During the audience Q&A, I asked two questions, one on 1 John 2:1-2 and Jesus being a present ιλασμος/propitiation for the then-future sins of believers and also 1 Cor 9:24-27 (esp. v. 27 where Paul says he himself could become αδοκιμος/reprobate). For a full discussion of these texts (texts Boddy struggled with), see:
I know that many will be attracted to Catholic theology due to Boddy proving himself to be a joke of an apologist (he should be ashamed of himself for making [1] a fool of himself in such a public venue and [2] by doing so, give people who may not know better, the impression Rome's arguments are convincing). However, if you are either a Catholic or becoming attracted to Catholicism, please note that there are good arguments against the Catholic dogmas of the Mass. In fact, I will happily send anyone interested in a free PDF of my book on the topic:
Having predestinated
us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the
good pleasure of his will.
In the Douay-Rheims, the verse is rendered
as follows:
Who hath
predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto
himself: according to the purpose of his will.
On the meaning of “good pleasure of his
will”/”purpose of his will,” Robert Sungenis wrote the following, showing that
it is not arbitrary or does not take into account free-will action of human
agents, etc:
7 “purpose
of his will”: Gr: τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ:, perhaps better translated as the more
subjective “good pleasure of his will” (as in vr. 9)
rather than the objective “purpose,” since εὐδοκίαν is
normally used as such in the NT (cf. Gl
1:15; Cl 1:19; 1Th 3:1; 2Pt 1:17). Paul does not say “according to his will”
but what is ‘pleasing to’ or the ‘good pleasure’ of his will. As such, the
election is not procured in an absolute sense (e.g., the Calvinistic or Lutheran concept of
supralapsarianism) wherein God saves or damns without regard of man’s free will
response. Neither does God have a “secret will” wherein the criteria for the
election is hidden since, as vr. 9
indicates, God already made “known unto us the mystery of his will” in the
Gospel, and the Gospel certainly includes man’s free will as an integral part
of salvation. (Robert Sungenis, The Epistles to the Ephesians and Hebrews
[Catholic Apologetics Study Bible VIII; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics
International Publishing, Inc., 2019], 5 n. 7)
In his excellent book on justification, Sungenis also noted that:
Paul uses three different words to describe man’s quest for God: The
first word, ζητειν (“to seek”), is the ordinary word the New Testament uses for
seeking God (e.g., Mt 6:33; 7:7-8; Lk 12:31; 17:33; Rm 2:7; Cl 3:1), and
is used here as an infinitive of purpose, i.e., it is the purpose of God for
men to seek him. The second word, ψηλαφησειαν (“reach out for him”), appears
three other times in the New Testament in reference to feeling or touching God
or Jesus (e.g., Lk 24:39; Hb 12:18; 1Jn 1:1). The third word, ευριεν is
the ordinary word for “find.” Both ψηλαφησειαν and ευριεν are optative verb
forms through which Paul is expressing a clear and distinct expectation from
men. Paul reinforces this expectation by καιγε ου μακραν απο ενος εκαστου ημων
υπαρχοντα (“though he is not far from each one of us”) preceded by the strong
conditional ει αρα γε (“so that” or more emphatically “if then” or “if
therefore” (as αρα γε is used in Mt 7:20; 17:26), and by the strengthened και
with the addition of γε to read “even being not far from each one of
us”). Also, the expectation of the each individual to seek
God, not merely men as a group seeking God, is made emphatic by Paul’s addition
of “each one of us.” (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The
Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.;
Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 398 n. 483)
In his First Apology, Justin reads
Luke 1:35 as teaching that the premortal Jesus (the λογος), whom he also
numerically identified with the “power of God,” appeared to Mary and
overshadowed her:
And hear again how
Isaiah in express words foretold that He should be born of a virgin; for he
spoke thus: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and
they shall say for His name, ‘God with us.' "For things which were
incredible and seemed impossible with men, these God predicted by the Spirit of
prophecy as about to come to pass, in order that, when they came to pass, there
might be no unbelief, but faith, because of their prediction. But lest some,
not understanding the prophecy now cited, should charge us with the very things
we have been laying to the charge of the poets who say that Jupiter went in to
women through lust, let us try to explain the words. This, then, "Behold,
a virgin shall conceive," signifies that a virgin should conceive without
intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no
longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed
her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive. And the angel of God who
was sent to the same virgin at that time brought her good news, saying,
"Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shalt bear a Son, and
He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus;
for He shall save His people from their sins,"--as they who have recorded
all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught, whom we believed, since
by Isaiah also, whom we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that
He should be born as we intimated before. It is wrong, therefore, to
understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word,
who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; and
