The 3 James Theory

[Eliza10]

Ma’am, please, in all charity, no throwing the baby with the bathwater, no attacking the messenger. And let’s cut back on the ‘idiotic drivel’.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. What baby and bathwater? And I gave EXAMPLES of what is idiotic drivel, and its pretty hard to refute that it is IDIOTIC.

[editing to add: I forgot that I used the word “idiotic” - its not usual for me, but, between the lewd midwife and the man who got changed into a MULE dressed in silk, that word came up!]

Okay, fine, even if we discount the apocryphal literature and the two Alexandrians,

But, why in the world would you NOT discount them??

This is a Catholic forum. Not a Gnostic forum. This is the subforum for Sacred Scripture. Why in the world would you use Gnosticism to explain Holy Scripture?

Its just NOT RIGHT. You are going to MISLEAD the faithful here, throwing these names and quoting these works, leading unknowing readers of this Catholic forum to think that the apocryphals are a valid resource. They are NOT.
.
.

that still leaves Epiphanius, Eusebius, and the Eastern Churches. Are Epiphanius and Eusebius somehow less ‘Catholic’ than Jerome? Is the Latin Church the only thing that matters now? No wonder there are some Eastern Catholics out there who feel marginalized.

It seems like this is not a real discussion. Its a pile of name-dropping and cut n’ pastes. But when you look into the names and the read the sources of the cut n’ pastes it just gets *sad. *

And now you are challenging me for arguments I never made or even heard of. This “less Catholic than Jerome” “only the Latin Church matters” - where does THAT come from??? Oh, I get it - this is what they call a “Straw Man”.

But WHY?

Also I don’t know about any Eastern Catholics who feel marginalized. The ones I know seem very happy with their rite and traditions, and in fact they feel fortunate not to be saddled with some of the liturgical inventiveness that we are.

Epiphanius and Eusebius - But I already addressed JB Bro’s Eusebius reference in post #48, further up this page. And he had no response! Probably because there isn’t **one. So then is Epiphanius’s alleged support of JB Bro’s theory ALSO more unsupported conjecture? So how can there be any hope of real discussion? Its just name-dropping.

If you and JB Bro want to believe his “3 James’ Theory”, you can. I don’t. I know for sure I am admiring St. Jerome more and more after this thread! A true scholar and a true man of God!
.
.
.

 

[BartholomewB]

Patrick

Just a note to endorse what you said in your post #59. Jerome never accused Epiphanius, or any of the earlier writers on the “stepbrothers” side of the argument, of being “unChristian or “unCatholic” on that account. Similarly, no one ever accused Jerome of being “unChristian” or “unCatholic” because he preferred the “cousins” hypothesis.

Regards
Bart

 

[Eliza10]

Patrick

Just a note to endorse what you said in your post #59. Jerome never accused Epiphanius, or any of the earlier writers on the “stepbrothers” side of the argument, of being “unChristian or “unCatholic” on that account. Similarly, no one ever accused Jerome of being “unChristian” or “unCatholic” because he preferred the “cousins” hypothesis.

Regards
Bart

This has been already said in this thread, but it bears repeating. Yes, it is true. Catholics can believe either one of those theories concerning how to interpret the scripture concerning the brothers of Our Lord.

Just don’t use apocryphal and Gnostic works to explain your scripture! THAT would be unCatholic, and unChristian!

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I don’t understand what you are saying here. What baby and bathwater? And I gave EXAMPLES of what is idiotic drivel, and its pretty hard to refute that it is IDIOTIC.

[editing to add: I forgot that I used the word “idiotic” - its not usual for me, but, between the lewd midwife and the man who got changed into a MULE dressed in silk, that word came up!]

But, why in the world would you NOT discount them??

This is a Catholic forum. Not a Gnostic forum. This is the subforum for Sacred Scripture. Why in the world would you use Gnosticism to explain Holy Scripture?

Its just NOT RIGHT. You are going to MISLEAD the faithful here, throwing these names and quoting these works, leading unknowing readers of this Catholic forum to think that the apocryphals are a valid resource. They are NOT.
.
.

It seems like this is not a real discussion. Its a pile of name-dropping and cut n’ pastes. But when you look into the names and the read the sources of the cut n’ pastes it just gets *sad. *

And now you are challenging me for arguments I never made or even heard of. This “less Catholic than Jerome” “only the Latin Church matters” - where does THAT come from??? Oh, I get it - this is what they call a “Straw Man”.

But WHY?

Also I don’t know about any Eastern Catholics who feel marginalized. The ones I know seem very happy with their rite and traditions, and in fact they feel fortunate not to be saddled with some of the liturgical inventiveness that we are.

