"Brothers of the Lord"/"Desposyni" = descendents of David?

[theomise]

I don't see that......

Just because 'brothers of the lord' does not indicate brothers of a flesh and blood gospel Jesus (assumed) does not make the proposed alternative, mythicism, (the Carrier-Doherty theory) a viable alternative.

Whoa now, Mary.... Stand down!!! I never connected any of this to Carrier-Doherty theory.

My only suggestion here is that phrases like "brothers of the Lord", "Desposyni", "Kyriakos", etc. do not require a historical Jesus.

No need to get political.

OK

But what did you mean with this statement - what mythicism are you referring to??

Hence, the phrase "brother of the lord" (or "Desposyni") is ultimately evidence for mythicism rather than historicism.

my bolding

Yes, I get what you wanted to say - 'brother of the lord' is not evidence for a historical Jesus - therefore it is evidence for 'mythicism' i.e. a mythicism that is simply denying the historicity of the gospel Jesus.

However, around this forum - 'mythicism' is almost synonymous with the Carrier-Doherty theory.....

It is evidence AGAINST the hypothesis of a historical Jesus because there would be no need to dig through ancient records if one were merely aiming to establish kinship with a person that lived a few decades ago.

[maryhelena]

It is evidence AGAINST the hypothesis of a historical Jesus because there would be no need to dig through ancient records if one were merely aiming to establish kinship with a person that lived a few decades ago.

Sure, but you went one step further saying: 'evidence for mythicism'

How are you defining 'mythicism'?

[theomise]

It is evidence AGAINST the hypothesis of a historical Jesus because there would be no need to dig through ancient records if one were merely aiming to establish kinship with a person that lived a few decades ago.

Sure, but you went one step further saying: 'evidence for mythicism'

How are you defining 'mythicism'?

Well, it is certainly evidence against the standard "historicism" in which Jesus is regarded as having died around 30 AD or later.

With respect to more creative forms of historicism, or theories that sort of straddle the mythicism-historicism divide (such as Ellegard's thesis, or perhaps your own Hasmonean approach), the argument is less of a slam-dunk, but still poses great difficulties.

Basically: If "Desposyni" status is limited strictly to (perceived) familial relations with a person who lived more recently than David (whether vaguely "in the distant past" or at some specific point in e.g. the Hasmonean period), then why does Davidic descent seem to be the only criterion that actually matters (rather than perhaps a first step of a qualifying process)?

(BTW, I assume "David" is also likely a mythical character. What matters is whether people were claiming to be "descendents of David" in the first and second century, and whether other people believed them. And that seems to be the case.)

[spin]

I assume "David" is also likely a mythical character.

Just to clarify, by "mythical" here do you mean

1. lacking in historical support;

2. not having existed; or

3. being a figure involved in a narrative whose purpose is religious instruction?

[TedM]

My point is that the concept of "Brothers of the Lord"/"Desposyni" does not depend on the existence of a historical Jesus. Anyone claiming descent from David would qualify (as long as enough other people buy into it).

Has spin's comments caused you to change your opinion about the meaning of 'Desposyni'? If so, would you be revising your perspective to besomethin more like this?:

There was a group claiming to be descended from David, who being close to God, like a brother, could also have claimed that they were the Lord's brother by way of descent.

If you believe Paul was a real person, and I do, then I find it difficult to buy into the idea that a group called themselves 'brother of the Lord' and Paul, who wrote extensively on the idea that believers are adopted 'sons of God' would not comment on this issue, especially if he really did mention them in Galatians and/or Corinthians. Since 'brother' implies almost an equality, surely that would have been worthy of comment. In any case, with no historical support for such a group, it is pure speculation lacking evidence.

[theomise]

I assume "David" is also likely a mythical character.

Just to clarify, by "mythical" here do you mean

1. lacking in historical support;

2. not having existed; or

3. being a figure involved in a narrative whose purpose is religious instruction?

Hi Spin,

The closest would be (1), but my parenthetical assumption of a "mythical David" (imprecise language, I admit) was simply intended to head off any objection that I was trading one 'fictional' figure for another. A much weaker statement would have been more appropriate.

What I should have written:

BTW, the argument here does not require the reification of "David" as a genuine historical figure with an objectively-traceable bloodline. What matters is whether people were claiming... etc.

[DCHindley]

Desposyni (δεσπόσυνοι) is a plural diminutive form of "despotēs" (δεσπότης) = "little despots". "Despotēs" is a technical term roughly equivalent to "kurios" (κύριος) = "lord/master", but refers to a lord/master who exercises absolute rule over a domain. Despotēs is used to address God in the Greek translation of Judean scriptures, as an acknowledgement that he is an all-powerful god, but God is also addressed or at least called kurios.