it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused
her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power. And the name Jesus in the
Hebrew language means Σωτήρ (Saviour) in the Greek tongue. Wherefore, too, the
angel said to the virgin, "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall
save His people from their sins." And that the prophets are inspired4 by
no other than the Divine Word, even you, as I fancy, will grant. (First
Apology, XXXIII [ANF 1:174])
This identification of the “Word/λογος = Power
of God = (Holy) Spirit that came upon Mary” interpretation can also be found elsewhere:
But lest some should,
without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say
that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and
subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and
should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were
irresponsible --let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught
that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the
Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably
are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the
Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians,
Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose
actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be
tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason,
were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably. But
who, through the power of the Word, according to the will of God the Father and
Lord of all, He was born of a virgin as a man, and was named Jesus, and was
crucified, and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, an intelligent
man will be able to comprehend from what has been already so largely said. And
we, since the proof of this subject is less needful now, will pass for the
present to the proof of those things which are urgent. (First Apology, XLVI
[ANF 1:178])
And this food is
called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to
partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and
who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and
unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as
common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus
Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh
and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food
which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh
by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was
made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called
Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus
took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance
of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the
cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to
them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras,
commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are
placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being
initiated, you either know or can learn. (First Apology, LXVI [ANF 1:185])
In Matt 6:13b, there is mention of “evil.”
Many believe that “the evil [one]” (Greek: ο πονηρος) is a reference to the
person of Satan. However, some Christadelphian apologists dispute this as the
claim “the evil one” is never applied to Satan in the pre-Christian literature
(e.g., Jonathan Burke).
Some may appeal to “the evil one” being
used of Satan in the Testament of Job 7:1 for Satan, but many scholars
believe that the original was not “the evil one” but Σατανας, and that these
manuscripts reflect a Christian interpolation to the text. Notwithstanding, in
Rabbinical sources . . .
Sammael, the Tempter,
Accuser and angel of death, is described as ‘the most evil’ (רשע) of the satans, and
that R. Joshua ben Hananias can apply the same adjective to the Serpent. He
also noted the gloss on Aram רשע in the Targum of Isa. 11.4 where ‘the
Evil/Ungodly One’ is identified with Armilos (Romulus?), a kind of Antichrist. (Matthew
Black, “The Doxology to the Pater Noster with a Note on Matthew 6.13B,” in
Philip R. Davies and Richard T. White, eds., Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays
on Jewish and Christian Literature and History [Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament Supplement Series 100; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990], 327-38,
here, p. 333)
But with
righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with faithfulness the needy
of the earth; and he shall smite the sinners of the earth with the word of his
mouth, and with the speech of His lips he shall slay Armillus the wicked.
Black also notes that in
Hebrew liturgical
comminations for recital at ‘Assemblies of the Community’ and similar to those
at 1QS 2.4bf., designated 4Q280.2 and 4Q286.10 ii 1-13 (with an overlap in
certain verses with 4Q287). It is at 4Q286 5 that we find the Hebrew הרשע used as a proper
name to describe Satan or Belial, in a text that is closely related to the 4Q
Melchireša’ texts at 4Q Amram, and 4Q280 2. These texts not only supply an
exact Hebrew equivalent of the Greek for the devil, but they also illustrate
and fill out the Aramaic and Hebrew background of this classical New Testament
term. (Ibid., 334)
And that
Melchireša’ reappears
at 4Q280.2 in a Hebrew liturgical commination of Belial-Melchireša’, side by
side with which Kobelski publishes the extended parallel Berakhah from
the Manual of Discipline, 1QS 2.4b-9, 15-17, 25b-26. Thus 4Q280.2221
begins ‘Accursed be thou, Melchireša’, etc.’, parallel to ‘Accursed be thou
(lot of Belial), etc,’ at 1QS 2.5. Here it is abundantly clear that Melchireša’
is simply another designation for Belial or Satan.
