Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Siblings of Jesus?

Expand Messages
  • Ted Weeden
    ... we ... antecedents ... refer ... more ... Fair enough, Bob! I apologize for any gratuitous insults with regard to piety. I consider myself a person of
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 31, 2002
      Bob Schacht wrote on Thursday, October 31, 2002:

      > At 04:18 PM 10/31/2002 -0600, Ted Weeden wrote:
      > >Mark Goodacre wrote Thursday, October 31, 2002 :
      > >
      > >3:22 PM
      > >Subject: Re: [XTalk] Fortunately James and not Jesus
      > >
      > >
      > > > On 31 Oct 2002 at 6:40, Ted Weeden wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > In the end, whether the "James" ossuary and its inscription is
      > > > > authentic or not contributes nothing to either the fact or fiction
      > > > > do not already know about the historical Jesus and his family. At
      > > > > most what is at stake in the final decision for or against
      > > > > authenticity is the piety of those who believe in the perpetual
      > > > > virginity of Mary.
      > > >
      > > > I'm not even sure if this is true, is it? Those who believe in the
      > > > perpetual virginity of Mary know that the NT refers several times to
      > > > brothers of Jesus, and twice to sisters.
      > >
      > >But Mark, don't they do mental gymnastics and their pietistic eyes see
      > >cousins when the NT text states brothers and sisters?
      > >
      > >Ted
      > It is necessary in this circumstance to take a look not just at the words
      > and their translations but also the kinship system of the people involved,
      > and the fact that kinship terminology in Greek may mask Aramaic
      > that have a different semantic range.
      > Furthermore, one must reckon with figurative uses of the term amply
      > demonstrated. But let's stick to non-figurative usage.
      > It was and is a fairly common practice for terms like "brother" and
      > "sister" to have collateral referents in addition to what we think of.
      > So, for example, in OT Hebrew, 'ben (son) could refer to any male
      > descendant in the same lineage, and 'ah (brother) could refer to any male
      > member of the same clan (mishpah --sorry for liberties taken with
      > orthography due to lack of diacritics), according to C.J.H. Wright
      > ("Family," Anchor Bible Dictionary). So it is simple ethnocentrism to
      > to kinship terminologies other than our own as requiring "mental
      > gymnastics" requiring "pietistic eyes," not to mention gratuitous insults
      > towards people of faith.
      > I do not mean the above to be definitive-- I know there are better and
      > precise studies of Aramaic kinship terminology in First Century Palestine,
      > but the point is that before we assume "brother" and "sister" to mean the
      > same to them as to us, let's have a look at how they actually used the
      > terms, without making ethnocentric assumptions.

      Fair enough, Bob! I apologize for any gratuitous insults with regard to
      piety. I consider myself a person of piety and know that from the
      perspective of piety I would like often to claim more in faith than my
      rational, empirical mind per se will allow. So I, too, see things with
      pietistic eyes.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.