Jesus's siblings

[Cathoholic]

YHWH_Christ . . .

In the NT there is not a single clear case where “brother” means “cousin” or even “stepbrother,” while there are abundant cases of its meaning “physical brother” (full or half).

The Catholic Church does not teach that we must assert Jesus" “brothers” (which are non-uterine “brothers” and “sisters” by the way) as “cousins”.

The Church just calls them “close relatives”.

This is part of the ancient Hebrew meaning of the Hebrew word for “brother”.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Mary Magdalene, and the two disciples at Emmaus were not even fearful and disbelieving when Jesus appeared before them post-resurrection.

"And, behold, Jesus met them on their way and greeted them. They approached, embraced his feet, and did him homage. Then, Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.” Matthew 28:9‭-‬10

It says here Mary was afraid.

Over Jesus appearing to her? No, because she approached, embraced His feet, and did Him homage, which are actions that do not reflect fear. It is after this Jesus says to not be afraid regarding His instruction to her.

(1 of 2)

Jesus told Mary not to be afraid. Why would she tell her that if she wasn’t afraid?

Again, it was not in regards to Him appearing to Mary Magdalene as you think, because her actions did not reflect fear.

Again, you venture into a novel interpretation. Mary was scared because Jesus appeared out of nowhere.
CHRYSOLOGUS. (Serm. 80.) They held His feet to shew that the head of Christ is the man, but that the woman is in Christ’s feet, and that it was given to them through Christ, not to go before, but to follow the man. Christ also repeats what the Angel had said, that what an Angel had made sure, Christ might make yet more sure. It follows, Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not.

JEROME. This may be always observed, both in the Old and New Testament, that when there is an appearance of any majestic person, the first thing done is to banish fear, that the mind being tranquillized may receive the things that are said

Neither quote explains how Mary approaching Jesus, embracing His feet, and doing Him homage are fearful actions in response to Him appearing before her. Why do you think they are?

Lunam_Meam:

Lunam_Meam:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

It was Simon, and not Luke who was with Cleopas at Emmaus.

The other disciple is unnamed…the other disciple is Luke.

The second disciple is named in Lk. 24:34, for reasons explained. Since you claim the second disciple is unnamed, then how are you certain they were named Luke?

(2 of 2)

How are we certain that the soldier who pierced Jesus’s side was named Longinus?

How you and I are certain that soldiers’s name was Longinus will differ, so my explanation is irrelevant. Again, how are you certain of the name of a supposed unnamed disciple?

…it’s a common tradition in the Eastern Church that Luke was at Emmaus.

What do you read in that tradition that gives you certainty that is the name of the supposed unnamed disciple?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Neither quote explains how Mary approaching Jesus, embracing His feet, and doing Him homage are fearful actions in response to Him appearing before her. Why do you think they are?

This is the same Mary who bowed her head to the ground when two angels appeared. It was fear then. Why wouldn’t it be fear now?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

What do you read in that tradition that gives you certainty that is the name of the supposed unnamed disciple?

Why not just check the link?

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Again, you venture into a novel interpretation.

Mary was scared because Jesus appeared out of nowhere.
CHRYSOLOGUS. (Serm. 80.) They held His feet to shew that the head of Christ is the man, but that the woman is in Christ’s feet, and that it was given to them through Christ, not to go before, but to follow the man. Christ also repeats what the Angel had said, that what an Angel had made sure, Christ might make yet more sure. It follows, Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not.

JEROME. This may be always observed, both in the Old and New Testament, that when there is an appearance of any majestic person, the first thing done is to banish fear, that the mind being tranquillized may receive the things that are said

Neither quote explains how Mary approaching Jesus, embracing His feet, and doing Him homage are fearful actions in response to Him appearing before her. Why do you think they are?

This is the same Mary who bowed her head to the ground when two angels appeared. It was fear then. Why wouldn’t it be fear now?

