tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post4577007389118348754..comments2024-03-12T04:14:16.271-05:00Comments on The Rad Trad: Josephology Part 6: Jerome Contra PatresThe Rad Tradhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899289024837953345noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-59468507988174905282020-05-15T16:46:25.046-05:002020-05-15T16:46:25.046-05:00In all honesty, I think the most likely scenario i...In all honesty, I think the most likely scenario is that the “brethren of the Lord” is a mixture of step-siblings from Joseph’s previous marriage AND maternally (at least, if not also paternally) related cousins.<br /><br />As to which camp St, James falls into, one part of me wants to side with Jerome (and also apparently Chrysostom, thank you “J.”!) because this would actually be able to be pieced together from the testimony of Scripture, it’s a very reasonable inference when you look at the biblical data. OTOH, if tradition as a whole gravitates towards being one of St. Joseph’s children and being Our Lord’s stepbrother, I am at no liberty whatsoever to say this view is wrong.john churchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12495607339468299146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-75180253189781154642017-07-09T11:02:46.185-05:002017-07-09T11:02:46.185-05:00The Proto-Gospel of James is not canonical, but it...The Proto-Gospel of James is not canonical, but it does not follow that it is simply false. It may still contain some aspects of an oral tradition of the Holy Family that would otherwise have been lost.J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04821093432726247774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-75291383494982679022017-07-04T22:11:16.129-05:002017-07-04T22:11:16.129-05:00You make a strong point in quoting many Church Fat...You make a strong point in quoting many Church Fathers here, i do however have a little thing to say about the quote of Origen talking about the tradition of the"Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James" but, they are apocryphal and therefore false books, correct?Luis Verahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742345748392512728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-64309866417535879572015-04-22T15:50:51.818-05:002015-04-22T15:50:51.818-05:00Mr. Bob,
I am asking many questions beyond Joseph...Mr. Bob,<br /><br />I am asking many questions beyond Joseph's old age and his natural patrimony, and especially about some of the more bizarre claims of modern-day Josephite apologists. Most importantly, I'm establishing patterns of belief and devotion in the early Church, and examining how and why they changed over time.<br /><br />As to some specifics:<br /><br />Chrysostom says that the James mentioned in Galatians was the son of Cleophas, but was also reputed to be the brother of Christ by birth. Since Christ was reputed to be the son of Joseph, this would make no sense unless either Cleophas and Joseph are the same person, or if Joseph married Cleophas' widow in a Levirate marriage and raised his children as his own. Both possibilities were actually suggested by patristic commentators.<br /><br />Theophylact is quoted here because he was referenced in the list on the OSJ website. I'm not sure why Fr. Bilodeau listed him among the Fathers, but I thought I should offer a selection for the sake of thoroughness.<br /><br />The other Fathers you're dissecting are not arguing straight out of Scripture, but from the context of an existing Tradition, even if they are not explicitly acknowledging that Tradition. Otherwise, how could they all be coming to the same conclusion, based solely on the rather thin evidence of Scripture? The belief that Joseph was an elderly widower--first written down in the Proto-Gospel of James, but too widely accepted to have originated there--was not doubted until Jerome. Scripture commentators frequently argue from the text for a traditional belief without explicitly stating that there is an existing Tradition.<br /><br />Jerome is surely right that the term "brethren" is used in a multiplicity of ways in Scripture (referring to relationships of nature, kindred, race, or love). He does not adequately demonstrate that the usage in the reference to the "brethren of the Lord" referred to "kindred" instead of "nature" in the eyes of the Jews. The crowds most likely thought these brethren were such by nature (that is, half-brothers), while in fact they were so by kindred (since Joseph was not Christ's father, but Mary was kindred to Joseph, thus making Christ biological kindred to Joseph's sons). But because Joseph was Christ's legal father or stepfather, it is not wrong to refer to this group as brethren by way of nature in that regard. Hebrew adoption bonds were often considered to be as strong as blood.J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04821093432726247774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-52255963049857541522015-04-22T12:24:10.983-05:002015-04-22T12:24:10.983-05:00Chrysostom says, "he was not by birth His bro...Chrysostom says, "he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed." This does not support your contention at all. In fact, Chrysostom says that he is <i>not</i> the son of Joseph, saying in the same place that this James is the son of Cleophas.<br /><br />Cyril of Alexandria supports the hypothesis on the basis of a verse applied to Jeremiah (Jer. 12:6, "For even thy brethren, and the house of thy father, even they have fought against thee"). Trying to establish Joseph's parenthood on the basis of this verse alone would be like offering Psalm 68:9 (I am become a stranger to my brethren, and an alien to the sons of my mother") as definitive proof that Mary had other children after Christ.<br /><br />Theophylact is so far separated from this time period that you might as well have cited St. Thomas Aquinas, who you dismiss. It should also be noted that all the other authors (with the exception of Origen) are more or less contemporaneous (give or take a Century) and St. Jerome is not the last of them. There can be no argument from antiquity on the basis of these authors.