.
When Greek has a second “the” in a row “the xxx the yyy” It is making a very strong, emphatic, statement about the second word. In English, I like to replace a second “the” with the phrase “I mean the” to see what is acceptable or not in translation.

That is, I would choose to translate Mark, “is he not the craftsman/craft[ing], * son of Mary?”
and alternately “is he not of-the-children/workmen * son of Mary?”

The problem with the first choice is that it sounds like two adjectives are placed in a row “the crafting*” if being is added to “craft”. I can try other possibilities “the crafted * the son of-Mary” but it still sounds quite wrong unless Jesus is the craftsman himself – not his father.

What I can say about the Greek of Mark is that it does tie Mary to Jesus very emphatically, and by not giving the same “the” to all other men and women’s names listed, it is excluding them from being her children. ( I suppose they could still be Joseph’s, but … that poses another odd problem. )

Now, I think a detour into the old testament might help you understand my thoughts better. Look in Genesis 4:20-22.**

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Genes 4:20 και ε-τεκ-εν αδα τον ιωβελ ουτος ην ο πατηρ οικουντων εν σκηναις κτηνοτροφων
Genes 4:22 σελλα δε ε-τεκ-εν και αυτη τον θοβελ και ην σφυροκοπος χαλκευς χαλκου και σιδηρου αδελφη δε θοβελ νοεμα

Genes 4:20 And Ada brought forth Jabel: who was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of herdsmen.
Genes 4:21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of them that play upon the harp and the organs.
Genes 4:22 But Sella also brought forth Tubalcain, who was a hammerer and artificer in every work of brass and iron. And the sister of Tubalcain was Noema

Notice two things, the ambiguous root word “tek” which could be child or craftsman, shows up as a thing the mother does – “bring forth” in translation; There is no extra ‘T’(τ) or ‘N’(ν) to let us decide between craftsman and child. It is simply a work she does.

However, nowhere else does the word for craftsman appear in these passages, although the children are quite clearly artisans. Since ‘tek’ is what a mother does to birth a child, it isn’t surprising that the same letters are one of the ways a child can be identified in Greek, "ta tekna’ (τα τεκνα) being a very common way to say “the child”. In Luke 1:28, Mary “brought forth” (ε-τεκ-εν) and in Luke 1:57 Elizabeth was to-bring-forth (τεκ-ειν) her son. But this isn’t the only word for child, as there is “son” and “daughter” and something that I would call “toddler” (and perhaps others I haven’t seen yet…) Why Mark chose this word is something I am curious about because he allows some strong innuendo by doing it.

There is a second thing I would like to bring to your attention about artisan’s. As I mentioned, the title given in Mark and Matthew, is the same kind of word used for metalworker, and many other crafts…

Here’s why it bothers me: consider this passage.

Wisdo 13:11 Or if an artisan, hath cut down a tree proper for his use in the wood, and skilfully taken off all the bark thereof, and with his art, diligently formeth a vessel profitable for the common uses of life,

That passage ends badly because this tektOn (τεκτων) makes an Idol out of the remains of the good wood. And again, there is this play on words just a few verses down…

Wisdo 14:15 For a father being afflicted with bitter grief, made to himself the image of his son, who was quickly taken away: and him who then had died as a man, he began now to worship as a god, and appointed him rites and sacrifices among his servants.
Wisdo 14:15 αωρω γαρ πενθει τρυχομενος πατηρ του ταχεως αφαιρεθεντος τεκν-ου εικονα ποιησας …

The thing being crafted is an ikon not really of “his son”, but “his child” in Greek.
“Tou Huiou”, would be “of-the-son” – so here you see the first usage in Wisdom starts well and ends bad with Idol making, and the second also ends badly.

Now the passage in Mark uses the odd spelling “tekOn” which only appears twice in Greek scripture other than Mark itself. One is right there in Wisdom 13:11 and the other is found in Isaiah, the very book Jesus was quoting:

Isaia 40:20 ξυλον γαρ ασηπτον εκλεγεται τεκτ-ων και σοφως ζητει πως στησει αυτου εικονα και ινα μη σαλευηται

Unfortunately, this Greek version isn’t numbered the same as Hebrew… which leaves the book of Wisdom (a Catholic book) for an apologetic with other our separated brethren until I locate a cross reference. Does anyone know it?

In any event, Isaiah 40:20, talks about wood and the artisan again. Throughout the old testament it has two main uses, doing evil to a neighbor – and the making of religious implements. Specifically, the temple and all it’s decorations and statues – and unfortunately – Idols.