"But Mary stood at the sepulchre without, weeping. Now as she was weeping, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, and she saw two angels in white, sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid. They say to her: Woman, why weepest thou? She saith to them: “Because they have taken away my Lord; and I know not where they have laid him” (Jn. 20:11-13)

In summary, she stooped down to look inside the sepulchre, which was prior to seeing the two angels, and therefore could not have been bowing before them. And, not when she did see them, nor when they asked why she was weeping did she react in fear.

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Lunam_Meam:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

It was Simon, and not Luke who was with Cleopas at Emmaus.

The other disciple is unnamed…the other disciple is Luke.

Since you claim they are unnamed, then how are you certain they were named Luke?

How are we certain that the soldier who pierced Jesus’s side was named Longinus?

How you and I are certain that soldiers’s name was Longinus will differ, so my explanation is irrelevant. Again, how are you certain of the name of a supposed unnamed disciple?

…it’s a common tradition in the Eastern Church that Luke was at Emmaus.

What do you read in that tradition that gives you certainty that is the name of the supposed unnamed disciple?

Why not just check the link?

I prefer you just quote from that tradition exactly what gives you certainty.

 

[Dan_Defender]

I find Papias to be such a thin source, TBH. We don’t actually have any of his writings, we only know him through Eusebius (and maybe Iraneus??), and Eusebius himself dismissed Papias as a “man of small intelligence.” Much of what we do have of Papias (again, only what Eusebius bothered to quote in his works) has been dismissed as wrong or ahistorical, but we cling to his description of Mark and a few other things. I don’t give it much credit.

You are entitled to your opinion. As for me, on this particular issue, I go with Papias.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

But Mary stood at the sepulchre without, weeping. Now as she was weeping, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre , and she saw two angels in white, sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid. They say to her: Woman, why weepest thou? She saith to them: “ Because they have taken away my Lord; and I know not where they have laid him ” (Jn. 20:11-13)

In summary, she stooped down to look inside the sepulchre, which was prior to seeing the two angels, and therefore could not have been bowing before them. And, not when she did see them, nor when they asked why she was weeping did she react in fear.

Wrong passage. This refers to Mary’s second visit.

This is what I was referring to:
but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were puzzling over this, behold, two men in dazzling garments appeared to them. They were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground. They said to them, “Why do you seek the living one among the dead? And they remembered his words. Then they returned from the tomb and announced all these things to the eleven and to all the others. The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James; the others who accompanied them also told this to the apostles,
Luke 24:3‭-‬5‭, ‬8‭-‬10 NABRE

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I prefer you just quote from that tradition exactly what gives you certainty.

Again you can read the link.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The Papias you quoted from is an Italian in the 12th century.

 

[Dovekin]

I don’t know about other languages, but in English, at least, this places an additional burden on translators and editors. There is no way in English, that I know of, that we could retain the ambiguity of Paul’s Greek. We are forced to opt for one clear meaning or the other.

Idk. English can be pretty ambiguous too.

RNJB has:

but did not set eyes on any other of the apostles, except James,k the Lord’s brother.

k. This James was not one of the Twelve, so ‘apostle’ is being used in a wider sense.

I am not an expert, but I really do not think ει μυ can carry some of the weight you are putting on it. In other contexts it is used differently. “No one knows but the Father.” suggests the Father is one of everyone, but I do not really think that is the point. (my favorite example was the one Mounce used from Mark 8 Take nothing if not a staff, not bread, not money etc. The ει completely inverts the meaning of the μυ that follows it.)

In particular, James the brother was not an apostle in the broader sense either. He does not go out to convert the rest of the world, but stays in Jerusalem and leads the community there. As someone noted, James the brother does appear in the Gospels with Mary and his siblings to confront Jesus, while the 12 are nearby. If there was a James the brother who was not part of the 12, it would seem odd to have a James the brother who is part of the 12.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Again, you venture into a novel interpretation.

Mary was scared because Jesus appeared out of nowhere.
CHRYSOLOGUS. (Serm. 80.) They held His feet to shew that the head of Christ is the man, but that the woman is in Christ’s feet, and that it was given to them through Christ, not to go before, but to follow the man. Christ also repeats what the Angel had said, that what an Angel had made sure, Christ might make yet more sure. It follows, Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not.

