6535Re: Review of Painter
- May 5, 1999On Wed, 5 May 1999, Mark Goodacre wrote:
> There was some discussion a little while ago about Painter's _Just James_. IThank you, Mark, for this review.
> have just finished writing a review of this and thought some on the list might
> like to read this draft.
> Overall, Painter is careful to temper boldness with sobriety. He is bold, onIt seems to me that Jerome's view here mirrors a traditional
> one hand (and probably right), to be wary of the evangelists' tendency to play
> down the importance of James during the ministry of Jesus. He is sober, on
> the other hand, both in his treatment of Jerome's theory that Jesus and James
> were merely cousins and in his discussion of the "Epiphanian" view that James
> was Joseph's son by another marriage. But sometimes Painter is too sober:
> one would have liked to have seen the careful arguments of Richard Bauckham in
> favour of the Epiphanian view taken seriously. Painter's tendency to lump it
> together with Jerome's view as something solely apologetically motivated does
> not pay adequate attention to (a) the much greater antiquity of the Epiphanian
> view; (b) the fact that there is no sign of Joseph in the gospels when Jesus
> is an adult; (c) the fact that Mary is clearly still alive in Jesus' ministry
> in spite of (d) having at least seven adult children alive in a time when
> mortality in childbirth was high.
Middle-Eastern (Semitic) way of thinking, whereby the extended family
includes cousins as "brothers" and "sisters"... I haven't gone through the
Gospels to seek out the evidence of "seven adult children" of Mary. Do you
know of a study of this? Seems to me likely that many of these "children"
were more likely cousins to one another than what you and I would today
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>