"The Lord" and his "brother" named "James": Rereading the allegory of two sons

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

"The Lord" and his "brother" named "James": Rereading the allegory of two sons

Post by gryan »

A rereading of the allegory of two sons

Gal 4:21-31
Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

28 Now you are brothers in the pattern of Isaac: children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

-------------------

In my rereading of the Jameses of Galatians, "the coming as to some from James"(2:12) refers to the "false brothers... who came in by stealth" (2:4) and the "James" in question was "the Lord's brother", GMark's "the lesser James"--not to be confused with "the recognized one" who was "greater" in that he became a servant of all (through fellowship with Paul and the uncircumcised Greek, Titus), namely, James the pillar, the son of Alphaeus.

And so this has implications for reading the typological allegory: "the son born according to the flesh" corresponds to James, the Lord's "brother" in the sphere of "flesh and blood" ("flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" according to 1 Cor 15:50) and the "son born according to the Spirit" corresponds to "the Lord" (revealed in Paul and his mission of inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles). These two sons were born of the same woman, under the same law. The harsh scripture quotation--"Cast out the slave woman and her son" --refers to the flesh and blood mother and brother of Jesus-- "Mary" and "the lesser James".

I think that logic fits with GMark's view of the birth family of Jesus when it is understood that:
1) "Mary the mother of the lesser 'James' and Joses" at the cross in 15:40 refers to the natural family of Jesus who are unworthy to be named as such by the narrator since Jesus said: "For whoever does the will of God is My brother and sister and mother." This lesser "James" of GMark was Paul's nemesis in Gal 2:12; and
2) "Mary of James" at the empty tomb 16:1 refers to the relatively greater "James"--"the son of Alphaeus". This greater "James" became the pillar "James" of Galaitans who saw Paul's gift and had fellowship with Titus.

To my knowledge this interpretation is unheard-of, but is it not logical?

I think GJohn transforms this harshness toward Mary (but not toward James) by having Jesus from the cross give his natural "mother" a different son, that is, a son different than "the lesser James" (John 19:26, "Woman, here is your son.")

I think GMatt finds the comparison of the two Jameses too harsh, and so erases all markers that James the natural brother of Jesus was lesser than another James.

I think GLuke/Acts erases all explicit naming of the "brothers" of Jesus to cover up this painful division. Instead, the 12 are described as being constantly in "one accord" with "Mary, the mother of Jesus and with his brothers" (Acts 1:14).

The portrait in Galatians and GMark which presents a harsh image of the natural brother of Jesus named James was not found to be beneficial from the point of view of later writers in the canon, and so this erasure of the harsh portrait was read back into Gal and GMark. Thus, the tradition lost the original meaning of Gal/GMark as to Paul's confrontation of Peter in Antioch--His withdrawal from table fellowship with uncircumcised Gentiles (such as Titus) was blamed on "The coming of some from "James"/The Lesser James/the 'flesh and blood' brother of the Lord" (not to be confused with "James", the pillar, who affirmed Paul's gift).

Note on method: I have nothing against "James the Lord's brother". I'm trying to reread the flesh phrases of Galatians so that they make best sense in the canonical form of the text Galatians, understood as a coherent whole (specifically, in relation to James, the Lord's brother, the phrases are: "flesh and blood", "born according to the flesh", and "all flesh will not be made just by works of the law"). My crosscheck is what I perceive as a literary echo in Hebrews where "we see" that "in the days of his flesh" Jesus had to became like his "brothers" in the sphere of "blood and flesh" and that he tasted death for "all".
gryan
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "The Lord" and his "brother" named "James": Rereading the allegory of two sons

Post by gryan »

Re: Gal 5:9-10 "A little (μικρὰ) leaven works through the whole batch of dough. I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is troubling (ὁ δὲ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς) you will bear the judgment, whoever he may be"

ὁ δὲ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς] In keeping with my rereading, the singular alludes to ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ("the one born according to the flesh", Gal 4:19) i.e. the "son" analogous to the "son of a slave woman" in the "now" of the letter, namely, "James the Lord's brother" [aka, τοῦ μικροῦ in Mk 15:40].

