Oh dear. Help!!


#1

Was reading the bible yesterday and everything was fine. UNTIL i got to galatians 1:19. It was like an arrow into my heart. For those of you who dont know the bible by memory its:

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

I tried to reason it being just a brother in a friendly way, but it doesnt work for me. Seems to be the actual brother of the Lord. Is there anyone to help me out, perhaps an article on how it was translated incorrectly in the beginning.

Dont just say " He meant friend, or disciple ". I know thats a possibility, but why didnt he say “one of the Lord’s brethren”, which indicates a close friend, or great friend, rather than a literal brother.


#2

[quote=Magicsilence]Was reading the bible yesterday and everything was fine. UNTIL i got to galatians 1:19. It was like an arrow into my heart. For those of you who dont know the bible by memory its:

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

I tried to reason it being just a brother in a friendly way, but it doesnt work for me. Seems to be the actual brother of the Lord. Is there anyone to help me out, perhaps an article on how it was translated incorrectly in the beginning.

Dont just say " He meant friend, or disciple ". I know thats a possibility, but why didnt he say “one of the Lord’s brethren”, which indicates a close friend, or great friend, rather than a literal brother.
[/quote]

Magicsilence,

This is just one more instance of the mention of Jesus’ brothers (and sisters) and is dealt with just like all the other ones. One theory is that Joseph had had children from a previous marriage and that James was Jesus’ half-brother. It’s really no biggie.

When I lived in Liberia two men once introduced themselves to me as “brothers for true,” meaning that they shared at least one parent. (That their last names were different didn’t matter.)

  • Liberian

#3

This has been discussed in this forum many times, but it is probably best addressed in the CA tract catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Follow the James part (at the end) closely - we can show for CERTAIN that James was not the son of Mary.


#4

[quote=Magicsilence]Was reading the bible yesterday and everything was fine. UNTIL i got to galatians 1:19. It was like an arrow into my heart. For those of you who dont know the bible by memory its:

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

I tried to reason it being just a brother in a friendly way, but it doesnt work for me. Seems to be the actual brother of the Lord. Is there anyone to help me out, perhaps an article on how it was translated incorrectly in the beginning.

Dont just say " He meant friend, or disciple ". I know thats a possibility, but why didnt he say “one of the Lord’s brethren”, which indicates a close friend, or great friend, rather than a literal brother.
[/quote]

Have you read this?:
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp


#5

in many cultures, the word “brother” doesn’t always imply blood relations. sometimes a person is called “elder brother” (or “elder sister”, for that matter) out of respect, or as a term of endearment; and not because of any actual family connections.


#6

[quote=Magicsilence]Was reading the bible yesterday and everything was fine. UNTIL i got to galatians 1:19. It was like an arrow into my heart. For those of you who dont know the bible by memory its:

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

I tried to reason it being just a brother in a friendly way, but it doesnt work for me. Seems to be the actual brother of the Lord. Is there anyone to help me out, perhaps an article on how it was translated incorrectly in the beginning.

Dont just say " He meant friend, or disciple ". I know thats a possibility, but why didnt he say “one of the Lord’s brethren”, which indicates a close friend, or great friend, rather than a literal brother.
[/quote]

Remember that the Scriptures are always interpreted through the teaching of the Church. We as Catholics believe what the Church teaches about Mary. That Jesus was her only child and that she remained a virgin all her life. Scripture cannot be interpreted in anyway that would oppose this teaching. The Scriptures as the early Fathers point out prove that James was the son of another Mary.


#7

Brothers and sisters were in those days used about the exteded family, also for cousins. :slight_smile:

Brothers of Jesus 1:
catholic.com/library/Burial_Box_of_St_James_Found.asp

Brothers of Jesus 2:
catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp

Brethren of the Lord:
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

A good article from Envoi Magazine on the topic:
envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.3/nandb.htm

:thumbsup: God bless!