<br /><br />So in reality, all these texts examined, the holders of "Jospeh, father of the brethren of the Lord" are of no greater force than Jerome, since they are reasoning only from the text of Scripture, as Jerome did. If Jerome did it better, his opinion should be taken over those of all the others. And, again, realize that none of these authors dismissed Jerome's opinion, it just didn't occur to them, probably because they lacked Jerome's expertise in Hebrew language and culture.<br /><br />Among other things, the explanation given by the father's is simply inadequate. For example, consider that the first chapter of Acts gives the disciples in the Upper Room as the Apostles, the women, "persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." Then Luke states that there was about 120 people there. Presumably, the bulk of these 120 would have come from Jesus' brethren. Were all these step-brothers from Joseph's previous marriage? This is easily explained by reading "brethren" as something more like kinsmen, like Jerome says. So to easily explain this passage, we have to propose Jerome's solution to explain at least some of the brethren, proving that the reasoning of the other authors above was incomplete.StrongmanBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11576053748129020949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-25681301231329500342015-04-22T12:24:02.907-05:002015-04-22T12:24:02.907-05:00You are really asking two major separate questions...You are really asking two major separate questions, (1) whether Joseph was an old man, (2) whether he had biological children by a previous marriage. Since the Church does not propose either as a binding article of faith. I am happy to remain an agnostic on both points, and refrain from ridiculing people who believe either. However, I am going to have to side with Latinmass1983 here, since your analysis is so lopsided. You are holding these writers to a double standard. First, in general, these writers are only engaging in speculation on the basis of Scripture, not repeating apostolic tradition believed by all, at all times in all places. Second, not even all of these have any bearing on your argument.<br /><br />Origen gives the opinion that the "brethren" are children of Joseph by another wife merely as "a tradition in the <i>Gospel according to Peter</i>, as it is entitled, or <i>The Book of James</i>," Origen gives the opinion no firmer endorsement than "I think it in harmony with reason." You are only proving Jerome's point (if not in the conclusion, at least in the basis of his argument) since Origen explicitly gives these apocryphal writings as the foundation for the tradition.<br /><br />Hilary says, "If there had been sons of Mary who were not rather produced from a previous marriage of Joseph’s..." Logically, his argument is that Christ giving his mother to John at the cross proves that the brethren of the Lord were not biological children of Mary. Therefore, he says, they must be children of Joseph by a previous marriage. This is not an argument from apostolic tradition, but an interpretation of Scripture, so his argument is based on no more authority than Jerome. Furthermore, Jerome proves that the word "brother" has a broader meaning in Semitic speech than we are accustomed to, and so does not necessarily imply that if not children of Mary, they must still be children of Jospeh, which is what Hilary assumed.<br /><br />Epiphanius says, "Joseph took his first wife from the tribe of Judah and she bore him six children in all, four boys and two girls, <b>as the Gospels according to Mark and John have made clear.</b>" Again, he is not arguing from tradition, but from the text of the Gospels, and most scholars would disagree with Epiphanius on that point. It is most definitely not clear.<br /><br />St. Ambrose: "The ‘brethren of the Lord’ <b>could have been born from Joseph and not from Mary.</b> This indeed anyone will find if he looks at the question more diligently." I agree. The brethren <i>could</i> be Joseph's children. They could also be more distant relations, like Jerome said. Ambrose was likely unaware of the solution. Again, this is not an authoritative statement that everyone everywhere has always believed St. Joseph was an old widower and father of all the brethren of the Lord. He is starting from the belief that Mary was Ever-Virgin, and proposing an explanation.StrongmanBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11576053748129020949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-15147205852568967772015-04-21T16:39:42.041-05:002015-04-21T16:39:42.041-05:00Mr. 1983, have you read the post you're commen...Mr. 1983, have you read the post you're commenting on? There is patristic support for Joseph's previous marriage quite outside of the Proto-Gospel of James, even from such a great Doctor of the Church as St. Augustine.J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04821093432726247774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-70619327793419498782015-04-21T16:35:00.340-05:002015-04-21T16:35:00.340-05:00I still remember when I discussed this topic on an...I still remember when I discussed this topic on an Italian traditional blog and was accused of being Protestant, too. If I remember well, the main objection was the origin of the belief in the Protoeuangelium, which would have been condemned by a Pope in sometime in the first centuries. So I suppose that, in his maximalist view of the Papacy, my accuser thought that it meant that the Protoeuangelium had been infallible condemned as a heretic and pernicious book. <br /><br />Why does this topic become so conflictive everytime it is discussed?Ἰουστινιανόςhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00853873178362328543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-1575287613247421422015-04-21T15:51:34.272-05:002015-04-21T15:51:34.272-05:00A protestant? Me? That's certainly a new accu...A protestant? Me? That's certainly a new accusation.<br /><br />"Dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog."<br /><br />I was raised and reared entirely in Latin Mass circles. I am well aware of the cardiovascular devotions.<br /><br />What I mean by "the East" being a misnomer is that there is no such thing as "the East". There is such a thing as "the Western Church" and its most ancient practices oftentimes overlap with some of the other churches more than those churches do one another (for instance, the Armenian and Byzantine Rites have more in common with the Medieval Roman Rite than they do with the Nasrani and East Syrian Rites). "East" vs. "West" truly is a false dichotomy that should be avoided in any serious discussion of these matters.