μικρὰ] Of course, Paul was not telling the Galatians "to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of" the one who was troubling them (Matt 16:12 Cf. Mk 8:15).
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 824
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: "The Lord" and his "brother" named "James": Rereading the allegory of two sons

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 11:14 pm A rereading of the allegory of two sons

Gal 4:21-31
Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

28 Now you are brothers in the pattern of Isaac: children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

-------------------
I think that Paul is being surprisingly simple here:
1. We want to inherit the kingdom
2. Hence we must be sons of the free
3. Thence we must die in order to enter the kingdom, as "flesh and blood" can't inherit

A. As such, flesh and blood belong to slaves / servants - and that is the very odd angle of Paul here but it serves his rhetoric; let's just follow it
In my rereading of the Jameses of Galatians, "the coming as to some from James"(2:12) refers to the "false brothers... who came in by stealth" (2:4) and the "James" in question was "the Lord's brother", GMark's "the lesser James"--not to be confused with "the recognized one" who was "greater" in that he became a servant of all (through fellowship with Paul and the uncircumcised Greek, Titus), namely, James the pillar, the son of Alphaeus.

And so this has implications for reading the typological allegory: "the son born according to the flesh" corresponds to James, the Lord's "brother" in the sphere of "flesh and blood" ("flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" according to 1 Cor 15:50) and the "son born according to the Spirit" corresponds to "the Lord" (revealed in Paul and his mission of inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles). These two sons were born of the same woman, under the same law. The harsh scripture quotation--"Cast out the slave woman and her son" --refers to the flesh and blood mother and brother of Jesus-- "Mary" and "the lesser James".
And thence why I can't follow you here: any sons of the same mother naturally belong to the same "group", unless that mother somehow changed allegiances from slave to free or vice versa, correct?
I think that logic fits with GMark's view of the birth family of Jesus when it is understood that:
1) "Mary the mother of the lesser 'James' and Joses" at the cross in 15:40 refers to the natural family of Jesus who are unworthy to be named as such by the narrator since Jesus said: "For whoever does the will of God is My brother and sister and mother." This lesser "James" of GMark was Paul's nemesis in Gal 2:12; and
This is just copying Thomas logion 99; Tom Dykstra has been the only one this far to notice the reason for the rejection: the standing outside - both in Thomas and Mark.
For the concordance to Thomas and this word combo, check: outside ⲛⲃⲟⲗ Adv. 22, 40, 64, 89, 99

The outside of the Cup, the grapevine planted outside the Father, etcetera: Mark just copied this, highly likely without knowing what was meant by it
2) "Mary of James" at the empty tomb 16:1 refers to the relatively greater "James"--"the son of Alphaeus". This greater "James" became the pillar "James" of Galaitans who saw Paul's gift and had fellowship with Titus.

To my knowledge this interpretation is unheard-of, but is it not logical?

I think GJohn transforms this harshness toward Mary (but not toward James) by having Jesus from the cross give his natural "mother" a different son, that is, a son different than "the lesser James" (John 19:26, "Woman, here is your son.")
John is being difficult here (and most everywhere else!)
I think GMatt finds the comparison of the two Jameses too harsh, and so erases all markers that James the natural brother of Jesus was lesser than another James.

I think GLuke/Acts erases all explicit naming of the "brothers" of Jesus to cover up this painful division. Instead, the 12 are described as being constantly in "one accord" with "Mary, the mother of Jesus and with his brothers" (Acts 1:14).

The portrait in Galatians and GMark which presents a harsh image of the natural brother of Jesus named James was not found to be beneficial from the point of view of later writers in the canon, and so this erasure of the harsh portrait was read back into Gal and GMark. Thus, the tradition lost the original meaning of Gal/GMark as to Paul's confrontation of Peter in Antioch--His withdrawal from table fellowship with uncircumcised Gentiles (such as Titus) was blamed on "The coming of some from "James"/The Lesser James/the 'flesh and blood' brother of the Lord" (not to be confused with "James", the pillar, who affirmed Paul's gift).

Note on method: I have nothing against "James the Lord's brother". I'm trying to reread the flesh phrases of Galatians so that they make best sense in the canonical form of the text Galatians, understood as a coherent whole (specifically, in relation to James, the Lord's brother, the phrases are: "flesh and blood", "born according to the flesh", and "all flesh will not be made just by works of the law"). My crosscheck is what I perceive as a literary echo in Hebrews where "we see" that "in the days of his flesh" Jesus had to became like his "brothers" in the sphere of "blood and flesh" and that he tasted death for "all".
Just checking if I got the gist so far
gryan
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "The Lord" and his "brother" named "James": Rereading the allegory of two sons

Post by gryan »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:12 am This is just copying Thomas logion 99; Tom Dykstra has been the only one this far to notice the reason for the rejection: the standing outside - both in Thomas and Mark.
For the concordance to Thomas and this word combo, check: outside ⲛⲃⲟⲗ Adv. 22, 40, 64, 89, 99

The outside of the Cup, the grapevine planted outside the Father, etcetera: Mark just copied this, highly likely without knowing what was meant by it
Re: Mark 3:31 and Thomas logion 99

Mark 3:31-35
Then Jesus’ mother and brothers came and standing outside (ἔξω στήκοντες), they sent someone in to call him. And a crowd was sitting around Him. “Look,” He was told, “Your mother and brothers are outside, asking for You.”