All Africanus says is that relatives of Jesus called themselves by this term. It is Eusebius who uses the Desposyni story, as related by Africanus, to justify his belief that Africanus' imaginative reconciliation of the very different genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke is "neither incapable of proof, nor ... an idle conjecture" (Church History 1.7.10). The Desposyni used private records to maintain that Herod was the grandson of a slave, not to assert that Jesus was of the family of David. It was not the Desposyni who came up with the reconciliation of the genealogies of the gospels of Matt & Luke, but Africanus. The best that can be stated is that Africanus' reconciliation allows Jesus to be physically related to king David. However, nothing is preserved of Africanus that had him directly state this.

The 2nd century CE Christian writer Hegesippus, at least as quoted and/or paraphrased by Eusebius, does make this connection:

Ca. 170 CE, Hegesippus, Commentaries on the Acts of the Church, Book 5, paraphrased in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:23

The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: "O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified [one], do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified." And he answered with a loud voice: "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven."

And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, "Hosanna to the son of David,"

Here "son of David" relates to "Jesus the Son of man" who "sits in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven." The term "son of David" may just have been the common peoples' term for their belief that God might provide the Judean people with a conquering heavenly messiah to realize an earthly kingdom in the holy land. David seems to have been associated with a kind of divinity in Psalms and elsewhere. So, any individual who embodied this hope, such as a royal contender, could receive such an appellation. I seem to vaguely remember reading that even Bar Kosiba was associated with David by at least one 2nd century Rabbi.

Ca. 170 CE, Hegesippus, Commentaries on the Acts of the Church, in Eusebius, History of the Church 3:20

After the capture of the Jews by (Emperor) Vespasian [ruled 69-79 CE] “there still survived of the kindred of the Lord the (two) grandsons of Judas, who (Judas) according to the flesh was called his (Jesus’) brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and (an official named) Evocatus (or a person who held the rank of an evocati in the army) brought them before Domitian Caesar [ruled 81-96 CE]: for (that one) dreaded the coming of Christ, as Herod had done.

And he [Domitian, ruled 81-96 CE] asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were.

Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine plethra, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor." Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.

And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they, answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

Upon hearing this, Domitian [ruled 81-96 CE] did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord.

And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan [ruled 98-117 CE].

These things are related by Hegesippus.

So only here is the direct connection made.

Ca. 170 CE, Hegesippus, Commentaries on the Acts of the Church, in Eusebius, History of the Church 3:32

It is reported that after the age of Nero [ruled 54-68 CE] and Domitian [ruled 81-96 CE], under the emperor whose times we are now recording [Trajan, HE 3.20.6, ruled 98-117 CE], a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising. In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom.

Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also.

Speaking of certain heretics he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord.

But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows:

"Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan [ruled 98-117 CE] was emperor and Atticus governor [possibly Procurator or Prefect over Judea, and which would likely have been between 103/3 and 104/5 CE]."

And the same writer says that his [i.e., Symeon, the son of Clopas'] accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family.

And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord, judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas [John 19:25ff], who was the father of Symeon, as has been already shown.

The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian [ruled 81-96 CE], as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign.

He writes as follows:

"They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witness and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan [ruled 98-117 CE], and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus [possibly Procurator or Prefect over Judea, and which would likely have been between 103/3 and 104/5 CE]. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified."

Why does he speak of Hegesippus relating stories about relations of Jesus named Symeon and Judas, but then only quotes the story, which he has previously paraphrased, about Symeon? What about Judas?

Still, I wonder just how much of this is Eusebius' color commentary (for whom Jesus is in fact physically related to David) mixed together with Hegesippus' own account.

DCH

Emperor:
Octavian (Augustus), 31 BCE - 14 CE
Tiberius, 14 - 37 CE
Gaius (Caligula), 37 - 41 CE
Claudius, 41 - 54 CE
Nero, 54 - 68 CE
Galba/Otho/Vitellius, 69 CE
Vespasian, 69 - 79 CE
Titus, 79-81 CE
Domitian, 81 - 96 CE
Nerva, 96 - 98 CE
Trajan, 98 - 117 CE
Hadrian, 117 - 138 CE

[theomise]

Desposyni (δεσπόσυνοι) is a plural diminutive form of "despotēs" (δεσπότης) = "little despots". "Despotēs" is a technical term roughly equivalent to "kurios" (κύριος) = "lord/master", but refers to a lord/master who exercises absolute rule over a domain. Despotēs is used to address God in the Greek translation of Judean scriptures, as an acknowledgement that he is an all-powerful god, but God is also addressed or at least called kurios.