<br /><br />Since you are against the protoevangelium, are you against the feasts of Sts. Joachim and Anna (which is where they come from)? The protoevangelium is unique among the apocrypha in that its contents are considered generally reliable and part of tradition, being put among apocrypha only because James was not the author. However, there is good reason to believe it was written by disciples of James from traditions he had passed down to them orally. That is certainly far more reliable in the way of tradition than the "young virginal immaculately conceived and assumed into heaven" crowd has concocted.<br /><br />Also, isn't rejecting something just because it isn't "in the Bible" the very crux of Protestantism?<br /><br />As for the East and inventing Apostolic Origins, the only real offenders in this seem to be the Byzantines (and I say this as a Byzantine). Peter most certainly was in Antioch, Mark definitely went to Alexandria, Matthew probably ventured into Ethiopia, and Thomas without doubt went to Persia and then Kerala.Ecclesial Vigilantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17070187926547373245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-43092617880170802772015-04-21T13:41:05.108-05:002015-04-21T13:41:05.108-05:00Well, I do not think that using "the East&quo...Well, I do not think that using "the East" here would be classified as a misnomer given that many Eastern sees (Catholic, Orthodox, or the independent ones) do claim an Apostle as their founder, even when there's historical proof that that is not the case.<br /> <br />The Catholic west has had devotion to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart but not in the way in which you mention. That is actually what Protestants accuse the Catholic Church of doing... are you a Protestant? <br /><br />The protoevangelium, by the way, does not form part of the canon of approved biblical books. So, regardless of what it says, that does not, in itself, give support to the Eastern idea of the age of St. Joseph, of his possible previous marriage, and his other many children, etc.latinmass1983https://www.blogger.com/profile/18109855026898340656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-82820135440825320562015-04-21T11:07:30.401-05:002015-04-21T11:07:30.401-05:00"The ancient West never held the virginity of..."The ancient West never held the virginity of Joseph as a traditional pious belief, as I have shown. It was invented by Jerome as a rhetorical-apologetical tactic."<br /><br />And then it was taken literally over a millenia later in the Counter-Reformation / "Enlightenment" eras (a dark time for Western Christianity, to be sure).Ecclesial Vigilantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17070187926547373245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-12037182156905286042015-04-21T11:03:52.221-05:002015-04-21T11:03:52.221-05:00The less that's known for sure about an Apostl...The less that's known for sure about an Apostle, the more certain it is that he would be claimed by all sorts of places as their founder, especially when that Apostle was the brother was the Prince of the Apostles. St. Andrew is claimed in the East by Byzantium and in the West by Scotland (!) and Cyprus. Those would have been some hefty missionary journeys, for sure.<br /><br />The ancient West never held the virginity of Joseph as a traditional pious belief, as I have shown. It was invented by Jerome as a rhetorical-apologetical tactic.J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04821093432726247774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-87044776024954242502015-04-21T10:29:44.168-05:002015-04-21T10:29:44.168-05:00That's alright. At least "the East"...That's alright. At least "the East" (a huge misnomer) never made up silly devotions that restricted devotion to the Theotokos and Christ to their cardiovascular organs alone. At least "the East" never portrayed Christ as a boy-faced transvestite.<br />https://ecclesialvigilante.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/jesus-the-effeminate/<br /><br />Read the Protoevangelium if you want to know what happened to Joseph's kids. James skedaddles out of Jerusalem as Herod slaughters the innocents and Joseph flees into Egypt. Supposing that it's true, they were adults and perfectly able to care for themselves.<br /><br />If Christians throughout the centuries and the Fathers of Old say one thing and then some uneducated pious holy rollers say another thing eighteen centuries later, I know which one I'm more inclined to believe. Ecclesial Vigilantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17070187926547373245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-17164145338352322632015-04-21T08:38:40.385-05:002015-04-21T08:38:40.385-05:00Well, the East has always been known for making th...Well, the East has always been known for making things up ... such as attributing Apostolic origin to many of their sees or patriarchates when it can be proven without a doubt that that was not true (the main one being the See of Constantinople). Plus, the East will always keep as a "pious traditional belief" whatever may seem to differ from what the West holds as traditional pious belief.<br /> <br />Where was this family (children of the extremely old Joseph) during the flight into Egypt and throughout the entire life of Christ?latinmass1983https://www.blogger.com/profile/18109855026898340656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-60991720802840871672015-04-20T07:05:24.654-05:002015-04-20T07:05:24.654-05:00Thanks for this informative and good spirited cont...Thanks for this informative and good spirited contribution!The Rad Tradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00899289024837953345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-10132151800815671552015-04-20T06:41:45.950-05:002015-04-20T06:41:45.950-05:00Keep the posts coming!Keep the posts coming!Marco da Vinhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06092410765851812842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-5192589688240743382015-04-20T02:44:58.194-05:002015-04-20T02:44:58.194-05:00Another wonderfully edifying post. Thank you!Another wonderfully edifying post. Thank you!Patricius Oenushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06241142362528937361noreply@blogger.com