Epiphanius gives evidence that James could't be the carnal brother of Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5836
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Epiphanius gives evidence that James could't be the carnal brother of Jesus

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:10 am

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??
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4508
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Epiphanius gives evidence that James could't be the carnal brother of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:21 am

Ok.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9965
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Epiphanius gives evidence that James could't be the carnal brother of Jesus

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:28 am

But 'ok' is an adequate response to the question. This lays bare your underlying methodology which I have stated time and again as simply coming down to:

1. mythicism is right, is the truth and the way.
2. arrange the evidence to bolster 1.

This is no way to proceed with scholarship. The likelihood that Epiphanius would a good source for any brand of mythicism is downright silliness. It's not that I believe Jesus was a historical person. It's about being fair and reasonable. In order to convince me that you have something important to say, you have to demonstrate that you are a fair and reasonable person and not what you really are - an apologist for a particular dogma.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9965
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Epiphanius gives evidence that James could't be the carnal brother of Jesus

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:30 am

For me at least Epiphanius's testimony presents us with so many more interesting lines of inquiry than the one you are obsessed with - namely where did Epiphanius get the very specific figure of 96.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Giuseppe
Posts: 4508
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Epiphanius gives evidence that James could't be the carnal brother of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:35 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:28 am
But 'ok' is an adequate response to the question. This lays bare your underlying methodology which I have stated time and again as simply coming down to:

1. mythicism is right, is the truth and the way.
2. arrange the evidence to bolster 1.

This is no way to proceed with scholarship. The likelihood that Epiphanius would a good source for any brand of mythicism is downright silliness. It's not that I believe Jesus was a historical person. It's about being fair and reasonable. In order to convince me that you have something important to say, you have to demonstrate that you are a fair and reasonable person and not what you really are - an apologist for a particular dogma.
Again and again: I do no mystery about my mythicist agenda. Is it clear? Life is short so I don't worry about 'proceeding with scholarship'. You were right to call me a 'rapist of ancient writings'. Sometimes rape is considered a kind of seduction by the same victim (=when my exegesis is particularly convincing), sometimes not. :whistling:
Let the readers decide, if they have enough critical sense.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9965
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Epiphanius gives evidence that James could't be the carnal brother of Jesus

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:29 am

I liked you better when I didn't know you condone rape.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Giuseppe
Posts: 4508
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Epiphanius gives evidence that James could't be the carnal brother of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:34 am

Please, don't be literalist.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9965
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Epiphanius gives evidence that James could't be the carnal brother of Jesus

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:43 am

It's actually an interesting point to discuss your ideas regarding allegory. You think the gospel was originally written in some sense 'allegorically.' That there was no literal truth to the text - i.e. that it wasn't 'actual history.' Apparently you fee that way about your own statement about rape. Let's look at that statement:
Sometimes rape is considered a kind of seduction by the same victim (=when my exegesis is particularly convincing), sometimes not.
Are you not saying that ACTUAL rape is sometimes ACTUALLY seduction? Is your statement purely allegorical or does it hinge on some truth that you perceive about women (presumably the 'victim' in your formulation) and rape? To me it is clear you are not speaking entirely 'allegorically' otherwise your statement would make no sense. What you are saying is that LIKE 'RAPE' IN THE REAL WORLD WHERE RAPE ISN'T ALWAYS RAPE BUT SEDUCTION so you operate in the same manner. Not good as a public statement but more importantly you don't understand allegory. Here at least your allegory is based on something actual, some experience, knowledge, perception on your part 'in the real world.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Giuseppe
Posts: 4508
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Epiphanius gives evidence that James could't be the carnal brother of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:03 pm

I am saying that I am 'raping' the texts, and in the process I enjoy it as a 'raper' would do from the his POV and mutatis mutandis. And that even when my exegesis seems to persuade totally me and even the same readers (a fact allegorized by a rape that is taken as seduction by the victim), then the my exegesis doesn't cease for this to be a 'rape' just as the rape doesn't cease to be such even when it is taken as 'seduction'. Moral: I am so totally 'ideologue' that it is impossible a priori to claim a honest and faire exegesis. So I go with this and don't care.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9965
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Epiphanius gives evidence that James could't be the carnal brother of Jesus

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:09 pm

Right but this is where you don't understand allegory. When you say this:
Sometimes rape is considered a kind of seduction by the same victim ... sometimes not.
You are necessarily saying that IN THE REAL WORLD, IN THE ACTUAL WORLD THAT YOU AND I INHABIT what the victim says is rape isn't always rape. There is no way around this. Allegory is necessarily rooted in an underlying phenomenological reality - in this case your perceptions about actual rape.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply