Justin: apostles = brothers of Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Justin: apostles = brothers of Jesus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

jude77 wrote: Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:29 pmThat's a very good point. I think it's always wise to be suspicious when the perfect evidence to prove a point just "happens" to show up at the perfect time.
But, on the other hand, was Marcion just being an idiot and denying the obvious? Well, it certainly has happened before.
To wit:
"I did not have sex with that woman, Miss lewinsky."
"I am not a crook."
"Ninety percent of my emails as Secretary of State were, according to the State Department, “already in the system.”

People sometimes say what fits their theory and just hope nobody ever notices.
Sure, but what all three of your examples have in common is that the lie was covering up information having to do with private matters, not with public knowledge. Further information had to come out in order to expose the untruth as what it was. So their fitness as examples would seem to me to depend very much upon exactly how public such knowledge about James the "brother of the Lord" might have been in the early church.

James himself seems to have been pretty famous; he pops up everywhere. So perhaps it was only his physical relationship to Jesus that was relatively unknown? But how could that information have been private knowledge? I am not saying it is impossible; but I do think it merits consideration, and I think we ought to come up with different analogies, since the famous relatives of a famous person are hardly as covert, ordinarily, as clandestine affairs, cloak-and-dagger operations in a private hotel room, and the contents of secure email servers are meant to be.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
jude77
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:15 am
Location: The Beach

Re: Justin: apostles = brothers of Jesus

Post by jude77 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:01 pm
jude77 wrote: Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:29 pmThat's a very good point. I think it's always wise to be suspicious when the perfect evidence to prove a point just "happens" to show up at the perfect time.
But, on the other hand, was Marcion just being an idiot and denying the obvious? Well, it certainly has happened before.
To wit:
"I did not have sex with that woman, Miss lewinsky."
"I am not a crook."
"Ninety percent of my emails as Secretary of State were, according to the State Department, “already in the system.”

People sometimes say what fits their theory and just hope nobody ever notices.
Sure, but what all three of your examples have in common is that the lie was covering up information having to do with private matters, not with public knowledge. Further information had to come out in order to expose the untruth as what it was. So their fitness as examples would seem to me to depend very much upon exactly how public such knowledge about James the "brother of the Lord" might have been in the early church.

James himself seems to have been pretty famous; he pops up everywhere. So perhaps it was only his physical relationship to Jesus that was relatively unknown? But how could that information have been private knowledge? I am not saying it is impossible; but I do think it merits consideration, and I think we ought to come up with different analogies, since the famous relatives of a famous person are hardly as covert, ordinarily, as clandestine affairs, cloak-and-dagger operations in a private hotel room, and the contents of secure email servers are meant to be.
Indeed. Good points all.
My contention (rather poorly made) is that even Marcion could have engaged in confirmation bias and simply ignored evidence that didn't fit his theology. To me, we have to always remember that just as the Gospel writers had an agenda, so did people like Marcion.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Justin: apostles = brothers of Jesus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

jude77 wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:02 amMy contention (rather poorly made) is that even Marcion could have engaged in confirmation bias and simply ignored evidence that didn't fit his theology. To me, we have to always remember that just as the Gospel writers had an agenda, so did people like Marcion.
Oh, I totally agree. Some people assume that the Catholics were right and that Marcion corrupted the primitive orthodox doctrine, others that Marcion was right and that the Catholics did the corrupting (or "Judaizing"). I make neither assumption, and the truth may well be that both sides were engaged in the business of modifying and interpreting earlier doctrines, traditions, stories, and texts.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Justin: apostles = brothers of Jesus