It is in the second
lot of fragments at 4Q286(287) 10 ii 1-13, also a commination of Belial (line 2
‘Accursed be Belial . . . ‘), that at line 5 we read:
Accursed be the
Evil/Ungodly one (הרש[ע])
[in all the times of his] dominion,
and maligned be all the sons of Belial in all the iniquities of their
offices, until their extermination for ever. Amen, Amen. (Black, The Doxology in the
Pater Noster, 335)
Black concludes his essay thusly:
So far as our
knowledge goes, these two sets of texts, 4Q Amramb, 4280, 286(287)
and the Targum of Isa. 11.4 are the only passages in Jewish literature where
the designations רשיעא/הרשע are used for Satan
or a manifestation of Satan. The designation, however, seems almost an
inevitable one for the Prince of Darkness, so that it may well have been in
more frequent use in Judaism than its extremely rare occurrence suggests. Was
it perhaps dropped by the Synagogue when it was adopted by the early Church, in
its almost literal Greek equivalent οπονηρος? Such a term would
no doubt commend itself widely as a general concepts, immediately intelligible
in the Hellenistic world, whereas the Hebrew/Aramaic terminology for Satan must
have sounded strange and foreign in Greek ears. (Ibid., 336, emphasis added)
While not voluminous, there are instances of "the evil one" being used for Satan in the pre-Christian literature. Such is very problematic for Christadelphian apologetics vis-a-vis their Satanaology. For more, see:
My friend Errol Amey offered the following comments on the debate which I am reproducing with his permission:
I
John begins with a couple straw-men
arguments: "the LDS view of the Father, specifically the idea that He is a
created being," and, "Mormonism's teaching of an eternal regression
of Gods." The former is contradicted by the Latter-day Saint dogma that
the Father is an eternal being, and thus precluding a status of having been
"created." The latter statement, as Robert rightly noted, amounts to
nothing more than a terse description of a theological speculation (as
demonstrated by John's own citation of Brigham Young: "How many Gods there
are? I do not know,"etc.) among the Saints—not any dogma of their
Church—and a speculation which many of the Saints doubt or outright reject, all
of which John is already aware of and consequently it will not do to only
address this view as if it's representative of the Saints at large.
The idea that the early Christians,
"saw Fatherhood as an essential and eternal property of God,"
contrary to the idea, "that God was not always the Father; that there was
a time when God was not the Father," is not compatible with pre-Nicene
Christendom, as demonstrated by Tertullian who was anything but a proto-Arian:
“For ever since things began to exist upon
which the power of a lord could operate, from that moment, by the accession of
this power, He both became Lord and received that name. <Nor is this
surprising,> for God is also a Father, and God is also a Judge, but He has
not always been Father and Judge for the simple reason that He has always been
God; for He could not be Father before the Son was, nor Judge before there was
sin. Now there was a time when for Him there existed neither sin nor the Son,
the former to make God a Judge, and the latter, a Father.”
(Tertullian, ca. 202, Treatise Against
Hermogenes 3:4, in Ancient Christian Writers 24:29)
John notes that, "the early Church
was almost completely unanimous in affirming that God is an unchangeable,
immaterial spirit," omitting only that Origen (who John cites in support
of his own view) was also a witness to the fact that there were some early
Christians who did believe in an anthropomorphic Father:
“The Jews indeed, but also some of our
people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with
human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories
as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions.”
(Origen, Homilies on Genesis 3:1, in
Fathers of the Church 71:89)
II
The subject of Subordinationism will need
a comment devoted just to that subject, which I'll get to on another occasion.
In the meantime, we'll start here with a correction to John's comment that,
"at the time Irenaeus was writing, the Valentinians were tolerated. He
doesn't mention them very much in his books Against the Heresies." This is
incorrect; Irenaeus mentions Valentinus himself throughout his series Against
the Heresies, from the preface to the first book all the way through his fifth
book, and frequently critiques Valentinian teachings. Indeed, Valentinianism
was the very controversy which precipitated Irenaeus' composition of this
series of book, and it didn't come to be known as "Against the
Heresies" for naught: the Valentinians were recognized as heretics and
placed squarely outside of the Church not only by Irenaeus but writers well
before him, none of this business about the Valentinians supposedly being,
"afforded a degree of toleration and flexibility," within the Church;
they were a product of pure apostasy.