JEROME. This may be always observed, both in the Old and New Testament, that when there is an appearance of any majestic person, the first thing done is to banish fear, that the mind being tranquillized may receive the things that are said

Neither quote explains how Mary approaching Jesus, embracing His feet, and doing Him homage are fearful actions in response to Him appearing before her. Why do you think they are?

This is the same Mary who bowed her head to the ground when two angels appeared. It was fear then. Why wouldn’t it be fear now?

I understand in the instance of Lk. 24:3-5 the angel was actually addressing the women disciples, Susanna, and Mary Salome. However, that is a conversation for another day, and beside the point anyway, because even if it had been Mary Magdalene, she nor anyone else’s reactions to seeing Jesus, or even angels justifies that of the apostles in the following way:

Now, you attribute the verse “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon” (Lk. 24:34) to having been spoken by the eleven apostles. Assuming that is true, and assuming Luke’s accounts in Lk. 24 are in order, after having said that, Jesus appeared amidst the apostles in the supper room (Lk. 24:36-49). And, in that instance, for the apostles present, especially Peter, to have been so fearful and disbelieving so as to act as though they had never seen, heard, or believed Jesus had risen at any point prior to does not your follow your claim…

(1 of 2)

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Julius_Caesar:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Lunam_Meam:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

It was Simon, and not Luke who was with Cleopas at Emmaus.

The other disciple is unnamed…the other disciple is Luke.

Since you claim they are unnamed, then how are you certain they were named Luke?

How are we certain that the soldier who pierced Jesus’s side was named Longinus?

How you and I are certain that soldiers’s name was Longinus will differ, so my explanation is irrelevant. Again, how are you certain of the name of a supposed unnamed disciple?

…it’s a common tradition in the Eastern Church that Luke was at Emmaus.

What do you read in that tradition that gives you certainty that is the name of the supposed unnamed disciple?

Why not just check the link?

I prefer you just quote from that tradition exactly what gives you certainty.

Again you can read the link.

I could, but if you want me to see you can support your claim the supposed unnamed disciple at Emmaus is named Luke, then you are going to have to quote from the tradition exactly what gives you certainty of this.

(2 of 2)

 

[OddBird]

I don’t know about other languages, but in English, at least, this places an additional burden on translators and editors. There is no way in English, that I know of, that we could retain the ambiguity of Paul’s Greek. We are forced to opt for one clear meaning or the other.

That’s what translators are paid for

Such cases happen all the time throughout the Bible – though, maybe, at different places for different languages. One of the aims of exegesis is trying to determine which one of several possibilities is the most likely, and proposing a translation which fits with that meaning, so that the case for the final choice is as convincing as possible and not just an educated guess.

We have an adage in French : “Traduire, c’est trahir”.

 

[OddBird]

I was wondering where that footnote about the change in Latin was coming from. That makes sense, now, if they were following ειδον ουδενα …!

They probably were, as the Vulgate versions are mostly based on the Greek Western text.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I understand in the instance of Lk. 24:3-5 the angel was actually addressing the women disciples, Susanna, and Mary Salome. However, that is a conversation for another day, and beside the point anyway, because even if it had been Mary Magdalene, she nor anyone else’s reactions to seeing Jesus, or even angels justifies that of the apostles in the following way:

Luke literally said Mary Magdalene was there with the others. She had two visits with angels.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Now, you attribute the verse “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon” (Lk. 24:34) to

As do the Catechism and the Church Fathers and. It’s you who’s coming up with a novel interpretation.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I could, but if you want me to see you can support your claim the supposed unnamed disciple at Emmaus is named Luke, then you are going to have to quote from the tradition exactly what gives you certainty of this.

Like you have from yours?

I have actually posted a link from my source. You have yet to do this.