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:39 am
jude77 wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:02 amMy contention (rather poorly made) is that even Marcion could have engaged in confirmation bias and simply ignored evidence that didn't fit his theology. To me, we have to always remember that just as the Gospel writers had an agenda, so did people like Marcion.
Oh, I totally agree. Some people assume that the Catholics were right and that Marcion corrupted the primitive orthodox doctrine, others that Marcion was right and that the Catholics did the corrupting (or "Judaizing"). I make neither assumption, and the truth may well be that both sides were engaged in the business of modifying and interpreting earlier doctrines, traditions, stories, and texts.
My thing against Catholic "Judaizing" is that, as far as I am aware (if you don't count Hegesippus, and I don't), by and large Catholics don't seem to have been comfortable with the understanding that Jesus had literal brothers, hence the various other ideas that have prevailed. As the Wikipedia page for Jesus' brothers puts it:
That the brothers were children of both Mary and Joseph was held by some people of the early centuries; The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church claimed that Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225) was one of them. The 3rd-century Antidicomarianites ("opponents of Mary") maintained that, when Joseph became Mary's husband, he was a widower with six children, and that he had normal marital relations with Mary, but they later held that Jesus was not born of these relations. Bonosus was a bishop who in the late 4th century held that Mary had other children after Jesus, for which the other bishops of his province condemned him. Jovinian, and various Arian teachers such as Photinus held a similar view. When Helvidius proposed it, again in the late 4th century, Jerome, representing the general opinion of the Church, maintained that Mary remained always a virgin; he held that those who were called the brothers and sisters of Jesus were actually children of Mary's sister, another Mary, whom he considered the wife of Clopas. The terms "brothers" and "sisters" as used in this context are open to different interpretations, and have been argued to refer to children of Joseph by a previous marriage (the view of Epiphanius of Salamis), Mary's sister's children (the view of Jerome), or children of Clopas, who according to Hegesippus was Joseph's brother, and of a woman who was not a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (a modern proposal).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus
So it's always seemed strange to me to suppose that Catholics invented the literal brother relationship to refute Marcion, when they don't even subscribe to the idea themselves. If anything (in my view), it was as much an "obstacle" for Catholics as it was for Marcion, just for different reasons; for Marcion it went against his idea that Christianity was Judaism-free, and for Catholics it went against the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity (or whatever).

I think it all boils down to Mark not being embarrassed/concerned about/what have you with presenting Jesus as having literal brothers. It was only after this (for Marcion and Catholics, and apparently Gnostics too) that it became an issue.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Justin: apostles = brothers of Jesus

Post by Secret Alias »

I see no evidence that Jesus having a brother or brothers was anything more than assertion made by a very small (perhaps even one forger) circle. What evidence is there really for a college of brothers or simply brothers of the Lord? Where 'Marcionites' seem to have had some reality (physical presence) where is this tradition associated with the brothers of Jesus? It doesn't exist.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Justin: apostles = brothers of Jesus

Post by John T »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:55 am
So according to this view the James in Gal 1:19 would be only an apostle. Not the biological brother of Jesus.
Actually, Paul is trying to make it clear which James he is referring to by stating he is talking about the sibling brother of Jesus, a.k.a. James the Just who is in charge of the church in Jerusalem. James is more than an apostle, he is the physical brother of Jesus and thus a direct heir.

In other words, Paul is bragging that he personally talked to the top brass (pillars) about his conversion/contrition and if they can forgive him and accept him as a fellow apostle, so should you.
Galatians 2:9.


Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
jude77
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:15 am
Location: The Beach

Re: Justin: apostles = brothers of Jesus

Post by jude77 »

I would say purely from a statistical point of view that Jesus had to have brothers and sisters. Today the birthrate of the most underdeveloped countries is about 6:1. I would assume that a similar birthrate could be found in the ancient Middle East (more or less). Just a guess on my part, but it certainly seems reasonable to me.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Justin: apostles = brothers of Jesus

Post by Michael BG »

I think that a discussion of “brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19) and “bothers of the Lord” (1 Cor 9:5) as interpolations is an interesting one, but I am not sure the evidence for them being interpolations is strong enough no matter how appealing the theories are.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:39 am Some people assume that the Catholics were right and that Marcion corrupted the primitive orthodox doctrine, others that Marcion was right and that the Catholics did the corrupting (or "Judaizing"). I make neither assumption, and the truth may well be that both sides were engaged in the business of modifying and interpreting earlier doctrines, traditions, stories, and texts.
We have Mark (3:32) with his brothers and sisters of Jesus. If the Marcion gospel contained (Lk 8:20-21) as suggested by Dieter T. Roth,
[20] And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you."
[21] But he said to them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it."
Can we sensibly conclude that this is an edited down version which once included Lk 8:19
Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd
If the Marcion gospel was first I don’t think it wouldn’t contain verse 20, but according to Tertullian the Marcionites accepted verse 20 but interpreted it differently. I think verse 20 is not necessary Jesus could just have declared “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it” without any need for any mention of physical brothers. This therefore seems to me to be evidence that the Lucan version was earlier than the Marcionite version. Also if the saying was a Marcionite creation I think it would have been better if it had been, “My brothers and my sisters are those who hear the word of God and do it” with no mention of mothers.