Then John begins a bizarre tangent on
seminal fluids and incest. I'll leave it to others to draw their own
conclusions on this.
John asks Robert, "how do you
reconcile [Isaiah to] Mormonism's teaching that there are many Gods besides God
and that He is not the first and that He won't be the last?" This was
already answered by Origen in the writing which John said he had read; not
unique to the Restoration:
“Origen said: ‘Was He God distinct from
this God in whose form He was?’
“Heraclides said: ‘Obviously distinct from
the other and, while being in the form of the other, distinct from the Creator
of all.’
“Origen said: ‘Is it not true, then, that
there was a God, the Son of God and only begotten of God, the first born of all
creation (Col. 1.15), and that we do not hesitate to speak in one sense of two
Gods, and in another sense of one God?’
“Heraclides said: ‘What you say is
evident. But we too say that God is the almighty, God without beginning,
without end, who encompasses all and is encompassed by nothing, and this Word
is the Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things were made,
God according to the Spirit, and man from being born of Mary.’
“Origen said: ‘You don't seem to have
answered my question. Explain what you mean, for perhaps I didn't follow you.
The Father is God?’
“Heraclides said: ‘Of course.’
“Origen said: ‘The Son is distinct from
the Father?’
“Heraclides said: ‘Of course, for how
could He be son if He were also father?’
“Origen said: ‘And while being distinct
from the Father, the Son is Himself also God?’
“Heraclides said: ‘He is Himself also
God.’
“Origen said: ‘And the two Gods become a
unity?’
“Heraclides said: ‘Yes.’
“Origen said: ‘We profess two Gods?’
“Heraclides said: ‘Yes, [but] the power is
one.’ . . .
“What, then, is the meaning of such sacred
texts as: Before me no other god was formed, nor shall there be any other after
me (Isa. 43.10), and the text: I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me
(Deut. 32.39)? In these texts, one is not to think that the unity refers to the
God of the universe in his purity (as the heretics would say) apart from
Christ, nor that it refers to Christ apart from God; but we say that it is just
as Jesus expresses it: I and the Father are one (John 10.30).’”
(Origen, ca. 246, Dialogue with Heraclides
1-4, in Ancient Christian Writers 54.58-60)
Again we see John's claim that, "the
early Church Fathers were unanimous in the incorporeality of God—the
immateriality of God." The falseness of this claim was demonstrated in my
last post by Origen's own admission. It's also worth noting that Origen elsewhere
expressed his belief that Melito, the celebrated bishop of Sardis, also held to
an anthropomorphic view of the Father.
John continues his closing statement with
some tangential examples, "[Robert] needs to reconcile the unanimity of
belief in the early Church in transubstantiation,"—none of the pre-Nicene
Christians believed in transubstantiation; Irenaeus even contradicts it by
stating that there are two realities within the Eucharist, both a heavenly and
an earthly, as opposed to just one reality—"monogamy,"—the early
Christians believed that polygyny had a proper place in it's time during the
Old Testament, and Latter-day Saints likewise attest that it is circumstantial
which should be obvious given their current practice of strict
monogamy—"the perpetual virginity of Mary,"—also not a unanimous
belief; Hegesippus and Tertullian both indicated a belief that the brothers of
Jesus mentioned in the New Testament were biologically related to Him—"the
uniqueness of God,"—which is what we've been discussing—"and so
on." I find it doubtful that further examples would be any more valid than
the claims already given.
III
Returning to Subordinationism, John
attempts to brush it aside by stating of the Eastern Orthodox, "we do not
have a problem with Subordination understood correctly." The problem being
that in order to vindicate a supposedly consistent view of the Trinity
throughout church history he would in effect have to argue that patristic
scholars don't have a "proper" understanding of the pre-Nicene view.
