Jesus's siblings

[TMC]

Kind of a random question. I am not an ancient languages scholar, but there is a pretty strong consensus among those that are that Almah means “young woman.”

 

[Gorgias]

Well, Luke makes very clear that he is recording second and third hand descriptions.

Where do you get “second and third hand descriptions” from “eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word”…?

very well-informed post. What is your opinion concerning the word “Almah” in Isiah 7;14 ?

What is your opinion concerning the word “parthenos”, found not only at Isaiah 7:14 but also at Matthew 1:23 …?

 

[billsherman]

You’re accurately recalling what you were taught 30 years ago. More recent Catholic Scripture scholarship has moved on, though, and now there are some pretty convincing claims that there was eyewitness involvement in the development of the NT.

Can you site some historians who make this argument? I’m not aware of any significant challenges to the two-source hypothesis that have made any scholarly inroads over the past 30 years.

See Pitre’s “The Case for Jesus” for one good such example.

Prof. Pitre is a theologian, not a historian. He is a good example of the kinds of (perfectly good and honest I might add!) scholars Meier was talking about when he said:

"I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed. Go all the way back to Reimarus, through Schleiermacher, all the way down the line through Bultmann, Kasemann, Bornkamm. These are basically people who are theologians, doing a more modern type of Christology.”

I’ve probably written this sentence more than any other on this board, but it bears repeating: History and theology are not the same thing.

 

[TMC]

Where do you get “second and third hand descriptions” from “eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word”…?

I think you have to include the entire introductory statement:

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

Luke is referring to “many” compilations made by others, and says that the eyewitness testimony has been “handed down”. To me that is clear that he is not talking to eyewitnesses, but referring to compilations “handed down” from eyewitnesses to others - so at least third hand. But he maybe he did talk to a few eyewitnesses, which is why I included “second and third hand.”

 

[davidharper]

“parthenos” is greek for “virgin”. When the original ancient Hebrew was translated into the greek
in the septuagint the christian scribes translated the hebrew word “almah” (“young woman”)into the greek word “parthenos” (virgin) There is a word for “virgin” in ancient hebrew. That word is “betulah”. But that is not the word that appeared in the ancient hebrew version of the text.

 

[whatistrue]

When the original ancient Hebrew was translated into the greek
in the septuagint the christian scribes translated the hebrew word “almah” (“young woman”)into the greek word “parthenos” (virgin)

(bold mine)

Really? I was under the impression that the Septuagint translation was completed well before Christ was born. I have seen a completion date of 132 BCE (or just BC if you prefer) mentioned. But of course I welcome correction by those with greater knowledge and better sources than Wikipedia.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Well, Luke makes very clear that he is recording second and third hand descriptions. Mark is completely anonymous, but even the tradition is that Mark was not a witness.

Some traditions put Luke as one of the 70. Mark it seems, was the owner of the home in which Jesus instituted the Eucharist.

 

[TMC]

Some traditions put Luke as one of the 70. Mark it seems, was the owner of the home in which Jesus instituted the Eucharist.

The most common ‘tradition’ (which is only based on Papias, and we don’t actually have Papias’ writings), is that Luke was a Greek companion of Paul’s and that Mark was a Greek or Roman scribe or translator for Peter. I don’t think there is really anything more than speculation for any identity of Mark, and even for Luke I think it is speculation based on the text of Luke itself. Even Papias supposedly got that information something like fourth or fifth hand, and I don’t think there is much reason to credit it.

 

[BartholomewB]

I have seen a completion date of 132 BCE (or just BC if you prefer) mentioned

I believe that date refers to the completion of the original translation by the “Seventy” of the Torah (Pentateuch) alone. The other OT books were translated later, but the term “Septuagint” was retained as the designation of the complete collection.

 

[davidharper]

Yes you’re correct. I should have said "long after the translation of the septuagint the christian scribes inserted the word “virgin”. My mistake.

 

[JimG]

There are two apostles named James. One was the son of Alpheus, one was the son of Zebedee. Is anyone proposing that Mary was at one time married to one of these? Seems unlikely. James is called a brother of the Lord.

 

[Pattylt]

I have read and I can’t remember where and @billsherman, correct me if I’m wrong…
The word parthenos in Greek originally did have the meaning of young woman and like many words do, it shifted to mean virgin. So scribes translating the text of Isaiah used the older meaning of the word but by the time of Jesus, it had already shifted to the meaning of virgin.

I’d love to know if this has any validity.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The most common ‘tradition’ (which is only based on Papias, and we don’t actually have Papias’ writings), is that Luke was a Greek companion of Paul’s and that Mark was a Greek or Roman scribe or translator for Peter.

Is there a reason to doubt that Mark couldn’t have contact with Jesus and be Peter’s disciple and Luke be with Paul and have contact with Jesus?

 

[TMC]

Is there a reason to doubt that Mark couldn’t have contact with Jesus and be Peter’s disciple and Luke be with Paul and have contact with Jesus?

I think that has it backwards. What would be our reason to think those things?

But to answer your question, I think there is reason to doubt. Luke specifically says that he compiled his account from the accounts of others. It seems likely he would have mentioned if he also had direct contact with Jesus. The traditional view is that he was Greek and a travelling companion of Paul, which would not suggest that he was also a companion of Jesus.

As to Mark, that is a similar situation. I don’t see how it would be that the Roman scribe that translated for Peter when he was in Rome would also happen to be a home owner in Jerusalem. I think those are two competing theories as to Mark’s identity, not two parts of one theory.

 

[Hodos]

I agree with almost everything this author stated with one caveat. The statement attributed to Josephus about James being the brother of Jesus is viewed skeptically by many contemporary scholars who argue it may or may not be a later addition to the text. If it is authentic to the authorship of Josephus, it is certainly interesting. If it is not authentic, it is even more interesting because presumably this would have been added to the text by early Christian scribes. Either way, though, I am not sure how much weight one can place on the testimony of Josephus.

 

[Hodos]

As to Mark, that is a similar situation. I don’t see how it would be that the Roman scribe that translated for Peter when he was in Rome would also happen to be a home owner in Jerusalem. I think those are two competing theories as to Mark’s identity, not two parts of one theory.

John Mark is not thought to be Roman. Many people speculate that he was actually a Jewish author who may have been one of the 70 disciples mentioned in Luke.

 

[TMC]

Interesting. The only reason (that I can think) that later Christian scribes would add James and call him Jesus’ brother would be if they were followers of James and wanted to bolster his authority. Of course, that would also call into question (possibly) their belief in perpetual virginity. Either way, we have more direct sources, especially Paul, but also the evangelists, on the issue of the familial relationship between James and Jesus.

 

[Hodos]

Either way, we have more direct sources, especially Paul, but also the evangelists, on the issue of the familial relationship between James and Jesus.

Right, and as Dr. Meier suggests they cut toward James being Jesus brother rather than against.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The traditional view is that he was Greek and a travelling companion of Paul, which would not suggest that he was also a companion of Jesus.

That’s pretty recent. Luke has been mentioned in lists of the 72 disciples and is regarded as the man at Emmaus.

As to Mark, that is a similar situation. I don’t see how it would be that the Roman scribe that translated for Peter when he was in Rome would also happen to be a home owner in Jerusalem. I think those are two competing theories as to Mark’s identity, not two parts of one theory.

Mark wasn’t Roman. He was a Jew and cousin of Barnabas. The Church in Jerusalem met often in his home if you check Acts 12.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Except until Helvidius no one thought they were half brothers.