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you, @Dovekin. This brief passage, Gal 1:18-19, together with its accompanying footnote, has changed in an interesting way from one edition to the next of the Jerusalem Bible. The original 1966 JB already clearly leaned toward the “third James” hypothesis, but in a nuanced, undemonstrative way. The new, succinct wording of the footnote in the Revised New Jerusalem Bible, published last year, explicitly rejects in forthright language the alternative hypothesis, that James the Less and James the Just were one and the same man, and that the Gospels nowhere mention the alleged “third James.”

This looks suspiciously like a sign that the Catholic Church is quietly and unobtrusively withdrawing its support from the traditional view. Henry Wansbrough, who edited both the NJB and the RNJB, is a Biblical scholar who enjoys considerable prestige in Rome. A Benedictine monk, he was reportedly either the main author or the sole author of a book-length document released in 2001 by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, over the signature of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, titled The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.

… … …

The three editions of the Jerusalem Bible in English:

JB (1966, ed. Alexander Jones)
NJB (1985, ed. Henry Wansbrough)
RNJB (2019, ed. Henry Wansbrough)

Text of Gal 1:18-19 with footnote to the name “James” in v. 19

JB:

[vv. 18-19] Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord.

[Footnote] Lit. ‘but only James’. Others translate ‘except James’, either identifying this James with the son of Alphaeus, Mt 10:3p, and taking him for one of the Twelve, or else understanding ‘apostle’ in the wider sense, cf. Rm 1:1+.

NJB:

[vv.18-19] Only after three years did I go up to Jerusalem to meet Cephas. I stayed fifteen days with him but did not set eyes on any of the rest of the apostles, only James, the Lord’s brother.

[Footnote] Unchanged from JB

RNJB:

[vv. 18-19] unchanged from NJB

[Footnote] This James was not one of the Twelve, so ‘apostle’ is being used in a wider sense.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

This is the same Mary who bowed her head to the ground when two angels appeared. It was fear then. Why wouldn’t it be fear now?

I understand in the instance of Lk. 24:3-5 the angel was actually addressing the women disciples, Susanna, and Mary Salome. However, that is a conversation for another day, and beside the point anyway, because even if it had been Mary Magdalene, she nor anyone else’s reactions to seeing Jesus, or even angels justifies that of the apostles in the following way:

Luke literally said Mary Magdalene was there with the others.

You are not the first, nor the last to believe this misconception, but it is easy to do. Anyway, like I said, the reason why I understand in the instance of Lk. 24:3-5 the angel was actually addressing the women disciples, Susanna, and Mary Salome is a conversation for another day, and it is beside my point anyway.

Now, you attribute the verse “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon” (Lk. 24:34) to having been spoken by the eleven apostles. Assuming that is true, and assuming Luke’s accounts in Lk. 24 are in order, after having said that, Jesus appeared amidst the apostles in the supper room (Lk. 24:36-49). And, in that instance, for the apostles present, especially Peter, to have been so fearful and disbelieving so as to act as though they had never seen, heard, or believed Jesus had risen at any point prior to does not follow your claim…

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Why not just check the link?

I prefer you just quote from that tradition exactly what gives you certainty.

Again you can read the link.

I could, but if you want me to see you can support your claim the supposed unnamed disciple at Emmaus is named Luke, then you are going to have to quote from the tradition exactly what gives you certainty of this.

I have actually posted a link from my source. You have yet to do this.

Cool, but you are going to have to respond to me with what exactly from the tradition gives you certainty of your claim, in order for me to see it. And, as you have refused to do this five times thus far I have to ask: is it strictly apathy, or do you struggle with copy/paste?

As for my claim it was Simon (not Simon Peter) who was with Cleopas at Emmaus, I have explained why, but since you need more to go on, then I’d be happy to gather other names who are in support. I’ll get back to you.

 

[Bithynian]

@Lunam_Meam, I’m not sure if you’re aware of this (or perhaps it’s an issue only affecting my browser), but 80-90% of the window space in many of your posts comprise quotations of 5-10 different previous posts. If you highlight one specific part of a post, there’ll be a small ‘Quote’ pop-up that will allow to quote that bit without incorporating everything else.