dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (06/07/90)
In article <Jun.4.23.20.32.1990.15505@athos.rutgers.edu>, ta00est@unccvax.UUCP (elizabeth s tallant) writes... >Secondly, there is a passage of scripture which tells us that Jesus had at >least one sister. In the passage, Jesus is very busy when someone comes in >to tell him that his mother and sister want to see Him. Then, Jesus says >"Who is my mother and who is my sister?" Then, he goes on to explain that >His relatives are spiritual relatives. With all due respect to Jesus' >point, this passage makes clear that Jesus had a biological sister. He >used His mother and His biological sister to make the point that all >Christians are spiritually related, thereby crossing boundaries over biology. I was just reading this passage last night. It's from Matthew and if you'll accept a rough paraphrase, the relevant portion went something like: [somebody told Jesus that his mother and sister were outside.] Jesus replied, "who is my mother and who is my sister?" This is my family here. (there was a bit more relevant at the end, but I'm trying not to get too far from the original wording). Now, let's ignore the brackets momentarily (they do have some important significance). I presume that this is the bit that makes it clear that Jesus had a biological sister. Well, a couple of things: first the brackets. What they represent is the fact that the passage ("somebody told...") does not appear in all of the extent manuscripts of Matthew. In fact, if I recall the note correctly, the oldest manuscripts we have do not include that particular verse. Try reading the passage without that verse and see what it tells you about Jesus' family. However, there are several other references to Jesus' brothers and sisters in the NT that don't disappear so handily (the scriptural reading for this week mentioned "Jesus' brothers John James and Judas and also his sisters"). Well, one possibility is that these are spiritual siblings, which fits in well with the above passage. Another thing to consider is a linguistic artifact (and I hate to drag these things out, because personally, I just don't find them satisfying, but at the least, it's worth mentioning). Hebrew, Aramaic and every other semitic language that I've looked at has words for "son", "daughter", "mother", "father", "uncle", "aunt", "brother", "sister" and I believe also "grandmother" and "grandfather" (but don't quote me on those last two... for some reason, no matter what language it is, I have the hardest time with words for various relations). Note that there are _no_ words for cousins and the like. Idiomatically, one uses "brother" and "sister" to represent those relationships. Now, while the Gospels are all present to us in Greek, it is generally accepted that they are based on earlier originals, most likely written in Aramaic or some other semitic language. The use of the Greek words for brother and sister in the gospels is more likely an artifact of the translation than anything else. -dh --- Don Hosek "When I was younger, I would throw dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu spitballs at girls that I liked. Now, dhosek@ymir.bitnet I beg and plead for dates. Frankly, the uunet!jarthur!ymir old way was more satisfying." [I think the time has come for me to ask people to start giving their references. The only passage I find that meets this description is Mat 12:46-47: '46 While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, "Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." 48 But to the one who had said this, Jesus replied, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Footnote: Other ancient authorities lack verse 47.' [NRSV] Both NRSV and TEV leave verse 47, but footnote that some manuscripts do not have it. Since the NRSV and TEV are about the most willing of any current translations to omit verses, the fact that they leave it in the text seems to indicate that there's not very strong evidence against it. Further, even if you drop vs 47, vs 46 says the same thing. Note by the way that apparently it's brothers and not sisters. I guarantee that NRSV would not say brothers if the word could be construed any other way. None of these items are relevant to the point you are making, but I'm trying to encourge people to get their citations right. I'm certainly not the one who is going to settle the meaning of "brothers" in this context, since this is a classic debate. I will simply note that interpretations seems to be along strict party lines, with Catholics finding convincing evidence for the wider reading of "brothers", and Protestants not. --clh]
cattanac@clitus.cs.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) (06/09/90)
Galatians 1:19 [NKJV] But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. The earlier post mentioned that Hebrew(Aramaic) had no word for cousin, so words like 'brother' were used (I hope I am paraphrasing you correctly), explaining the references to His family in the gospels. I believe Galatians would have been orginally in Greek, but if I am wrong in that assumption, I'm sure that some helpful soul will correct me :-) -- -catt (cattanac@cs.uiuc.edu) [Yup. --clh]
st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) (06/09/90)
A quite simple explanation for the fact that Jesus had brothers may be that Joseph was married previously and had sons and daughters from a previous marriage. Therefore, it's quite possible that Mary was indeed "ever-virgin."
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (06/09/90)
[Elizabeth Tallant referred to a passage where Jesus is told that his mother and sister were looking for him. Donald Hosek commented that at least one verse of this passage was not in the oldest manuscripts (though it turns out that this verse is redundant, so removing it doesn't change anything. In all fairness, Donald cited other arguments.) --clh] If this passsage is not in the oldest manuscripts, then please tell us why it is found in the King James Version, the American Standard Version, and the Living Bible Paraphrase. > James and Judas and also his sisters"). Well, one possibility is > that these are spiritual siblings, which fits in well with the > above passage. As for as being spiritual siblings, all of the disciples were Jesus' brothers, and women such as Mary Magdeline (pardon the spelling) were Jesus' sisters. Yet, the Bible differentiates between all of these people and Jesus' biological siblings. >Another thing to consider is a linguistic artifact... --- stuff deleted---- > mentioning). Hebrew, Aramaic and every other semitic language that I've looked at has words for "son", "daughter", "mother", > "father", "uncle", "aunt", "brother", "sister" and I believe also > "grandmother" and "grandfather" (but don't quote me on those last > two... for some reason, no matter what language it is, I have the > hardest time with words for various relations). Note that there > are _no_ words for cousins and the like. Idiomatically, one uses > On the contrary, Arabic (which is a very ancient language) makes distinctions between first cousins and brothers and sisters. Furthermore, at least in areas directly north of Palestine, there is no word for cousins which are farther removed than FIRST cousins. In other words, a first cousin is called a cousin but a second or third cousin is not called a cousin. > written in Aramaic or some other semitic language. The use of the > Greek words for brother and sister in the gospels is more likely > an artifact of the translation than anything else. > Wasn't John the Babtist called the cousin of Jesus? If he was, then wouldn't there be a distinction between brothers and cousins? Furthermore, just because some Semantic languages do not have words for cousins does not in any way, shape, or form rule out the probability that brother means brother and sister means sister. All that this finding does is include the possibility that brother could have been used to mean cousin. > Don Hosek "When I was younger, I would throw Elizabeth [As to why KJ, ASV, and LB have the verse in question: These three editions are less likely than most to omit verses because they are not in older manuscripts. In the case of KJ, some of the manuscripts involved had not been found then. ASV and LB tend to stick closer to the KJ tradition than some other translations. (LB is not at any rate an independent witness to the text, since it is a paraphrase, which does not claim any independent scholarship.) At any rate, TEV and RSV both give the verse in the text, and footnote the fact that some manuscripts don't have it. This implies that there is enough uncertainty that we shouldn't be surprised to see different translators adopting different views. --clh]