All Africanus says is that relatives of Jesus called themselves by this term. It is Eusebius who uses the Desposyni story, as related by Africanus, to justify his belief that Africanus' imaginative reconciliation of the very different genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke is "neither incapable of proof, nor ... an idle conjecture" (Church History 1.7.10). The Desposyni used private records to maintain that Herod was the grandson of a slave, not to assert that Jesus was of the family of David. It was not the Desposyni who came up with the reconciliation of the genealogies of the gospels of Matt & Luke, but Africanus. The best that can be stated is that Africanus' reconciliation allows Jesus to be physically related to king David. However, nothing is preserved of Africanus that had him directly state this.

The 2nd century CE Christian writer Hegesippus, at least as quoted and/or paraphrased by Eusebius, does make this connection:

Ca. 170 CE, Hegesippus, Commentaries on the Acts of the Church, Book 5, paraphrased in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:23

The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: "O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified [one], do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified." And he answered with a loud voice: "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven."

And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, "Hosanna to the son of David,"

Here "son of David" relates to "Jesus the Son of man" who "sits in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven." The term "son of David" may just have been the common peoples' term for their belief that God might provide the Judean people with a conquering heavenly messiah to realize an earthly kingdom in the holy land. David seems to have been associated with a kind of divinity in Psalms and elsewhere. So, any individual who embodied this hope, such as a royal contender, could receive such an appellation. I seem to vaguely remember reading that even Bar Kosiba was associated with David by at least one 2nd century Rabbi.

Ca. 170 CE, Hegesippus, Commentaries on the Acts of the Church, in Eusebius, History of the Church 3:20

After the capture of the Jews by (Emperor) Vespasian [ruled 69-79 CE] “there still survived of the kindred of the Lord the (two) grandsons of Judas, who (Judas) according to the flesh was called his (Jesus’) brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and (an official named) Evocatus (or a person who held the rank of an evocati in the army) brought them before Domitian Caesar [ruled 81-96 CE]: for (that one) dreaded the coming of Christ, as Herod had done.

And he [Domitian, ruled 81-96 CE] asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were.

Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine plethra, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor." Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.

And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they, answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

Upon hearing this, Domitian [ruled 81-96 CE] did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord.

And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan [ruled 98-117 CE].

These things are related by Hegesippus.

So only here is the direct connection made.

Ca. 170 CE, Hegesippus, Commentaries on the Acts of the Church, in Eusebius, History of the Church 3:32

It is reported that after the age of Nero [ruled 54-68 CE] and Domitian [ruled 81-96 CE], under the emperor whose times we are now recording [Trajan, HE 3.20.6, ruled 98-117 CE], a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising. In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom.

Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also.

Speaking of certain heretics he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord.

But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows:

"Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan [ruled 98-117 CE] was emperor and Atticus governor [possibly Procurator or Prefect over Judea, and which would likely have been between 103/3 and 104/5 CE]."

And the same writer says that his [i.e., Symeon, the son of Clopas'] accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family.

And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord, judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas [John 19:25ff], who was the father of Symeon, as has been already shown.

The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian [ruled 81-96 CE], as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign.

He writes as follows:

"They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witness and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan [ruled 98-117 CE], and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus [possibly Procurator or Prefect over Judea, and which would likely have been between 103/3 and 104/5 CE]. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified."

Why does he speak of Hegesippus relating stories about relations of Jesus named Symeon and Judas, but then only quotes the story, which he has previously paraphrased, about Symeon? What about Judas?

Still, I wonder just how much of this is Eusebius' color commentary (for whom Jesus is in fact physically related to David) mixed together with Hegesippus' own account.

DCH

Emperor:
Octavian (Augustus), 31 BCE - 14 CE
Tiberius, 14 - 37 CE
Gaius (Caligula), 37 - 41 CE
Claudius, 41 - 54 CE
Nero, 54 - 68 CE
Galba/Otho/Vitellius, 69 CE
Vespasian, 69 - 79 CE
Titus, 79-81 CE
Domitian, 81 - 96 CE
Nerva, 96 - 98 CE
Trajan, 98 - 117 CE
Hadrian, 117 - 138 CE

Hi DCHindley,

Nice, information-rich post - thank you. Still absorbing it all... good stuff.

Theo