Let us consider one of the early writers of whom John claims a compatible view,
viz., that of Origen. We already saw in my last post Origen's belief that the
Father and Son are in a sense two Gods, which point John struggled to grapple
with during the Q&A portion of the exchange. Consider further this primary
source:
“[Origen said:] God the Father, since he
embraces all things, touches each thing that exists, since he bestows on all
existence from his own existence; for he is ‘He who is’. [Exodus 3:14] The Son
is inferior in relation to the Father, since he touches only things endowed
with reason; for he is subordinate to the Father. The Holy Spirit is still
lower in degree, pertaining to the saints. So then the power of the Father is
superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit, while the Son’s power is greater than
the Holy Spirit; and again the power of the Holy Spirit excels all other holy
things.”
(Origen, cited by Justinian, Ad Menam, in
The Early Christian Fathers, pg. 239)
And the scholarly commentary of the translator:
“According to the quotation in Justinian,
Origen gave here a bold statement of the subordination of the Son and the Holy
Spirit. ‘Subordinationism,’ it is true, was pre-Nicene orthodoxy”
(Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian
Fathers, pg. 239)
That Bettenson specifies Subordinationism
as the orthodoxly of the pre-Nicene Church indicates that it was not
representative of post-Nicene orthodoxy. This is noted explicitly by another
patristic scholar:
“Interestingly, in light of later
criticisms of Origen for having a ‘subordinationist’ understanding of Christ’s
relationship to the Father, putatively inconsistent with equality of the
persons of the Trinity proclaimed by post-Nicene orthodoxy, what Origen would
consider impious (asebes) is not the belief that Christ is subordinate, but the
prospect that he might not be subordinate to the Father.”
(Joseph W. Trigg, Fathers of the Church
141.91)
And thus we see that Origen, et al.,
cannot, in fact, be reconciled to the later view of the Trinity which developed
as an overreaction to the Arian heresy. And here is scholarly commentary on
statements by Origen even bolder than those cited by Bettenson above:
“the Savior said, ‘The Father who sent me
is greater than I,’ and ‘although the Savior transcends in his essence, rank,
power, divinity . . . , and wisdom, beings that are so great and of such
antiquity, nevertheless, he is not comparable with the Father in any way.’
[13.151-152] . . .
“There is, moreover, a clear subordination
of the Son to the Father in the Commentary [on John]. ‘The Father exceeds the
Savior as much . . . as the Savior himself . . . exceeds the rest.’
[13.151-153] When ‘the Son of Man is glorified in God,’ it is a case of ‘the
lesser’ being glorified ‘in the greater.’ [32.363-365] In spite of these
subordinationist views, however, Origen rejects the view of those who, ‘in the
delusion of glorifying the Father,’ declare ‘that something known by the Father
is not known by the Son who refuses to be made equal to the perceptions of the
unbegotten God.’ [1.187] It is perhaps in this same vein that one should
understand Origen’s assertion that it is on the basis of the unity of the Son’s
will with the Father’s that he says, ‘I and the Father are one.’ [13.228]”
In his Panarion, Epiphanius (who
believed the brothers/sisters of Jesus were children of a previous marriage of
Joseph’s) provides names for the sisters of Jesus:
Panarion 78:8:1:
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. (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis,
Books II and III. De Fide [rev ed.; trans. Frank Williams; Nag Hammadi and
Manichaean Studies 79; Leiden: Brill, 2013], 621)
Panarion 78:9:6:
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. (Ibid., 623)
On the potential source(s) of Epiphanius’
information, Richard Bauckham wrote that
. . . it seems more
likely that he drew these names, along with other information about Joseph’s
first marriage, from some apocryphal source which is no longer extant, probably
one which bore some relation to the Protoevangelium of James, on which
Epiphanius seems also to be dependent (directly or indirectly) in this context.
(Richard Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church [Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1990], 37)
Elsewhere in his study of the relatives of
Jesus in early Christianity, Bauckham writes that:
I think it likely
that the Salome who appears in ProtJas 19:3-20:3 is this daughter of Joseph, in
which case the tradition of her name goes back to the mid-second century”
(Ibid., 8 n. 13)
19. And I saw a woman
coming down from the hill-country, and she said to me: O man, whither are you
going? And I said: I am seeking an Hebrew midwife. And she answered and said to
me: Are you of Israel? And I said to her: Yes. And she said: And who is it that
is bringing forth in the cave? And I said: A woman betrothed to me. And she
said to me: Is she not your wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was reared
in the temple of the Lord, and I obtained her by lot as my wife. And yet she is
not my wife, but has conceived of the Holy Spirit.