#8

I seem to be making a habit of quoting protestant commentaries at the moment. That’s all I have on this machine. Here’s John Gill on this phrase in Gal1:19:

save James the Lord’s brother; not James the son of Zebedee, the brother of John, whom Herod slew with the sword; but James the son of Alphaeus, he who made the speech in the synod at Jerusalem, Act_15:13 was the writer of the epistle which bears his name, and was the brother of Joses, Simon, and Judas, who are called the brethren of Christ, Mat_13:55 and that because they were the kinsmen and relations of Christ according to the flesh, it being usual with the Jews to call such brethren.

He has a lot more to say about it - explaining the possible ways by which this James was a kinsman of Jesus.

Albert Barnes in his notes on the New Testament says this: “C[size=3]ommentators have not been agreed as to what is meant by his being the brother of the Lord Jesus. Doddridge understands it as meaning that he was “the near kinsman” or cousin-german to Jesus, for he was, says he, the son of Alpheus and Mary, the sister of the virgin; and if there were only two of this name, this opinion is undoubtedly correct.”[/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]So there you have it from the pens of respected reformed commentators. Brother here means “near kinsman” and the term is used to differentiate this James from any other James.[/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]Incidentally Doddridge was the favourite preacher and writer of one of my doctrine lecturers at college. He founded a School for Dissenting Ministers in Northampton, an area surprisingly full of Puritans and Nonconformists. Unfortunately the school and training centre he started has closed. The ground floor, when we lived there a few years ago, was a hairdressers. But that is completely off topic!
[/size]


#9

Dear Magicsilence, :slight_smile:
I can appreciate your concern on this subject; however, if we keep in mind that St. Joseph was married prior to his union with Our Blessed Mother, then it is easy to see where we get the term ‘brother’ from.

I admit, I read old text which some may or may not agree with, but according to one such book; James was the youngest son of St. Joseph and his first wife. James was still in need of a mother figure, and Mary fulfilled that role; thus he saw her as a mother and Jesus as a brother. Which of course He was…anyone who has a step sibling calls them brother / sister…unless of course they do not get along.

I hope this helps a little.

Peace and Love to you and your loved ones. :slight_smile:


#10

Fear not. That verse just digs them in to a hole.

19 But other of the** apostles **saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

James can only be said to be an apostle.

			 				 				**Matthew 10** [[Context]]("http://www.unboundbible.com/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch&parallellist=nasb,,,,,,,,&displaylist=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1&search=JAMES&book=40N&from_chap=10&hide_context=1") [[Commentary]]("http://www.unboundbible.com/index.cfm?method=commentary.showCommentaryResults&book_index=40N&chapter=10") 
			 				 							 							2.  							 									 									Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and **James the son of Zebedee**, and John his brother; 									 						 	 					 							 							3.  							 									 									Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; **James the son of Alphaeus**, and Thaddaeus;  

Now unless Mary got remaried which they certainly can’t prove, or somehow there was a third apostle James, which there is not, this verse only proves that the term brother was much broader.

Blessings


#11

thx guys for the response. btw, in my Jerusalem bible(popular edition) it goes :

I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord.

Maybe you can see why the phrasing is incorrect and caused doubt.


#12

[quote=Magicsilence]thx guys for the response. btw, in my Jerusalem bible(popular edition) it goes :

I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord.

Maybe you can see why the phrasing is incorrect and caused doubt.
[/quote]

If you go to www.unboundbible.com you can compare it in about 10 or so different translatoins. You will see that the great majority, perhaps 8 of 10, make it clear that it is one of the Apostles James.