But Jesus replied, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” Looking at those seated in a circle around Him, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God is My brother and sister and mother.”

Thomas logion 99
The disciples said to him, "Your brothers and your mother are standing outside." He said to them, "It is those who are here and who do the will of my father that are my siblings and my mother. It is they who will enter the kingdom of my father."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... mas99.html

I note that, GThomas contrasts "brothers and mother" in the ordinary sense with those associated with the "father" of Jesus in the kingdom.

In support of my rereading I note that, according to Funk and Hoover, it has been argued that: "Jesus' true relatives may reflect the competition in the early movement between Jesus' blood relatives, such as his brother James, who became leaders of the group, and those who were not blood relatives, who claimed direct commission from the risen Jesus. The apostle Paul would be an example of the latter." http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... mas99.html

Similarly, in Gal 2, the "false brothers who came in by stealth" (in my reading, "came from James") were from outside--not invited to the private inner circle where Paul was sharing in koinania fellowship (the cup) with the recognized pillars (the noun pillar/στῦλος being etymologically related to the verb to stand/στήκω).

Standing as in Matt 16:28/Lk 9:27/Mk 9:1 "Truly I tell you, some who are standing (ἑστηκότων) here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 824
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: "The Lord" and his "brother" named "James": Rereading the allegory of two sons

Post by mlinssen »

Indeed. The standing is phrased in Thomas by "standing to one's feet" and occurs in many logia
I note that, GThomas contrasts "brothers and mother" in the ordinary sense with those associated with the "father" of Jesus in the kingdom.
You may note that, but the contrast is with regards to being in the part outside versus doing the will of the father. That word is swapped for God in the canonicals - until John, of course

The proper translation of Thomas is

99 said the(PL) Disciple to he : your brothers with your(F) mother they standing-on-foot [they] on the part outside
said he behold : they-who of these places who make-be the desire of my father these are my brothers with my(F) mother
themselves are who will go-inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king of my father

It is the same with the grapevine:

40 said IS a grapevine did they plant her within the part outside of the father and she made-strong not they will pluck-out her toward her(F) root and she destroy

Likewise, the desperate banquet hosts resorts to that:

64 (...) said the slaveowner to his slave : go to the part outside to the paths
they-who you will fall to them bring them in-order-that they will make-be Dine
the(PL) man-who buy with the(PL) trader they will go-inward not to the(PL) Place of my father

It is simple: the part outside is definitely not equal to (the place of) the father, it rather disqualifies one from it
Last edited by mlinssen on Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 824
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: "The Lord" and his "brother" named "James": Rereading the allegory of two sons

Post by mlinssen »

Mark 3:32

Ἰδοὺ (Behold), ἡ (the) μήτηρ (mother) σου (of You) καὶ (and) οἱ (the) ἀδελφοί (brothers) σου (of You)a ἔξω (outside) ζητοῦσίν (are seeking) σε (You).”

Mark 4:10

ἐκείνοις (To those) δὲ (however) τοῖς (who are) ἔξω (outside), ἐν (in) παραβολαῖς (parables) τὰ (-) πάντα (everything) γίνεται (is done),

Luke 11:39

39 Εἶπεν (Said) δὲ (then) ὁ (the) Κύριος (Lord) πρὸς (to) αὐτόν (him), “Νῦν (Now) ὑμεῖς (you) οἱ (-) Φαρισαῖοι (Pharisees), τὸ (the) ἔξωθεν (outside) τοῦ (of the) ποτηρίου (cup)

There is an enormous amount of things happening outside...
gryan
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "The Lord" and his "brother" named "James": Rereading the allegory of two sons

Post by gryan »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:12 am
gryan wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 11:14 pm

And so this has implications for reading the typological allegory: "the son born according to the flesh" corresponds to James, the Lord's "brother" in the sphere of "flesh and blood" ("flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" according to 1 Cor 15:50) and the "son born according to the Spirit" corresponds to "the Lord" (revealed in Paul and his mission of inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles). These two sons were born of the same woman, under the same law. The harsh scripture quotation--"Cast out the slave woman and her son" --refers to the flesh and blood mother and brother of Jesus-- "Mary" and "the lesser James".
And thence why I can't follow you here: any sons of the same mother naturally belong to the same "group", unless that mother somehow changed allegiances from slave to free or vice versa, correct?
Agreed: "the same mother naturally belong to the same 'group'"
Also agreed: "unless that mother somehow changed allegiances from slave to free or vice versa"

The comparison breaks down unless Jesus had a different mother than James, which is an ancient interpretation put forward by Epiphanius. My hunch is that this view may have originated in part to match with this allegory. I cannot accept this view as an interpretation of GMark, so it is not an option for me.