Since Mark’s sentence makes the most sense if it is Jesus himself – not his father – who is the workman; Their slur could be aimed at him, not his adoptive father – Mark is traditionally the disciple of Peter, so in Mark we have Peter’s Gospel, oh darn…

I have to stop again… – but I think this background may give you an inkling why I think the statement in Mark carries undertones that are cut throat and competitive between relatives, and are not really remarks about Jesus’ immediate brothers and sisters who would be “just as bad” as Jesus in the Synagogues eyes if Joseph’s trade is the source of the issue.

Am I making sense, or is this too technical ? Let me know.

Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

 

[Faith1960]

Which isn’t true, that there is an eastern tradition – or that Joseph didn’t have older children? Sometimes it’s hard to tell exactly what a priest meant.

He meant that it’s not true that Joseph had other children.

 

[Faith1960]

Genes 4:20 και ε-τεκ-εν αδα τον ιωβελ ουτος ην ο πατηρ οικουντων εν σκηναις κτηνοτροφων
Genes 4:22 σελλα δε ε-τεκ-εν και αυτη τον θοβελ και ην σφυροκοπος χαλκευς χαλκου και σιδηρου αδελφη δε θοβελ νοεμα

Genes 4:20 And Ada brought forth Jabel: who was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of herdsmen.
Genes 4:21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of them that play upon the harp and the organs.
Genes 4:22 But Sella also brought forth Tubalcain, who was a hammerer and artificer in every work of brass and iron. And the sister of Tubalcain was Noema

Notice two things, the ambiguous root word “tek” which could be child or craftsman, shows up as a thing the mother does – “bring forth” in translation; There is no extra ‘T’(τ) or ‘N’(ν) to let us decide between craftsman and child. It is simply a work she does.

However, nowhere else does the word for craftsman appear in these passages, although the children are quite clearly artisans. Since ‘tek’ is what a mother does to birth a child, it isn’t surprising that the same letters are one of the ways a child can be identified in Greek, "ta tekna’ (τα τεκνα) being a very common way to say “the child”. In Luke 1:28, Mary “brought forth” (ε-τεκ-εν) and in Luke 1:57 Elizabeth was to-bring-forth (τεκ-ειν) her son. But this isn’t the only word for child, as there is “son” and “daughter” and something that I would call “toddler” (and perhaps others I haven’t seen yet…) Why Mark chose this word is something I am curious about because he allows some strong innuendo by doing it.

There is a second thing I would like to bring to your attention about artisan’s. As I mentioned, the title given in Mark and Matthew, is the same kind of word used for metalworker, and many other crafts…

Here’s why it bothers me: consider this passage.

Wisdo 13:11 Or if an artisan, hath cut down a tree proper for his use in the wood, and skilfully taken off all the bark thereof, and with his art, diligently formeth a vessel profitable for the common uses of life,

That passage ends badly because this tektOn (τεκτων) makes an Idol out of the remains of the good wood. And again, there is this play on words just a few verses down…

Wisdo 14:15 For a father being afflicted with bitter grief, made to himself the image of his son, who was quickly taken away: and him who then had died as a man, he began now to worship as a god, and appointed him rites and sacrifices among his servants.
Wisdo 14:15 αωρω γαρ πενθει τρυχομενος πατηρ του ταχεως αφαιρεθεντος τεκν-ου εικονα ποιησας …

The thing being crafted is an ikon not really of “his son”, but “his child” in Greek.
“Tou Huiou”, would be “of-the-son” – so here you see the first usage in Wisdom starts well and ends bad with Idol making, and the second also ends badly.

Now the passage in Mark uses the odd spelling “tekOn” which only appears twice in Greek scripture other than Mark itself. One is right there in Wisdom 13:11 and the other is found in Isaiah, the very book Jesus was quoting:

Isaia 40:20 ξυλον γαρ ασηπτον εκλεγεται τεκτ-ων και σοφως ζητει πως στησει αυτου εικονα και ινα μη σαλευηται

Unfortunately, this Greek version isn’t numbered the same as Hebrew… which leaves the book of Wisdom (a Catholic book) for an apologetic with other our separated brethren until I locate a cross reference. Does anyone know it?

In any event, Isaiah 40:20, talks about wood and the artisan again. Throughout the old testament it has two main uses, doing evil to a neighbor – and the making of religious implements. Specifically, the temple and all it’s decorations and statues – and unfortunately – Idols.