Epiphanius and Eusebius - But I already addressed JB Bro’s Eusebius reference in post #48, further up this page. And he had no response! Probably because there isn’t **one. So then is Epiphanius’s alleged support of JB Bro’s theory ALSO more unsupported conjecture? So how can there be any hope of real discussion? Its just name-dropping.

If you and JB Bro want to believe his “3 James’ Theory”, you can. I don’t. I know for sure I am admiring St. Jerome more and more after this thread! A true scholar and a true man of God!
.
.
.

I did. You just refused to read my post. “Eusebius refers to James the Righteous as a son of Joseph…”
You also haven’t adressed my Bible quotes. “His family went to restrain him, for they said,'He is out of his mind.” Presumably James was among those family members. Although most Catholics will reference the cousin theory, they won’t usually conflate the two. And nowhere does it say in Jerome that James the less and James the just are the same. End of story.

 

[Eliza10]

I did. You just refused to read my post. “Eusebius refers to James the Righteous as a son of Joseph…”

I missed this, but then it seems you miss pretty much all of what I write. Its not a very good conversation. Eusebius certainly is a better reference than those horrible ones you have used here. Even though I don’t agree with you, its fair to say your theory is definitely not so far out as the unCatholic apocryphals you cited. And no one is saying its unCatholic to subscribe to your theory.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I missed this, but then it seems you miss pretty much all of what I write. Its not a very good conversation. Eusebius certainly is a better reference than those horrible ones you have used here. Even though I don’t agree with you, its fair to say your theory is definitely not so far out as the unCatholic apocryphals you cited. And no one is saying its unCatholic to subscribe to your theory.

What about Ephiphanius? Is he horrible?

 

[Usagi]

I missed this, but then it seems you miss pretty much all of what I write. Its not a very good conversation. Eusebius certainly is a better reference than those horrible ones you have used here. Even though I don’t agree with you, its fair to say your theory is definitely not so far out as the unCatholic apocryphals you cited. And no one is saying its unCatholic to subscribe to your theory.

I don’t think anyone is saying that those apocryphal works should be held up as true and good in all their particulars. They do, however, provide examples that the “stepbrother” idea was held at the time they were written. Even more so, and importantly for some Catholic apologetic purposes, they provide evidence that the perpetual virginity of Mary was believed – indeed, taken for granted – at that time. Sure, they’re fiction, and maybe terrible fiction (though I believe the Protevangelium at least is considered orthodox in its speculations), but they reflect what Christians believed at the time.

 

[patrick457]

I don’t think anyone is saying that those apocryphal works should be held up as true and good in all their particulars. They do, however, provide examples that the “stepbrother” idea was held at the time they were written. Even more so, and importantly for some Catholic apologetic purposes, they provide evidence that the perpetual virginity of Mary was believed – indeed, taken for granted – at that time. Sure, they’re fiction, and maybe terrible fiction (though I believe the Protevangelium at least is considered orthodox in its speculations), but they reflect what Christians believed at the time.

Exactly. This is what I’m saying. I was not quoting the two apocryphals as Scripture, nor even “to explain Scripture,” nor was I asserting that they are historically factual or that they’re 100% unproblematic / un-weird. As you mention, Catholic apologists even quote from the Protoevangelium to show that the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is ancient. In fact, Eliza ma’am, the story about St. Joseph going to the Temple and being chosen because of the rods you refer to in your earlier post? The Protoevangelium is the first written record of that basic story!

This tradition says that Our Lady, who had vowed herself chastely to God alone, was asked by the rabbi’s of the Temple where she lived from a young age, to marry, and so the Handmaid of the Lord obeyed the servants of God. The rabbi’s chose Joseph after calling the unmarried men of the House of David to the Temple (and St. Joseph obeyed, trusting to God his vow) and they all brought branches, and after prayer, it was Josephs branch that sprouted lilies, and that is how he was chosen and that is why we see over the centuries in the Holy Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, statues and icons of St.Joseph with the lilies.

Let me quote that again:

Joseph cast aside his carpenter’s axe and went to their meeting. When they had gathered together they went to the priest, bringing their rods. When he had received the rods from them he went into the Temple and prayed. When he finished his prayer, he took the rods, went outside, and gave them back. And no sign appeared among them. But Joseph took the last rod, and behold! A dove came out of the rod and flew onto Joseph’s head. The priest said to Joseph, “You have been chosen to take the Lord’s virgin into your safekeeping.” But Joseph refused, saying, “I have sons and am an old man; she is but a child. I do not want to become a laughingstock to the sons of Israel.”
Protoevangelium of James 9.1-2

 

[patrick457]

Now (this is to Eliza10), when I said “do not throw the baby with the bathwater,” this is what I mean: pick the good stuff and weed out the bad. What I kind of got from your last posts was (I hope I’m not misunderstanding you here), you’re really judging the two Alexandrians and the two apocryphals based on what you see is offensive material in them. You’re dismissing them wholesale just because you’ve found something problematic/weird in them.

