Porphyry quotes the original 1 Cor 9:5 ?

[iskander]

to Giuseppe,

Bernard, can you say who had particular interest to remove only ''Lord's brothers'' but lefting behind the request of a wife for Paul, in 1 Cor 9:5 and around?

I suspect "the brothers of the Lord" was not thought good to be put forward by late 2nd, 3rd & 4th century orthodox Christian authors because, Jesus, allegedly born from a perpetual virgin with God as his biological father, is not supposed to have brothers.
Also, these authors did not feel they had to provide complete extracts of the epistles and the gospels, as for Clement of Alexandria who skipped also Peter/Cephas in the quote of 1 Cor 9:5.

As for Porphyry, he was also shortening texts when quoting Christian writings, such as:
23. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 19:
It is only natural that there is much that is unseemly in all this long-winded talk thus poured out. The words, one might say, provoke a battle of inconsistency against each other. How would some man in the street be inclined to explain that Gospel saying, which Jesus addresses to Peter when He says, "Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me, for thou mindest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men" (Matt. 16:23), and then in another place, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven"?
The bolded words are a quote from Mt 16:18-19a but omit "and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

Cordially, Bernard

The RCC pretend brothers and sisters are always used as meaning that they are either the faithful or the cousins of Jesus.

[Ben C. Smith]

But are we so sure that 'brothers of the Lord' goes against a Catholic sense?

Not against all Catholics, no. Just against the number of those who held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. But, as I mentioned, that number would not include Tertullian himself, it would seem, so he himself would have had no more reason to object to the phrase than Porphyry.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

And Tertullian himself seems to have no reason to omit the line

Even if Tertullian did not buy the perpetual virginity of Mary, he might have omitted "the brothers of the Lord" because orthodox Christians accepted the godly conception (for Jesus, but not his "brothers").

Marcion, so it seems reasonable to be open to the notion that the Marcionite text lacked it

More than reasonable, Marcion had to omit "the brothers of the Lord" due to his Christology.

Also, the entire first visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 1.18-24 is a little bit suspect, given the existence of the texual variant in Galatians 2.1 by which the "again" is omitted. If "James the brother of the Lord" does not belong in Galatians, then it might be wise to wonder whether "the brothers of the Lord" belong in 1 Corinthians.

There are few early texts not having "again" in Galatians 2:1:
"2:1 (Münster)
πάλιν ἀνέβην] p46 ‭א A B K L P Ψ 0150 6 (33* ἀνέβη) 33c 81 88 104 181 256 263 326 330 365 424 436 451 459 614 629 630 1175 1241 1319 1573 1739 1852 1877 1881 1912 1962 1984 1985 2127 2200 2464 2492 2495 Byz Lect itdem itf itx itz vg (syrp) syrh copsa arm geo2 slav Victorinus-Rome Pelagius Jerome 1/2 Theodorelat Augustine 1/2 ς WH
ἀνέβην πάλιν] D F G itar itb itd itg ito goth eth Pelagius Jerome 1/2
ἀνέβην] 075 itc vgms copbo geo1 Marcion according to Tertullian Irenaeus lat Ambrosiaster Chrysostom lem Augustine 1/2
πάλιν ἀνῆλθον] C Paschal Chronicle"
according to http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php for Galatians 2:1.
I bolded the writings with no "again".

Cordially, Bernard

[andrewcriddle]

"the brothers of the Lord" phrase was written in Papyrus 46 dated 175-225 AD.

Cordially, Bernard

http://www.cbl.ie/getdoc/4a02241d-54b6- ... glish.aspx

Quoting from a text is a creative art, and it should never be confused with plain photography. Clement of Alexandria selects the only truly important part of what Paul is saying:
“Non habemus potestatem sororem uxorem circumducendi, sicut et reliqui apostoli?”2513
2513 1 Cor. ix. 5.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata.
Book III.
CAPUT VI.—SECUNDUM GENUS HÆRETICORUM AGGREDITUR, ILLORUM SCILICET QUI EX IMPIA DE DEO OMNIUM CONDITORE SENTENTIA, CONTINENTIAM EXERCENT

How would translate , “Non habemus potestatem sororem uxorem circumducendi, sicut et reliqui apostoli?

Book 3 is translated here http://www.ccg.org/weblibs/study-papers/b3.html

"Do we not have the authority to take around a wife from the Church, like the other apostles?"

paraphrasing and understanding sister as Christian sister

Andrew Criddle

[iskander]

...