Since Mark’s sentence makes the most sense if it is Jesus himself – not his father – who is the workman; Their slur could be aimed at him, not his adoptive father – Mark is traditionally the disciple of Peter, so in Mark we have Peter’s Gospel, oh darn…

I have to stop again… – but I think this background may give you an inkling why I think the statement in Mark carries undertones that are cut throat and competitive between relatives, and are not really remarks about Jesus’ immediate brothers and sisters who would be “just as bad” as Jesus in the Synagogues eyes if Joseph’s trade is the source of the issue.

Am I making sense, or is this too technical ? Let me know.

Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

I appreciate all that you’ve written, I truly do, but most of it goes right over my head.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I just re-read the text I wrote;
There’s too many ideas to keep straight – and although I could keep talking about Mark’s statement, it would only get worse. Normal sentences don’t use complicated grammar unless there is a specific reason to do so. So, when I see a sentence as complicated as the one in Mark – I immediately start looking for a “reason” he would need to do what he did. And, I can’t find one easily. The only thing that jumps out at me is that craftsmen are almost always written about in scripture with respect to the temple, or pagan worship. If it is used figuratively, as it is in most of the wisdom literature – I can usually find a reference to “idols” or the result of these “idols” within a few sentences.

I would like to take Mark as saying Jesus is “common”, but the twisted sentence doesn’t give a “common” impression. The common day to day stuff just isn’t written about without it going bad as it does in the the book of Wisdom; I can’t find any references of a “craftsman” (using the word found in Mark or Matthew) that is anything but troublesome. There isn’t for example, a “craftsman” making spears for king David – only “craftsman” building the temple or “craftsmen” plotting evil to their neighbors matching with the English idea of “crafty” or “shrewd” person. Their skill is in planning mischief.

I’ll add just one more detail, and then move on to Matthew who is easier.
The letter ‘t’ is often applied to foreign words as a cue that a Greek ending is going to be attached. For example, the name Joseph which ends in ‘ph’ (phi in Greek) isn’t going to follow Greek rules of Grammar as it is a Jewish, not Greek name. A sort of “fix all” in Greek is that one can add a ‘t’ (the same letter difference between child and craftsman) and then tack on a Greek ending as if it were a Greek word.

That is exactly what Mark does with Joseph, he modifies the name to “Jose-t-os” to make it mean “of-Joseph”; The end of the sentence in Mark reads: "Brother of-Jacob, of-Joseph, of-Judah, of-Simon, of of of… (it reads like a litany.) The only difference between a child and a craftsman is the letter ‘n’ of child (Teknon) would be changed to a ‘t’ (Tekton) very much like Josephs name was changed.
I found myself, even after rereading the sentence several times, having the distinct gut feeling that the first word ought to be children, not craftsman. If that were the case, the sentence would simplify to a much more mundane, common, and easy idea – the idea that “of the children”, Jesus belonged to Mary. If all the children were craftsmen, then it would be the same idea – of the craftsmen, Jesus belonged to Mary. That would make Joesph, Jacob, Juda, and Simon to all be craftsmen that Jesus is being compared to or children that he is being compared to. I think that is the most solid idea I can form from reading the passage in Mark.

Now Matthew, doesn’t cause this kind of trouble. His sentence reads:
Matth 13:55 ουχ ουτος εστιν ο του τεκτονος υιος ουχ η μητηρ αυτου λεγεται μαριαμ και οι αδελφοι αυτου ιακωβος και ιωσηφ και σιμων και ιουδας

Not he is the son of-the craftsman?, not the mother of-him is-called Mariam? and the brothers of-him Jacob, Joseph and Simon and Joudas?

This sentence doesn’t have double “the”'s, or seldom used forms of words, or extra letter changes on people’s names to trip up the translation. Matthew wrote a sentence that can be easily read “Is he not the son of the craftsman?”
And I can see this being translated “Is he not the carpenter’s son?” in English.

So much easier; but even here, Matthew didn’t go all the way. He still uses “craftsman” as opposed to “carpenter”. If he had wanted to say carpenter, which would be a lesser craftsman than a gold or bronze worker, Matthew would have added the word for “wood”. A carpenter is a craftsman of wood – but Matthew doesn’t. It doesn’t appear to matter to Matthew what kind of Craftsman Joseph was.
It doesn’t matter to Luke that Joseph was a craftsman at all. (And Luke’s audience is the least Jewish)

At this point, I have extracted as much meaning from the Greek I can find, everything else is reasoning about what was discovered. To sum up; the very difficult way Mark chose to state his case draws exaggerated attention to alternate meanings in order to try and simplify it. Jesus is “in” the book of the prophet “Isaiah”, he is claiming to be a prophet, and what exactly was he saying that brought on the response “Is he not the crafty son?”.

I hope this helps.
–Andrew.