I think that the needed change of allegiances from natural family to apocalyptic family, from slave to free, to make the allegory fit may have been part of what GJohn's scene at the cross was about, in effect making Mary a different "mother"--the mother of the anonymous "beloved disciple", which is perhaps a group identity that any "beloved" reader can identify with in the "now" of the letter.

The cross scene works on another level if it is understood as being similar to the sacrifice of Isaac. Jesus made the sacrifice that Isaac almost made, thus somehow in Paul's mind becoming "seed" of Abraham! With the blood of Jesus as the seed of faith, believers with a similar faith/trust become "sons" in the pattern of Isaac, and no longer slaves.

As to the mysteries of Paul's mind, there is another angle of meaning: He speaks of being in "labor pains", a word that connects directly with the allegory's barren woman in the desert/Sara. So in a way, Paul is the free woman, mother of the Galatians.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 824
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: "The Lord" and his "brother" named "James": Rereading the allegory of two sons

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:38 pm The comparison breaks down unless Jesus had a different mother than James, which is an ancient interpretation put forward by Epiphanius. My hunch is that this view may have originated in part to match with this allegory. I cannot accept this view as an interpretation of GMark, so it is not an option for me.

Epiphanius, Panarion, against Manicheans

19,7 And it will be found that the fraud is falsely accusing Christ of failure to keep his word. For the apostles’ generation is gone—I mean the generation from Peter until Paul, and until John who even lived until the time of Trajan. And James is gone, the first to exercise the episcopate in Jerusalem. (James was called the Lord’s brother but he was Joseph’s son, born, like the rest of his brothers, of Joseph’s real wife. (8) Because the Lord Jesus Christ, who was born in the flesh of the ever-virgin Mary, was brought up with them, < they > were in the position of brothers to him, and he was called their brother.) And all the saints who shared James’ throne are gone, and Symeon, the son of James’ uncle, with them—Symeon, the son of Cleopas the brother of Joseph.

I leaned something new yet again! Thanks

It's rather inevitable really, unless James was also born from a virgin, which would rather spoil this special attribute of Jesus. Never thought about it!
gryan
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: "The Lord" and his "brother" named "James": Rereading the allegory of two sons

Post by gryan »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:41 am

Epiphanius, Panarion, against Manicheans

19,7 And it will be found that the fraud is falsely accusing Christ of failure to keep his word. For the apostles’ generation is gone—I mean the generation from Peter until Paul, and until John who even lived until the time of Trajan. And James is gone, the first to exercise the episcopate in Jerusalem. (James was called the Lord’s brother but he was Joseph’s son, born, like the rest of his brothers, of Joseph’s real wife. (8) Because the Lord Jesus Christ, who was born in the flesh of the ever-virgin Mary, was brought up with them, < they > were in the position of brothers to him, and he was called their brother.) And all the saints who shared James’ throne are gone, and Symeon, the son of James’ uncle, with them—Symeon, the son of Cleopas the brother of Joseph.

It's rather inevitable really, unless James was also born from a virgin, which would rather spoil this special attribute of Jesus. Never thought about it!
Thanks for this quotation from Epiphanius. I had not read his writings before.

I searched The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Books II and III using the search term "mother" and I found a lot more to ponder:


74.6 And do you see that he says that the two testaments are those
of one God? The apostle says, “The first testament was given at Mt. Sinai
and gendereth to bondage. For Mt. Sinai is in Arabia. < But the heavenly
Jerusalem is free, which is the mother of us all >.” 365 For if there are two
wives, there is still only one husband, thus, even though there are two
Testaments, there is one God, the giver of the two. (7) And this is why
he did not call two testaments “New,” or two testaments “Old,” but called
one Old and one New. And he says, “A testament is of force after men
are dead; therefore the first testament was not dedicated without blood.
For Moses took the blood of goats and sprinkled both the book and the
people.” 366 Thus the second testament too was given at the death of the
Savior. (8) And above all, both Testaments are in agreement. The one says,
“There shall not fail a ruler from Judah, nor a governor from out of his
loins, until that come for which it is prepared”; 367 but the second says,
“God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their
trespasses unto them.” 368 And there is a great deal to be said about this,
but for brevity’s sake I shall omit it.
----

MANICHAEANS
87,1 But, says Mani, the scripture says, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God”; 427 and here he thinks he has a point. In fact, how-
ever, fornication cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, nor can adultery,
uncleanness or idolatry; that is, “flesh and blood” cannot inherit the king-
dom of heaven.

