Wait a minute – you’re really attempting to use a hapax legomenon, which doesn’t even appear in the Gospels that we’re discussing – to prove your point about words for familial relationships in the Gospels?
No… Luke, Matthew, Mark and John never used this term, ever. This actually strengthens my assertions and weakens yours! After all, if they had used the term, but chose not to use it here, then you would have something to claim here. Rather, it’s simply a term that’s not in the vocabulary of their writing. Ever. So… the use of ‘brother’ to mean something other than ‘uterine brother’ is actually more likely here.
Hang on a second. You can get away with a variety of mischaracterizations, but this one is just too bold.
First off, the Protoevangelium isn’t the source of the Catholic doctrine – the Church is. In fact, that document (which, although it is extracanonical, isn’t “non-Catholic”) was excluded from the canon, although it was highly regarded by early Christians.
Now, if you want to make the claim that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary proceeds from the Protoevangelium, then let’s see the proof. Otherwise, your post hoc ergo propter hoc argument fails, being a logical fallacy.
Glad you see that ‘mother’ doesn’t always mean ‘uterine mother’. Oddly, though, you can’t see this with adelphos. Hmm… wonder why not?
Really. Nice. Try.
When you asked why I don’t apply the same standard to James and John, and I point out the relevant Scripture passages that show that it’s a different kind of reference entirely… you reply “you apply different hermeneutical principles”? Really? I’m starting to think that this is a case of the eisegete calling the kettle black. Or… something.