Giuseppe wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:14 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:31 pm
Giuseppe wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:11 am
My point is that if Epiphanius was more historian and less apologist in this point, then the old age of James, if meant as a historical information, is probably evidence against him being carnal
brother of Jesus, so requiring other explanations for Gal 1:19.
Epiphanius actually seems to support that the natural reading of "James, the Lord's brother" meant a biological brother, since those reading that phrase appear to have come away with that impression,
there is no clue that Epiphanius was polemizing against proponents of a carnal brotherhood for James.
Epiphanius, Panarion 78.1.3: 3 As though they had a grudge against the Virgin and desired to cheapen her reputation, certain Antidicomarians, inspired by some envy or error and intending to sully men’s minds, have dared to say that St. Mary had relations with a man after Christ’s birth, I mean with Joseph himself.
Epiphanius, Panarion 78.9.2-6: 2 If she had ever born children even though she was always with the Savior himself, her children too would be said to be with <him>. But the text, “Lo, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee,” misleads them. 3 Besides, they do not know the earlier passage, “His brethren believed <not> on him. As I myself grow older and wonder at the triviality of the things in the sacred scriptures — I can tell you, as I become fully acquainted with them I thank God for taking the precaution to prove the truth of every text in the sacred scripture by the seemingly trivial words. 4 I always heard that James was called the Lord’s brother, and I said in wonderment, “What’s the use of this?” But now I understand why the sacred scripture said this beforehand. When we hear, “Lo, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee,” 5 let us by all means learn that it is speaking of James and the other sons of Joseph, and not of sons of Mary whom she never had. For it was plain that, in comparison with the [years of] the Lord’s incarnation, James was the elder. 6 The scripture calls them brothers to confound [our opponents], and names James, Joses, Simeon, Judah, Salome and Mary, so that they will learn whose son James is and by which mother, and understand who is the elder. Jesus was crucified in the thirty-third year of his incarnation, but it was the twentieth year of Herod the son of Archelaus.
By far the easiest interpretation here is that the so-called Antidicomarians with whom Epiphanius is debating read Matthew 12.47, its parallels, and its other related verses exactly as most
people (who are not hellbent against Mary ever having surrendered her virginity) read them: Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, and then later she had other sons and daughters, including James, Joses, and the rest. If this extremely common reading (one espoused by Helvidius and by other unnamed "heretics," for example, described by Origen
) was not the one into which Matthew 12.47 led the Antidicomarians, then what was?
Only you are "reading" it in Epiphanius. He says simply that James "the son of Joseph" was of advanced age already when Jesus was born. In this point he doesn't say that Joseph was already a very old man when Jesus was born (usually, the classical Catholic argument used against the view of a carnal parentage with Joseph).
Epiphanius, Panarion 78.8.1-2: 8,1 Joseph begot James when he was somewhere around forty years old. After him he had a son named Joses — then Simeon after him, then Judah, and two daughters, one named Mary and one, Salome; and his wife died. 2 And many years later, as a widower of over eighty, he took Mary. So we are told in the Gospel, for it says, “Mary, his espoused wife;” it didn’t say, “married wife.” And again, in another passage it says, “And he knew her not.”
Did you even read the entire chapter on the Antidicomarians??