And the midwife said
to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife
went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a
luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been
magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things — because
salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud
disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the
eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until
the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the
midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen
this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met
her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to
you: a virgin has brought forth — a thing which her nature admits not of. Then
said Salome: As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search
the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.
20. And the midwife
went in, and said to Mary: Show yourself; for no small controversy has arisen
about you. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for
mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and,
behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire. And she bent her knees
before the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; do not make a show of me to the sons of Israel,
but restore me to the poor; for You know, O Lord, that in Your name I have
performed my services, and that I have received my reward at Your hand. And,
behold, an angel of the Lord stood by her, saying to her: Salome, Salome, the
Lord has heard you. Put your hand to the infant, and carry it, and you will
have safety and joy. And Salome went and carried it, saying: I will worship
Him, because a great King has been born to Israel. And, behold, Salome was
immediately cured, and she went forth out of the cave justified. And behold a
voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell not the strange things you have seen, until
the child has come into Jerusalem.
Other sources that may be providing names
to Jesus’ “sisters” include Gospel of Philip 59:
they would be
nourished from the mouth [and] become perfect. The perfect are conceived and
begotten through a kiss. Because of this we kiss each other too, conceiving
from the grace within each other.
There were three who
traveled with the Lord all the time: His mother Mary, her sister, and
Magdalene, who is called his companion; because Mary is his sister, his mother,
and his partner.
"The
Father" and "The Son" are single names; "the Holy
Spirit" is a double name, because they're everywhere. They're in heaven,
they're below, they're hidden, and they're revealed. The Holy Spirit is
revealed below and hidden in heaven.
Those who are holy
are served through the evil powers, because the Holy Spirit has blinded them so
that they think they're serving a (regular) human when they're (really) working
for the holy ones. So a disciple asked the Lord one day about a worldly thing.
He told him, "Ask your Mother, and she'll give you from someone
else."
The apostles said to
the disciples, "May our entire offering acquire salt." They called
[…] "salt." Without it, the offering doesn't [become] acceptable. But
Wisdom [is] childless; because of this [she's] called […], this of salt, the
place they'll […] in their own way. The Holy Spirit […]
2. There was a man
whose name was Joseph, sprung from a family of Bethlehem, a town of Judah, and
the city of King David. This same man, being well furnished with wisdom and
learning, was made a priest in the temple of the Lord. He was, besides, skilful
in his trade, which was that of a carpenter; and after the manner of all men,
he married a wife. Moreover, he begot for himself sons and daughters, four
sons, namely, and two daughters. Now these are their names — Judas, Justus,
James, and Simon. The names of the two daughters were Assia and Lydia. At
length the wife of righteous Joseph, a woman intent on the divine glory in all
her works, departed this life. But Joseph, that righteous man, my father after
the flesh, and the spouse of my mother Mary, went away with his sons to his
trade, practising the art of a carpenter.
In his work “On Illustrious Men,” Jerome mentioned
how a number of people in his time were calling into question the canonical status
of Jude:
Jude the brother of
James, left a short epistle which is reckoned among the seven catholic
epistles, and because in it he quotes from the apocryphal Book of Enoch it is
rejected by many. Nevertheless by age and use it has gained authority
and is reckoned among the Holy Scriptures. (Jerome, De Viris Illustribus,
4)
What is interesting is that Jerome
mentions how it is reckoned among the Holy Scriptures due to its reception over
time by believers. This is hardly a typical “Protestant” understanding of the
nature of scripture and canon.
Hegesippus is an early Christian witness against
the perpetual virginity of Mary, especially the Hieronymian understanding of
the brothers/sisters of Jesus (to see a discussion, see Two
Church Fathers Against Mary's Perpetual Virginity).