Book 3 is translated here http://www.ccg.org/weblibs/study-papers/b3.html

"Do we not have the authority to take around a wife from the Church, like the other apostles?"

paraphrasing and understanding sister as Christian sister

Andrew Criddle

I like it. Thank you

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

And Tertullian himself seems to have no reason to omit the line

Even if Tertullian did not buy the perpetual virginity of Mary, he might have omitted "the brothers of the Lord" because orthodox Christians accepted the godly conception (for Jesus, but not his "brothers").

Tertullian did not show similar sensitivity to the issue when he wrote of Jesus' brothers elsewhere, did he?

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.19.7: We, for our part, say in reply, first, that it could not possibly have been told Him that His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if He had had no mother and no brethren. They must have been known to him who announced them, either some time previously, or then at that very time, when they desired to see Him, or sent Him their message.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.19.10: Such a method of testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it; and they who were standing without were really [vere] His mother and His brethren.

Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 7.2: First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside, if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and that they were the very persons whom he was then announcing....

He seems more than willing to announce, without qualification or apology, that Jesus had brothers, does he not?

There are few early texts not having "again" in Galatians 2:1:
"2:1 (Münster)
πάλιν ἀνέβην] p46 ‭א A B K L P Ψ 0150 6 (33* ἀνέβη) 33c 81 88 104 181 256 263 326 330 365 424 436 451 459 614 629 630 1175 1241 1319 1573 1739 1852 1877 1881 1912 1962 1984 1985 2127 2200 2464 2492 2495 Byz Lect itdem itf itx itz vg (syrp) syrh copsa arm geo2 slav Victorinus-Rome Pelagius Jerome 1/2 Theodorelat Augustine 1/2 ς WH
ἀνέβην πάλιν] D F G itar itb itd itg ito goth eth Pelagius Jerome 1/2
ἀνέβην] 075 itc vgms copbo geo1 Marcion according to Tertullian Irenaeus lat Ambrosiaster Chrysostom lem Augustine 1/2
πάλιν ἀνῆλθον] C Paschal Chronicle"
according to http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php for Galatians 2:1.
I bolded the writings with no "again".

Granted, but there is also the word order to consider. If πάλιν originated as a marginal note, it would be easy to insert it either before or after the verb ἀνέβην. Often the manuscript tradition evinces such different word orders without apparent provocation, of course, but sometimes the cause is a marginal gloss differently inserted; it would explain fully why so many manuscripts have πάλιν ἀνέβην and so many others have ἀνέβην πάλιν, would it not?

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Guiseppe,

But are we so sure that 'brothers of the Lord' goes against a Catholic sense?

Yes, true blood full brothers does go against the Catholic Christology.

Was Egesippus (the first to talk explicitly about a carnal brother of Jesus called James the Just linked with Jerusalem) a Jewish-Christian or a proto-Catholic ? I don't see very a difference. Only because a proto-Catholic is born in Judaea cannot make him a Jewish-Christian!

I think Hegesippus was mostly a Jewish Christian, who may have accepted some Catholic tenets.
He appears not to go with the virgin birth and the godly conception, but because he may have been silent about it and not said anything against it, he would be accepted by orthodox Christians.

BTW, I cannot accept Hegesippus was the first one to talk about a carnal brother of Jesus. The Pauline epistles and the gospels have also Jesus having carnal brothers and these texts were written well before Hegesippus' writings.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

He seems more than willing to announce, without qualification or apology, that Jesus had brothers, does he not?

Yes, Tertullian used, front & center, "Jesus had brothers" from the pericope about Mary and the brothers going to Capernaum, to "prove" Marcion was wrong (about Jesus having not been an earthly human).
But in the two Tertullian's texts you quoted, "the brothers of the Lord" from 1 Cor 9:5 can be omitted without affecting his argumentation (which is not about proving Jesus had been an earthly human!).

Granted, but there is also the word order to consider. If πάλιν originated as a marginal note, it would be easy to insert it either before or after the verb ἀνέβην. Often the manuscript tradition evinces such different word orders without apparent provocation, of course, but sometimes the cause is a marginal gloss differently inserted; it would explain fully why so many manuscripts have πάλιν ἀνέβην and so many others have ἀνέβην πάλιν, would it not?

Looking again at:

"2:1 (Münster)
πάλιν ἀνέβην] p46 ‭א A B K L P Ψ 0150 6 (33* ἀνέβη) 33c 81 88 104 181 256 263 326 330 365 424 436 451 459 614 629 630 1175 1241 1319 1573 1739 1852 1877 1881 1912 1962 1984 1985 2127 2200 2464 2492 2495 Byz Lect itdem itf itx itz vg (syrp) syrh copsa arm geo2 slav Victorinus-Rome Pelagius Jerome 1/2 Theodorelat Augustine 1/2 ς WH
ἀνέβην πάλιν] D F G itar itb itd itg ito goth eth Pelagius Jerome 1/2
ἀνέβην] 075 itc vgms copbo geo1 Marcion according to Tertullian Irenaeus lat Ambrosiaster Chrysostom lem Augustine 1/2
πάλιν ἀνῆλθον] C Paschal Chronicle"

How would you fit in your theory the fact Augustine wrote one version with "again" (as the first word of the verse), and another without,
AND
Jerome wrote one version with "again" (as the first word of the verse), and another one with "again" also, but as the second word?

