Mungo
Member
Walpole made similar points:
First, Scripture does not state Mary of Nazareth had any children other than Jesus Christ. Again, Christ is referred to as THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary.
When James and Joses are called "brothers" of Jesus, they cannot be uterine brothers because we know from the other Gospels that they are the sons of Mary of Cleophas, not Mary of Nazareth (the Mother of Jesus). St. John tells us that it is Mary of Cleophas at the cross (John 19:25) and St. Matthew tells this Mary of Cleophas is the mother of James and Joses. (Mt. 27:56). Ergo, when Scripture calls some "brothers" or "sisters" of Jesus, they cannot be uterine brothers because Mary of Nazareth is NEVER listed as anyone other than Jesus' mother.
Secondly, the modern Evangelical Protestant error of claiming Mary had subsequent maternities stems from forcing a modern Westernized concept of a family unit (i.e. a nuclear family) onto an ancient Hebrew / Semitic (tribal) culture. The ancient Hebrews did not view family in this manner. Thus to impose and presume a 21st century Western nuclear structure onto Hebrew Semitic / ancient culture is erroneous. Interpreting those passages through the lens of a modern nuclear family like we have is fallacious. The term “brother” in Jewish culture in antiquity had a much broader use in antiquity.
When you see the word "brother" in Scripture, you cannot force a modern Westernized concept of a family unit (i.e. a nuclear family) onto an ancient Hebrew / Semitic (tribal) culture. The ancient Hebrews did not view family in this manner. Thus, you skew the text by applying modern concepts to ancient cultures, thereby incorrectly interpreting those passages by doing so through the lens of a modern nuclear family.
"The units comprising the village mispahah, or kinship group, were the families of early Israel. Because these families were agriculturists, their identity and survival were integrally connected with their material world - more specifically, with their arable land, their implements for working the land and processing its products, and their domiciles - as well as with the human and also animal components of the domestic group. In many ways, the term family household is more useful in dealing with early Israelite families (although that would not be the case for the monarchical period and later, when domestic unites were more varied in their spatial aspects and economic functions). Combining family, with its kingship meanings, and household, a more flexible term including both coresident and economic functions, has descriptive merit. The family household thus included a set of related people as well as residential buildings, outbuildings, tools, equipment, fields, livestock, and orchards; it sometimes also included household members who were not kin, such as "sojourners", war captives and servants." - Families in Ancient Israel: The Family in Early Israel, Carol Meyers, pgs. 13-14
In describing early archaeological excavation of homes in Israel...
"These dwelling clusters constitute evidence for a family unit in early Israel larger than that of the nuclear family (or conjugal couple with unmarried offspring). Each pillared house in a cluster may represent the living space of a nuclear family or parts thereof, but the shared courtyard space and common house walls of the linked buildings indicate a larger family grouping. Early Israelite dwelling unites were thus complex arrangements of several buildings and housed what we might call extended families. Furthermore, thee compound dwelling unites were not isolated buildings within a settlement of single-family homes." - Ibid, pg. 16
"The family was never so 'nuclear' as it is in the modern West." - Families in Ancient Israel: Marriage, Divorce and Family in Second Temple Judaism, John J. Collins, pg. 106
Source
This is what happens when you start a religion using another religion's Scriptures, devoid of their original context, audience, tradition and most importantly, faith.
First, Scripture does not state Mary of Nazareth had any children other than Jesus Christ. Again, Christ is referred to as THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary.
When James and Joses are called "brothers" of Jesus, they cannot be uterine brothers because we know from the other Gospels that they are the sons of Mary of Cleophas, not Mary of Nazareth (the Mother of Jesus). St. John tells us that it is Mary of Cleophas at the cross (John 19:25) and St. Matthew tells this Mary of Cleophas is the mother of James and Joses. (Mt. 27:56). Ergo, when Scripture calls some "brothers" or "sisters" of Jesus, they cannot be uterine brothers because Mary of Nazareth is NEVER listed as anyone other than Jesus' mother.
Secondly, the modern Evangelical Protestant error of claiming Mary had subsequent maternities stems from forcing a modern Westernized concept of a family unit (i.e. a nuclear family) onto an ancient Hebrew / Semitic (tribal) culture. The ancient Hebrews did not view family in this manner. Thus to impose and presume a 21st century Western nuclear structure onto Hebrew Semitic / ancient culture is erroneous. Interpreting those passages through the lens of a modern nuclear family like we have is fallacious. The term “brother” in Jewish culture in antiquity had a much broader use in antiquity.
When you see the word "brother" in Scripture, you cannot force a modern Westernized concept of a family unit (i.e. a nuclear family) onto an ancient Hebrew / Semitic (tribal) culture. The ancient Hebrews did not view family in this manner. Thus, you skew the text by applying modern concepts to ancient cultures, thereby incorrectly interpreting those passages by doing so through the lens of a modern nuclear family.
"The units comprising the village mispahah, or kinship group, were the families of early Israel. Because these families were agriculturists, their identity and survival were integrally connected with their material world - more specifically, with their arable land, their implements for working the land and processing its products, and their domiciles - as well as with the human and also animal components of the domestic group. In many ways, the term family household is more useful in dealing with early Israelite families (although that would not be the case for the monarchical period and later, when domestic unites were more varied in their spatial aspects and economic functions). Combining family, with its kingship meanings, and household, a more flexible term including both coresident and economic functions, has descriptive merit. The family household thus included a set of related people as well as residential buildings, outbuildings, tools, equipment, fields, livestock, and orchards; it sometimes also included household members who were not kin, such as "sojourners", war captives and servants." - Families in Ancient Israel: The Family in Early Israel, Carol Meyers, pgs. 13-14
In describing early archaeological excavation of homes in Israel...
"These dwelling clusters constitute evidence for a family unit in early Israel larger than that of the nuclear family (or conjugal couple with unmarried offspring). Each pillared house in a cluster may represent the living space of a nuclear family or parts thereof, but the shared courtyard space and common house walls of the linked buildings indicate a larger family grouping. Early Israelite dwelling unites were thus complex arrangements of several buildings and housed what we might call extended families. Furthermore, thee compound dwelling unites were not isolated buildings within a settlement of single-family homes." - Ibid, pg. 16
"The family was never so 'nuclear' as it is in the modern West." - Families in Ancient Israel: Marriage, Divorce and Family in Second Temple Judaism, John J. Collins, pg. 106
Source
This is what happens when you start a religion using another religion's Scriptures, devoid of their original context, audience, tradition and most importantly, faith.