87,3 If you suppose, however, that the "flesh and blood” [mentioned
here] is the actual flesh, what application can be left for, “And as many
as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, who
were born, not of the flesh, but of God?” 428 Who in the world has been
born without flesh? (3) But because their minds were changed — not the
natures of those who are born of flesh and blood mothers and fathers,
[but their minds \ — and they were born with the second birth, which is
birth from the Lord by Spirit and fire, he gave them the right to become
the sons of God.

87,4 Thus, as they were born of flesh and blood here, < so in turn they
are born again of spirit* >. And because of their conversion to righteous-
ness their birth is no longer counted as a birth of flesh and blood, although

< they live* > in flesh and blood — as he says, "For though we walk in the
flesh, we do not war after the flesh.” 429 (5) Thus there can be flesh that
does not “war after the flesh.” And this is why he says that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. He < is not speaking > of this flesh
which has grown weary [in welldoing], been sanctified, pleased God, but
of the “flesh” which is counted as sinful. (6) Otherwise what application
can there be of “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mor-
tal must put on immortality?” 430
424 1 Cor 12:18.

425 Read ex pepoui; with 1 Cor 12:27. MSS ex peXoup is surely an error.

426 Eph 1:22-23.

427 1 Cor 15:53.

428 John 1:12-13.
----
HIERACITES
7.1 And as to your assertion that Melchizedek himself is the Spirit — in
that case, the Spirit came and took flesh. It cannot, then, be just the Only-
begotten who has been born in the flesh; the Spirit must have been too.
But if the Spirit was born in the flesh — well, it was Mary who bore the
Savior. Hieracas should say where the mother is who bore the Spirit.

7.2 And in saying, “Made like unto the Son of God he remaineth a
priest forever,” 38 the scripture cannot be referring to the Holy Spirit. (3) It
didn’t say, "like the Son of God,” but, “made like.” Now “made like” refers
to something that came to be at a later date. But if the Spirit is “made
like” Christ after the time of Abraham, there was a time when there was
no Spirit, and this is why he was “made like” the Son of God.

And how can he be “without father?” (4) If the Spirit is self-existent and
not of the Godhead’s own essence, it can fairly be shown that he is “without
father.” And indeed, the Son is only-begotten and has no brother, but is the
Son of God. (5) But even if we say that the Spirit is not begotten, since
the Son is on/y-begotten, Christ still says that the Spirit “proceeded” from
the Father” and “receiveth of the Son.” 39 Hence the Spirit who “proceedeth
from the Father” and "receiveth of me,” cannot be “without father.”

7,6 Even if he means “ ‘without mother’ in heaven and ‘without father’
on earth” — for this can also be said of the Savior — why does the apostle
explain this at the end by saying, “He whose descent is not counted from
them received tithes of the patriarch Abraham?” 40 (7) [The phrase], “from
them” is indicative of precise expression; for since his descent was not
counted from the children of Israel he must surely have been descended
from other nations. But because his father and mother are not recorded
in the scriptures, those who misrepresent the truth imagine one thing in
place of another. (8) I, though, have found both his mother and his father
in traditions; he was descended from the Sidonians and the Canaanites.
Thus his fairy story has crumbled. And his ascetic practice is of no avail;
to settle for lifeless things coupled with wrong belief is no school of life
and the hope of salvation. Scripture says, “Let all things be done to the
glory of God.” 41
35 Heb 3:4.

36 1 Tim 5:11.

37 1 Tim 5:14.

38 Heb 7:3.

----------
ANTIDICOMARIANS
9,1 Where can I not find proof that the Virgin remained pure? For a
starter, let them show me that Mary bore children after the Savior’s birth!
Let these designers and reciters of deceit and mischief make the names up
and give them! But they can’t show them because she was still a virgin and,
perish the thought, had no sexual relations! (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 ,” 29 misleads them. (3) Besides, they do not know the earlier passage,
“His brethren believed < not > on him . 20 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 incar-
nation, James was the elder. ( 6 ) The scripture calls them brothers to con-
found [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.

26 cf. Matt 1:19.