I’ll pick the two Alexandrians as my example. Yes, most everyone knows Origen did express some ideas which are really theologically problematic (for example, transmigration) and he was condemned for it, and yes, Clement did at times use rather gnostic-like language (but here’s the key thing - he used such language against the gnostics), but that doesn’t mean that we can never read or quote them (heck, even the Catechism quotes Origen in a number of places; Clementpraised), or that their writings have absolutely no value whatsoever.

To Origen’s credit, he was a very learned biblical scholar (in a way, St. Jerome - despite his later harsh opinion against the man and his theology - was kind of standing on Origen’s shoulders), and he made it clear in his writings which was just his personal opinion and speculation. He knew how to draw the line. (Not something many of us do today. )

As for the apocryphals, two things: (1) ‘apocryphal’ literature does not necessarily equate to ‘gnostic’ literature (just because they’re apocryphal or just because they have kind of weird material does not make them ‘gnostic’), and (2) please learn the context in which these works were written. I’ll be willing to elaborate if you want.

P.S. I was going to post a reply to a post Eliza10 made in another thread here, but I accidentally closed the tab. Granted, that post was more agigated/harsher in tone, which looking back at it wouldn’t have helped really. Providence I guess?

P.P.S. Clement didn’t say “Christ’s earthly body was an illusion”, what he said was, that Jesus’ body was impassible, incapable of feeling any pleasure or pain. In fact, he thought that He never even really needed to eat (because His body “was kept together by a holy energy”), but He did so anyway in order so that people will not fall into docetism, the idea that Jesus did not have an earthly body.

While this idea of an impassible Jesus might seem weird and problematic to us today (after all, what’s the use of the Passion if that was the case?) at the time Clement was writing, guess what? Many orthodox Christians in his day didn’t have a problem having such a view (that Jesus ate and drank merely “for our sakes” even though He didn’t really need to, just like how He suffered and died “for our sakes” even though He didn’t have to), because doctrine was not as clearly defined as it is now.

The Gnostic is such, that he is subject only to the affections that exist for the maintenance of the body, such as hunger, thirst, and the like. But in the case of the Saviour, it were ludicrous [to suppose] that the body, as a body, demanded the necessary aids in order to its duration. For He ate, not for the sake of the body, which was kept together by a holy energy, but in order that it might not enter into the minds of those who were with Him to entertain a different opinion of Him; in like manner as certainly some afterwards supposed that He appeared in a phantasmal shape. But He was entirely impassible; inaccessible to any movement of feeling— either pleasure or pain. (Stromata 6.9)

And this is where context is important: the Alexandrian school of theology traditionally emphasized the divinity of Jesus over His humanity; the other early Christian school, the Antiochian, meanwhile emphasized His humanity.

That’s why Origen and Clement could sound rather docetic/gnostic at times (even though they’re not): the school of theology they belonged to has a rather unique perspective. The Alexandrian school had traditionally approached the question of Jesus’ two natures from the divine angle, on how God could become a human, while the Antiochian school focused on the human angle, on how the man Jesus could be divine. That, and you also have to remember that the Alexandrians loved allegory - sometimes excessively so. In fact, one fault of Origen was, there were times when he was reading too much into the Text, over-allegorizing it.

 

[Eliza10]

What about Ephiphanius? Is he horrible?

I didn’t comment on Ephiphanis. I found this: “Saint Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus: ‘a last relic of ancient piety,’ as St. Jerome calls him”. An endorsement from St. Jerome is great. I love that man. I am sure if St. Jerome disagreed with him on anything it was only for very good reason, scholar that he was. And I would expect it to not be a serious matter of faith or morals, since he spoke highly of him there.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I didn’t comment on Ephiphanis. I found this: “Saint Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus: ‘a last relic of ancient piety,’ as St. Jerome calls him”. An endorsement from St. Jerome is great. I love that man. I am sure if St. Jerome disagreed with him on anything it was only for very good reason, scholar that he was. And I would expect it to not be a serious matter of faith or morals, since he spoke highly of him there.

My point: Jerome isn’t the only Biblical scholar out there.

 

[Eliza10]

My point: Jerome isn’t the only Biblical scholar out there.

This whole discussion with you guys makes me tired.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

This whole discussion with you guys makes me tired.

Did you read my post?

 

[patrick457]

This whole discussion with you guys makes me tired.

I feel for you. Me too.

 

[Eliza10]

I feel for you. Me too.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Same with me.