I think it it simpler to think Jerome and Augustine were not always exact about quoting verse 2:1 from Galatians. And the same would apply to other Christian writers and also to the copyists who initiated the variants from πάλιν ἀνέβην.

Cordially, Bernard

[iskander]

The "sister wife" phrase .



"In honouring a Christian wife with the name of sister, he intimates, first of all, by this, how firm and lovely ought to be the connection between a pious pair, being held by a double tie. Farther, he hints at the same time what modesty and honourable conduct ought to subsist between them. Hence, too, we may infer how very far marriage is from being unsuitable to the ministers of the Church.

I pass over the fact, that the Apostles made use of it, as to whose example we shall have occasion to speak ere long, but Paul here teaches, in general terms, what is allowable for all.

One thing farther must here be noticed, that the Apostles had no horror of marriage, which the Papal clergy so much abominate, as unbecoming the sanctity of their order. But it was after their time that that admirable discovery was made, that the priests of the Lord are polluted if they have intercourse with their lawful wives ; and, at length matters came to such a pitch, that Pope Siricius did not hesitate to call marriage " a pollution of the flesh, in which no one can please God." "

COMMENTARY THE EPISTLES OF PAUL THE APOSTLE THE CORINTHIANS.
BY JOHN CALVIN.

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

He seems more than willing to announce, without qualification or apology, that Jesus had brothers, does he not?

Yes, Tertullian used, front & center, "Jesus had brothers" from the pericope about Mary and the brothers going to Capernaum, to "prove" Marcion was wrong (about Jesus having not been an earthly human).
But in the two Tertullian's texts you quoted, "the brothers of the Lord" from 1 Cor 9:5 can be omitted without affecting his argumentation (which is not about proving Jesus had been an earthly human!).

This appears to be speculation as to what Tertullian might have done, at least until you can provide an instance or two of him exercising the same kind of sensitivity in this area.

Granted, but there is also the word order to consider. If πάλιν originated as a marginal note, it would be easy to insert it either before or after the verb ἀνέβην. Often the manuscript tradition evinces such different word orders without apparent provocation, of course, but sometimes the cause is a marginal gloss differently inserted; it would explain fully why so many manuscripts have πάλιν ἀνέβην and so many others have ἀνέβην πάλιν, would it not?

Looking again at:

"2:1 (Münster)
πάλιν ἀνέβην] p46 ‭א A B K L P Ψ 0150 6 (33* ἀνέβη) 33c 81 88 104 181 256 263 326 330 365 424 436 451 459 614 629 630 1175 1241 1319 1573 1739 1852 1877 1881 1912 1962 1984 1985 2127 2200 2464 2492 2495 Byz Lect itdem itf itx itz vg (syrp) syrh copsa arm geo2 slav Victorinus-Rome Pelagius Jerome 1/2 Theodorelat Augustine 1/2 ς WH
ἀνέβην πάλιν] D F G itar itb itd itg ito goth eth Pelagius Jerome 1/2
ἀνέβην] 075 itc vgms copbo geo1 Marcion according to Tertullian Irenaeus lat Ambrosiaster Chrysostom lem Augustine 1/2
πάλιν ἀνῆλθον] C Paschal Chronicle"

How would you fit in your theory the fact Augustine wrote one version with "again" (as the first word of the verse), and another without,
AND
Jerome wrote one version with "again" (as the first word of the verse), and another one with "again" also, but as the second word?

I think it it simpler to think Jerome and Augustine were not always exact about quoting verse 2:1 from Galatians. And the same would apply to other Christian writers and also to the copyists who initiated the variants from πάλιν ἀνέβην.

Well, obviously I would have to look at the Hieronymian and Augustinian passages in question before making a judgment. I have found one of the former, but have not located the other, nor either of the Augustinian.

That said, yes, it is always possible for the fathers to quote selectively and paraphrastically. The scribes ought not be quite as free as the fathers might be, but they sometimes could be, and of course they could have dropped words accidentally.

The case for the first visit being an interpolation in Galatians 1 would have to be cumulative, of course. No single piece of evidence is the steel hammer that nails down the case once and for all. And my primary interest here was 1 Corinthians 9.5.