27 Matt 1:20.

28 Luke 2:19.

29 Matt 12:47.

30 John 7:
-------
10,7 But Joseph died during these years, and Jesus was no longer brought
up by Joseph, but in Joseph’s home. This is why the Gospel can no longer say
that his father and mother and brethren came, but says, “Lo, thy mother and
thy brethren stand without, seeking thee. ” 31 ( 8 ) Nor did it say that his father
and brothers had spoken to him, when they said to him in Galilee, “No one
that doeth these things would be in secret; if thou doest these things, show
thyself .” 32 It said that his brothers had spoken to him; Joseph was no longer
alive in the flesh. ( 9 ) But then at his perfecting itself, when the Savior was on
the cross, the Lord turned, as the Gospel according to John tells us, “and saw
the disciple whom he loved, and said to him of Mary, “Behold thy mother”.
And to her he said, “Behold thy son .” 33 ( 10 ) If Mary had children and her
husband was alive, why did he entrust Mary to John and John to Mary? And
why not rather entrust her to Peter’? Why not to Andrew, Matthew and Bar-
tholomew? But it is plain that he entrusted her to John because of virginity.

10,11 For < he says >, “Behold thy mother, ” even though physically she was
not John’s mother; [he says this] to show that <as> the originator of vir-
ginity she was his mother, since the life began with her. ( 12 ) And lest it be
supposed that the work [of salvation] was appearance and not reality he
said this to John to teach him to honor his own mother, even though, physi-
cally speaking, John was not his kin; for the Lord was truly born of her in the
flesh. ( 13 ) For if she had not truly been the mother who bore him, he would
not have taken care to entrust the Ever-virgin to John — his mother because
of the incarnation, but undefiled in his honor and the wondrous vessel But
the Gospel says, “And from that day he took her unto his own home ." 34 But
if she had a husband, a home, children, she would return to her own home
and not to someone else’s.
31 Matt 12:47.

32 Cf. John 7:4.

33 John 19:26-27.
-------------
“And he knew her not.” For how could he know that a woman would
receive so much grace? Or how could he know that < the > Virgin would be
so highly glorified? (8) Fie knew that she was a woman by her appearance,
and her womanliness by her sex, and knew that her mother was Ann and her
father, Joachim, that she was related to Elizabeth, that she was of the house
and lineage of David. But he did not know that anyone on earth, especially
a woman, would be honored with such glory. ( 9 ) He did not know her, then,
until he had seen the wonder; he did not know how wondrous she was until
he had seen “that which was born of her .’’ 6,3 But when she gave birth he also
knew the honor God had done her, for it was she who had been told, “Hail,
thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee ." 64

18,1 It is Mary who is intimated by Eve, for she was symbolically given
the title, “mother of the living." For Eve was called “mother of the living ” 65
in that passage," and this after being told, “Earth thou art, and unto earth
shall thou return ” 66 following her transgression. And yet, it was a a won-
der that she received the great title after this transgression. ( 2 ) Physically
speaking, every birth of human beings on earth is from that Eve; but here life
itself has truly been born into the world of Mary, so that Mary brings forth
the Living One and becomes the mother of the Living. ( 3 ) Mary, then, was
mystically called the “mother of the living.” For “Who has given the woman
the wisdom < of weaving > and skill in embroidery ?” 67 was said of the two
women. The first wise woman, Eve, < was > the weaver of earthly garments
for Adam whose nakedness she had caused; for this task was assigned to her.
( 4 ) Since the nakedness was her fault, she had been given the task of cloth-
ing the physical body to hide its physical nakedness. But God’s assignment to
Mary was that she bear a lamb and sheep for us, and that, by his virtue, we
receive a garment of immortality wisely made — as though, from his fleece —
from the glory of the lamb and sheep.

18,5 But there is another marvel to ponder in connection with these
women, Eve and Mary. Eve has become the occasion of human deaths, for
“Death entered into the world ” 68 through her. But Mary, through whom Life
was born for us, is the occasion of life. ( 6 ) And this is why the Son of God
came into the world; and “Where sin hath abounded, grace did much more
abound .” 69 And in the place from which death came, life got the start of it,
so that there might be Life in place of death. He who, in his turn, had become
our life through a woman, shut out the death that came from a woman.

18,7 And since Eve in Paradise fell into the sin of disobedience while still a
virgin, the obedience of grace in its turn has come through the Virgin, when
she was told of the descent from heaven, of the coming in the flesh and eter-
nal life. ( 8 ) For in Paradise God tells the serpent, “And I shall put enmity
between thee and her, and between thy seed, and her seed ”' 70 But there is
no instance of a woman’s seed < with an enmity toward the physical seed of
a snake* >, unless, as the riddle suggests, the “enmity” is taken to mean Eve’s
enmity towards the progeny of the snake itself, and of the devil who dwelt in
the snake, and his envy.