(As always I am grateful for Ben C Smith for providing what Roth says is in the Marcionite gospel along with quotes to support that conclusion - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765#p39306)

If the Lucan version is earlier then if biological brothers of Jesus were created they must have been created before the Marcionite gospel was written and not against them.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Justin: apostles = brothers of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

@John2
If anything (in my view), it was as much an "obstacle" for Catholics as it was for Marcion, just for different reasons; for Marcion it went against his idea that Christianity was Judaism-free, and for Catholics it went against the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity (or whatever)
this is the reason because I like to talk about a wider group of "Judaizers", including not only Catholics but also separationists, adoptionists, ebionites, etc, surely equally interested to prove that the physical recipient of the divine Christ was pro Torah and devoted to YHWH against the Gnostics and marcionites (and so in need of a carnal brother rooted in Judaism).

And note that even in the our catholicized epistle to Galatians we have a negative portrait of James in Gal 2: he is even more bad than Peter insofar his messengers are the "tempters" of Peter.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Justin: apostles = brothers of Jesus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:44 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:39 am
jude77 wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:02 amMy contention (rather poorly made) is that even Marcion could have engaged in confirmation bias and simply ignored evidence that didn't fit his theology. To me, we have to always remember that just as the Gospel writers had an agenda, so did people like Marcion.
Oh, I totally agree. Some people assume that the Catholics were right and that Marcion corrupted the primitive orthodox doctrine, others that Marcion was right and that the Catholics did the corrupting (or "Judaizing"). I make neither assumption, and the truth may well be that both sides were engaged in the business of modifying and interpreting earlier doctrines, traditions, stories, and texts.
My thing against Catholic "Judaizing" is that, as far as I am aware (if you don't count Hegesippus, and I don't), by and large Catholics don't seem to have been comfortable with the understanding that Jesus had literal brothers, hence the various other ideas that have prevailed. As the Wikipedia page for Jesus' brothers puts it:
That the brothers were children of both Mary and Joseph was held by some people of the early centuries; The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church claimed that Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225) was one of them. The 3rd-century Antidicomarianites ("opponents of Mary") maintained that, when Joseph became Mary's husband, he was a widower with six children, and that he had normal marital relations with Mary, but they later held that Jesus was not born of these relations. Bonosus was a bishop who in the late 4th century held that Mary had other children after Jesus, for which the other bishops of his province condemned him. Jovinian, and various Arian teachers such as Photinus held a similar view. When Helvidius proposed it, again in the late 4th century, Jerome, representing the general opinion of the Church, maintained that Mary remained always a virgin; he held that those who were called the brothers and sisters of Jesus were actually children of Mary's sister, another Mary, whom he considered the wife of Clopas. The terms "brothers" and "sisters" as used in this context are open to different interpretations, and have been argued to refer to children of Joseph by a previous marriage (the view of Epiphanius of Salamis), Mary's sister's children (the view of Jerome), or children of Clopas, who according to Hegesippus was Joseph's brother, and of a woman who was not a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (a modern proposal).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus
So it's always seemed strange to me to suppose that Catholics invented the literal brother relationship to refute Marcion, when they don't even subscribe to the idea themselves.
I think it very clearly went in layers (and that this is so no matter whether Jesus really had blood brothers or not). The earliest layers were happy to ascribe brothers to Jesus. It was only when Mary's perpetual virginity became a thing that the brothers had to turn into cousins or sons of Joseph by a previous wife or whatnot. Doctrinal emphases change over time.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply