AmericanPapist Comments
I cannot imagine a bishop being so desperate for priests that he would allow a published heretic to be in charge of a parish. Sounds like Pope Benedict has a bishop to replace. Tom
Australia's spiritual battle is the same as in the U.S. There are priests and religious who advance heresy just like this guy in our country. We are all infected.
I guess they got carried away with all the Da Vinci Code hype.
Talk about a crisis of faith!
I'm sure some Anglicans will be happy to have him.
"'No human being can ever be God', writes Fr. Dresser in a booklet distributed to the faithful, 'and Jesus was a human being. It is as simple as that.'"
Of course no human being can ever be God, but God CAN become a human being.
Of course, if one believes in the Divinity of Christ, one is obligated to actually follow His teachings. Some of them are sooooo inconvenient to the ego and libido.
Chesterton was right: the heresies are so...boring.
Although this has no legal or scriptural origin...
I once heard Father Corapi say that in his opinion a priest who teaches heresy has a "worse place" in hell than any murderer or rapist.
His logic was that a thief, murderer or rapist damages the temporal. The priest, teaching heresay or confirming someone in their sinful ways, damages the soul... the eternal.
While the theory provokes a few questions/dilemas, I think it is interesting food for thought...
Just food for thought...
Well, James is described as the "adelphos" of Jesus in the canonical Gospels. It does not get much clearer than that.
Adelphos means "brother" in Greek. Of course, the Greek is a translation from the Aramaic word for "brother". Aramaic has no word for "cousin". If I were speaking Aramaic, and wanted to introduce my cousin to someone, I would have to describe him as "the son of the brother of my mother". Or, I could just introduce him as "my brother".
James is also described as "the son of Alpheus". Lot and Abraham, who were nephew and uncle, are described as "brothers".
Bill, you are correct in saying that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for "cousin."
However, the relationship was given the name ben dod (Hebrew) or ben dad (Aramaic), meaning "son of an uncle."
And the son of Alpheus (Matt. 10.3, Mark 3.18) is James the Less, a different James than Jams the brother of the Lord (Matt. 13.55, Mark 6.3, Gal. and Acts passim.).
There is no reason why any Gospel writer who was fluent in Aramaic would not have used the Greek anepsios to define the relationship.
I disagree with the third paragraph.
As to the fourth paragraph: "*No* reason"? I can think of one: He wanted to translate word-for-word. An example would be St. Mark's Gospel, whose Greek word order is sometimes unique. However, when scholars translated the Greek word-for-word into Hebrew, they found the word order was good Hebrew.
St. Matthew, when translating his Gospel from its original Aramaic to Greek may also have decided to translate "James, the brother of the Lord" literally because that was what he was called.
If James was originally referred to as "the brother of the Lord" in Aramaic, and it was translated accurately into Greek, then why can't he be the the blood brother of Jesus?
And if he really was the cousin of Jesus, he would have been called "ben dad." And if Matthew and Paul were being accurate, as you have already stated, they would have used anepsios.
"It does not get much clearer than that." Perhaps it does.
"There is *no* reason why *any* Gospel writer who was fluent in Aramaic would not have used the Greek anepsios to define the relationship." Well, perhaps there were a few.
Back on track now.
I'm not sure you're understanding me.
If the relationship between James and Jesus was that of cousin, there was an Aramaic word for that: ben dad.
If they were cousins, and therefore were called ben dad, then Matthew and Paul would have used anepsios.
Neither one of them used anepsios. They used adelphos. Therefore James was never called ben dad. Because he was Jesus' adelphos - the term accurately translated from Aramaic to Greek.
bill912. Right on, brother.
(Now watch, somebody 2000 years from now will find that post and conclude that bill912 and EdP were brothers, since both men spoke English and knew what the word meant.)
Well, then, since there's a word in English for "son of my first cousin twice removed either way", am I really going to refer to Bobby Joe as "son of my first cousin twice removed either way" on a routine basis, or even in a book? Or would I say "my cousin Bobby Joe" or "my relative Bobby Joe", and only clarify further if need be?
Calling someone "son of my uncle" was a pain in the butt for the ordinary Galilean in the village. Especially since he was probably not just your uncle's son, but also your cousin by marriage and your second cousin twice removed either way, because it wasn't a terribly big gene pool.
So you called him the generic term for "male relative of the same generation", which is to say, "brother".
And if you think that's weird, you should go take a brief look at the anthropology and linguistics of kinship terms around the world. Nothing else is quite so idiosyncratic and quirky, except possibly the many culturally dependent borders where various colors start and stop.
(The Japanese think blue and green are shades of the same color, "aoi". Irish and Scottish people felt that green and gray were similarly just different shades of "glas". Etc.)
Maureen,
Saying ben dad (Aram. cousin) is only two syllables. Adelphos (Grk. brother) is three. Plus add your vocative article (o) and you have four.
So saying ben dad is actually more expedient than the Greek adelphos. And anepsios (Grk. cousin) is only four syllables, so neither is it any more or less expedient than adelphos. So I do not think that your interpretation holds up.
Yawn.
About as boring as the heresies.
Another, perhaps less problematic interpretation is that "James the brother of the Lord" was Jesus' stepbrother, the son of Joseph's first wife. This interpretation was put forward in the early to mid second century in a work called the Protevangelium. This was accepted as one possibility by some of the Fathers, including St. Jerome.
Most people of the time would certainly not have said "stepbrother" but the simpler "brother," just as we do today; just as people with an adopted son go around introducing him as "my adopted son." They simply say "my son."
All the fathers and authors and Fathers of the Church, who accepted this designation of James have a tremendous advantage over us in being much closer to the social and linguistic reality of the first century than we are, so if they interpreted things in this way, and accepted that James was a cousin or brother of Joseph, who are we to contradict them?
That should be "a cousin of Jesus or son of Joseph's first wife." How confusing is this??
The nun teaching my lay ministry course also said that the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin was not dogma and was misunderstood. Biologically she could not remain a virgin after birth and it was clear in the Scriptures that Jesus had brothers. Yadda yadda yadda.
This is a major problem.
A former pastor of mine told us during a homily that we didn't have to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. When I questioned him about it, he defended what he said. I called our diocesan chancelor, who told me the priest was wrong, and that Catholics are obligated to believe in the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. I suggest you explain the Church's teaching to the nun(assuming you haven't already done so). If you get no satisfaction, tell your pastor. If he gives you no satisfaction, contact your bishop. If he doesn't do his duty, you have the option of contacting the Vatican.
This "adelphos" argument is ridiculous as this word is used all over the new testament for brethren including "universal" brotherhood. It has a broader meaning. To base your argument on this is weak.
It is possible, fh, that adelphos does not carry a singular meaning throughout the New Testament (which was not written as a cohesive unit anyway and therefore its diction is not cohesive).
James as adelphos is his nomenclature. It is how he is identified - he is the Lord's brother. The word is reserved for him as defining his relationship to the Lord, and does not refer to any general sense of brotherhood because the word is being applied to a specific person.
Further, a careful reading of the bible will show you:
John 19:25 the second Mary (wife of Clopas) at the cross is Mary's sister
Matthew 27:56 this same Mary is the mother of James and Joses
Matthew 13:55 Jesus' brethren are James, Joses, Simon, and Judas
Any mention of the Virgin Mary and Jesus' brothers are always set apart as HIS mother and HIS brothers (Acts 1:14). They are never referred to as Mary's sons or even as his mother AND brothers.
Lastly, John takes the Virgin Mary into his home after Jesus' death. Did Jesus trust John more than his own "blood brother" to take care of Mary? If James was her son, why go live with John? That is because James was her nephew!
Yes he is the Lord's "brother", but what does that mean? It means he is related to Jesus as a cousin. It has always meant this. Read your church history. It cannot mean today something it did not mean then. Is it a coincidence that "James and Joses" are mentioned twice in Matthew, one time and Jesus' brethren and another as the son's of Mary (the Virgin's sister)?
"Anepsios" also has a more specific connotation of sister's son. Why use this word when possible confusion may arise? Why not use "adelphos" which is a broader term, yet would be understood as cousin?
Commenting by HaloScan