19,1 And in fact, the whole cannot have its complete fulfillment in Eve. But
it will truly be fulfilled in the holy Seed, the elect Seed, the unique Seed, the
Seed which originated from Mary alone, and not from union with a man. For
he came to “destroy" the “power of the dragon and crooked serpent which
flees ” 11 saying that it has taken the whole world captive. ( 2 ) And so the Only-
begotten came from a woman for the destruction of the serpent — that is, of
heresy, corruption and deceit, imposture and iniquity. ( 3 ) It is he who truly
“opens a mother’s womb .’’ 12 All the firstborn who have ever been bom — to
put it delicately — could not manage this; none but the Only-begotten, who
“opened a virgin’s womb.” That has been accomplished in him alone, and in
no one else.

19,4 But this 73 can also be seen from the subject itself. The expression,
[“mother of the living”], is to be understood of Mary, and I shall take the one
that says, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and
shall cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh ,” 14 as a refer-
ence to the church. ( 5 ) The holy apostle also says, “This is a great mystery,
but I say it concerns Christ and the church .” 75 ( 6 ) And see the precision of
the scriptures! It says, “formed, ” 76 of Adam, but of Eve it no longer speaks of
being “formed," but of being “built.” For it says, “He took one of his sides and
built it into a wife for him ,” 11 to show that the Lord formed his body from
Mary, but the church has been built from his side itself — when his side was
pierced, and the mysteries of blood and water became atonements for us.

20,1 But in any case Joseph knew Mary, not with any knowledge of physi-
cal intimacy, not with the knowledge of intercourse — he knew her, and hon-
ored her whom God had honored. For he did not know how glorious she was
until he saw the Lord who was born of a woman. ( 2 ) And “Before they came
together she was found with child ” 18 is said to keep the argument of those
who think that the God-ordained mystery came from sexual commerce from
prevailing. For it meant, “before this thing that was expected took place —
but the thing did not take place. ” ( 3 ) For even if it was expected that the Vir-
gin would have relations with Joseph, an impossibility because of his age, the
holy scripture shows us in advance, and confirms our notion, <to> convince

< us > that, although the thing is possible despite the sacred childbirth, no man

< may > ever again approach the Virgin for sexual relations — convincing us
in the same way in which the angel convinced Joseph that his suspicion was
unfounded. ( 4 ) For there is a similarity between “before they came together,”
which means that this was expected but did not happen, and, “Being a righ-
teous man he sought not to make her a public example but to put her away
privily ,” 19 which means that he would become evil if he made her a public
example, but he did not. In the same way the angel teaches him, “Fear not to
take unto thee Mary thy wife ’” 80 though she had not yet become his wife,
“even if you suspect her of a fall”; but she is not what you think,” and so on.
( 5 ) For he says directly after that, “for that which was conceived in her,” 8l as
though it had already occurred , 82 but then, “she shall bear a son ,” 88 as of a
future event; and she did. (6) And the prediction 84 < has come down tous*>
because its truth has been demonstrated, just as “before they came together”

< has come down to us* > because we are satisfied 85 that no such thing has
occurred. “Until she brought forth her son, the firstborn, ” is to be interpreted
along the same lines , 86 because of the marvel of the knowledge of the Virgin,
with her honor in the sight of God.

63 Luke 1:35.

64 Luke 1:28.

65 Gen 3:20.

66 Gen 3:19.

67 Job 38:36.
68 Cf. Rom 5:12.

69 Rom 5:20.

70 Gen 3:15.

71 Isa 27:1.

72 Cf. Luke 2:23 (Exod. 13:12).

73 That not all the statements in Gen. 2-3 are to be taken of Eve.

21.1 But no one should suppose that because it says, “before they came
together,” they came together Later on. No one can prove this or show it;
74 Gen 2:24.

75 Eph 5:32.

76 Gen 2:7.

77 Gen 2:21-22.

78 Matt 1:18.

79 Cf. Matt 1:25.

80 Matt 1:20.

81 Matt 1:20.

82 Eltester yEysvvjpEvov, Holl and MSS yEy£vvv]pEvou.

83 Matt 1:21.

------------
7,1 And so in Mary’s case. The angel foretold what her father would
receive from God on his return home — the favor her father and mother
had asked in prayer, "Lo, thy wife hath conceived in her womb,” 21 as
a sure fulfillment, by the promise, of the faithful man’s purpose. But for
some this became an occasion of error. No one in the world can be born
in any but the normal human way. Only < the Son* > was fit < for this* >;
nature allowed it to him alone. (2) As Maker and Master of the thing [to
be made] he formed himself from a virgin as though from earth — God
come from heaven, the Word who had assumed flesh from a holy Virgin.