Richard Bauckham, while not a proponent of
the perpetual virginity of Mary, holds to the “Epiphanian” view of the brothers/sisters
of Jesus (children of a previous marriage of Joseph’s). Notwithstanding, he has
this to say vis-à-vis Hegesippus and how he is a witness against Jerome’s
view of the brothers/sisters of Jesus:
In fact, Hegesippus seems
to distinguish the relationship to Jesus of Symeon the son of Clopas, whom he calls
‘cousin of the Lord’ (ανεψιοςτουκυριου: ap. Eusebius, HE 4:22:4;
cf. 3:11), from that of James and Jude, for both of whom he uses the
traditional description ‘brother of the Lord’ (ap. Eusebius, HE
2:23:4; 3:20:1). Modern advocates of the Hieronymian view counter this evidence
by the claim that Hegesippus (in Eusebius, HE 4:22:4) refers to Symeon
as ‘a second (i.e. another) cousin of the Lord’ (ονταανεψιοντουκυριουδευτερον) with the
implication that his predecessor James (whom Hegesippus has just mentioned) was
also a cousin of the Lord. However, if this is what Hegesippus meant to say, his
whole sentence is an awkward way of saying it. The phrase in question is best
understood by analogy with Eusebius. HE 3:22, where the word δευτερος describes first
Ignatius as second bishop of Antioch and then Symeon as second bishop of
Jerusalem, without in either case the use of the word επισκοπος, which must be
understood. Like that passage, HE 4:22:4 describes the succession in the
episcopal see of Jerusalem (purportedly in Hegesippus’ actual words, but
summarized by Eusebius . . . ) in such a context, δευτερον should be taken, not
with ανεψιον, but with επισκοπον understood, and the whole passage translated:
And after James the
Just had suffered martyrdom also the Lord, on the same account, the son of his
[i.e., probably, James’] uncle, Symeon the son of Clopas, was next appointed
bishop, whom, since he was a cousin of the Lord, they all put forward as the
second [bishop].
In that case, Hegesippus’
evidence must be held to count against the Hieronymian view. While he clearly
describes Symeon as the Lord’s cousin, he does not explain James’ relationship
to Jesus in the same way, but remains content with the traditional term ‘brother
of the Lord’. (Richard Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the
Early Church [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990], 23-24)
Elsewhere, Bauckham writes that:
Hegesippus speaks of ‘Jude,
his brother according to the flesh, as he was called [λεγομενου]’ (Eusebius, HE
3:20:1), presumably reporting Jewish Christian usage, while in another passage
dependent on, though not explicitly quoting Hegesippus, Eusebius calls members
of the family of Jesus ‘those who belonged to the Lord’s family according to
the flesh’ (τοιςπροςγενουςκατασαρκατουκυριου) (HE 3:11:1). That the qualification ‘according to the flesh’ (κατασαρκα) was Jewish
Christian terminology with reference to the family of Jesus is also suggested
by the fact that Julius Africanus, in a passage dependent on Jewish Christian
sources, refers to Jesus’ ‘relatives according to the flesh’ (οικατασαρκασυγγενεις) (Eusebius, HE
1:7:11). James is also called ‘our Lord’s brother according to the flesh’ in
Didascalia 24, which probably preserves Jewish Christian tradition (cf. Ap.
Const. 8:35:1: ‘the brother of Christ according to the flesh’; and Joseph as
Jesus’ father ‘according to the flesh’ in Hist Jos; cf. also Rom 1:3; 9:5; I
Clem 32:2 for Jesus’ ancestry κατασαρκα). In these phrases ‘according to the flesh’
designates the realm of merely physical relationships by contrast with
relationships ‘according to the Spirit’ (cf. Rom 1:3-4; Gal 3:32; Philem 16).
So whereas ‘the Lord’s brother’ might indicate a special relationship with
Jesus not shared by other Christian leaders, ‘the Lord’s brother according
to the flesh’ relativizes that relationship as only a natural relationship.
It recognizes that to call a natural brother of Jesus the Lord’s brother
really is inappropriate as to call the one who is David’s Lord David’s son
(Mark 12:35-37: for the coherence of this passage with the christological attitude
of the brothers of Jesus . . . ) (Ibid., 127-28)
For further reading, see my book on Mary (I have over 50 pages addressing the perpetual virginity):