But certainly not from a virgin who is worshiped, or to make her God,
or to have us make offerings in her name, or, again, to make women
priestesses after so many generations. (3) It was not God’s pleasure that
this be done with Salome, or with Mary herself. He did not permit her
to administer baptism or bless disciples, or tell her to rule on earth, but
only to be a sacred shrine and be deemed worthy of his kingdom. (4) He
did not order the woman called the mother of Rufus to advance < to* >
this rank 22 or the women who followed Christ from Galilee, or Martha
the sister of Lazarus and [her sister] Mary, or any of the holy women who
were privileged to be saved by his advent < and > who assisted him with
their own possessions — or the woman of Canaan, or the woman who was
healed of the issue of blood, or any woman on earth.
---------
6,5 Besides, these same esteemed brethren of ours in the monasteries,
or, as we say, the cloisters of Mesopotamia, have been detected in another
form [of error], that of deliberately < having > their hair long like a wom-
an’s and wearing sackcloth openly. (6) The children of < Christ’s > holy
virgin, our mother the church, should be grave and retiring persons and
secretly serve the God who, as the scripture says, knows our secrets and
rewards us openly. They should < walk > decorously because of outsiders,
and not desire reward and credit from those who see them. Visible sack-
cloth is out of place in the catholic church, as is < un >cut hair, because of
the apostle’s injunction, “A man ought not to have long hair, inasmuch as
he is the image of God.” 21
------------
Let us hasten to the city the
moment we spy it — the holy Jerusalem and Christ’s virgin and bride, the
firm foundation and rock, our holy mother < but > Christ’s bride. At this
most auspicious moment let us ourselves say, “Come, let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord, and the house of the God of Jacob. And he shall
teach us his way,”
----------------
6,1 For the church is engendered by one faith and born with the help
of the Holy Spirit, and is the only daughter of the only mother, and the
one daughter of her that bore her. And all the women who came after and
before her have been called concubines. They have not been entire strang-
ers to the covenant and inheritance, but have no stated dowry and are not
receptacles of the Holy Spirit, but have only an illicit union with the Word.
---------
7,5 For Abraham gave Hagar, a bondmaid and cast out by Abraham —
([she was] like the Jerusalem below who was in bondage with her children,
of whom it is said, “I have cast out thy mother,” 34 and again, "I gave the bill
of divorcement into her hands.”) 35 Abraham gave this bondmaid, I mean
Hagar, a skin full of water, the more of a type because of the hope of her
conversion. 36 This was to show the power of the “laver of regeneration,” 37
which has been given to unbelievers for a gift of life, and for the conver-
sion of all the heathen to the knowledge of the truth.
31 Cant 6:9.

32 Cant 6:7-8.

33 Gal 4:28; 31.

34 Cf. Jer 22:26.
------
18,1 For our mother, the holy church herself, believes as has been truly
preached to her and enjoined upon her, that we shall all fall asleep and
be raised with this body, with this soul, with our whole vessel, “that each
may receive according to that he hath done.” 77 (2) It is true that the
resurrection of the dead, eternal judgment, the kingdom of heaven, and
repose < are in store > for the righteous, and the inheritance of the faith-
ful and an angelic choir is awaiting those who have kept the faith, purity,
hope and the Lord’s commandments. And it has been proclaimed, certi-
fied and believed that “These shall rise to life eternal,” 78 as we read in
the Gospels.

18,3 For whatever the apostle and all the scriptures say is true, even
though it is taken in a different sense by unbelievers and those who mis-
understand it. (4) But this is our faith, this is our honor, this is our mother
the church who saves through faith...
---------
From: The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide, Translated, by Frank Williams
https://archive.org/stream/EpiphaniusPa ... 1_djvu.txt
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 824
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: "The Lord" and his "brother" named "James": Rereading the allegory of two sons

Post by mlinssen »

LOL.
Quite some jumping through hoops there!

Can't have Mary get a special position of course, being the Virgin - just sit there and be pretty, and be meek.
They surely were not only hateful men, but rather ungrateful bastards really

Interesting to see that it was likely (advocated?) that she became a priestess

Joseph being already dead as an explanation for his absence in the "mother and brothers standing outside" scene; he is very absent indeed in the entire gospel, isn't he? Never noticed that
Post Reply