#13

???..i’m not sure i understand what your saying??? are you saying that christ didn’t have any other physical brothers??? remember mary was impregnated by the holy spirit as a virgin…i don’t think she remained a virgin…i believe her and joseph…eh hem…uh…welll you know…anyways…i think that mary and joseph had other kids…but, wasn’t like jesus…

Ceasar


#14

The words “brother” & “sister” were used much more loosely then, than they are now. It just meant a close relative of some kind.
I have recently come to think of “brethren” as being the generic word for relatives. If you have a group of people who are related to you, they are your “brethren”. I guess that the way I think of it, is that I have a *lot *of cousins, various degrees & manners of being related…(I introduced two of them, a few weeks ago. It was like ‘this is my cousin A, I’d like you to meet my cousin B…By the way, you are no relation to each other’).If I explained it to everybody, I’d :cool: never be done talking…
So, when scripture says the “brother of the Lord”, it simply means a relative…Without constructing the family tree.


#15

[quote=ceasar]???..i’m not sure i understand what your saying??? are you saying that christ didn’t have any other physical brothers??? remember mary was impregnated by the holy spirit as a virgin…i don’t think she remained a virgin…i believe her and joseph…eh hem…uh…welll you know…anyways…i think that mary and joseph had other kids…but, wasn’t like jesus…
[/quote]

You may believe this, but it is not what the Church teaches. In fact, it is in direct contradiction to what the Church teaches.

If you believe Mary had other children, let me ask a question. When is it right for a woman to bear the children of two different fathers? When the first father dies, yes. When the first father abandons the woman, maybe. Did God die? Did He abandon Mary?


#16

[quote=Nun_ofthe_Above]…I can appreciate your concern on this subject; however, if we keep in mind that St. Joseph was married prior to his union with Our Blessed Mother, then it is easy to see where we get the term ‘brother’ from…
[/quote]

While this is one speculation about St Joseph, we should keep in mind that this is all this, a speculation. The Church does not teach that St Joseph was definitely married to another woman before Mary. There are also traditions that St Joseph, along with Mary, was a virgin throughout his lifetime.


#17

[quote=ceasar]???..i’m not sure i understand what your saying??? are you saying that christ didn’t have any other physical brothers??? remember mary was impregnated by the holy spirit as a virgin…i don’t think she remained a virgin…i believe her and joseph…eh hem…uh…welll you know…anyways…i think that mary and joseph had other kids…but, wasn’t like jesus…

Ceasar
[/quote]

Have you not been reading all the explanation on this???
No, Mary had no other children. The James’ being talked about are sons of Zebeedee and Alpheous - not Joseph therefore not from Mary either! You are tinking of their marriage as WE think of marriage and you cannot apply that thinking here! READ!


#18

[quote=ceasar]???..i’m not sure i understand what your saying??? are you saying that christ didn’t have any other physical brothers??? remember mary was impregnated by the holy spirit as a virgin…i don’t think she remained a virgin…i believe her and joseph…eh hem…uh…welll you know…anyways…i think that mary and joseph had other kids…but, wasn’t like jesus…

Ceasar
[/quote]

Caesar, I was hoping you would answer my question about whether one can use John 3:16 to defend OSAS? That is since it was prior to the resurrection and OSAS hadn’t kicked in yet (according to you). Oh well.

My question to you is regardless of whether Mary had children or not isn’t it dangerous for them to sling verses without taking a good hard look at them to see if they prove the point intended. Gal 1:19 is a prime example. A James who is an Apostle CAN NOT be a child of Mary. Correct? Throw me a bone.

Blessings


#19

[quote=Joseph Bilodeau]While this is one speculation about St Joseph, we should keep in mind that this is all this, a speculation. The Church does not teach that St Joseph was definitely married to another woman before Mary. There are also traditions that St Joseph, along with Mary, was a virgin throughout his lifetime.
[/quote]

**Hi Joseph, :slight_smile: **

Thanks for your input; I appreciate your thoughts.
I agree it is all supposition…I did however indicate that my reasoning stemmed from liturature that some may hold to be dubious. (Keeping in mind that some also consider the deuterocanonicals, dubious.)
** I admit I like to read these books, and if I find several with the same body of thought, I am not adverse to taking it on board , as a possibility.**
With that in mind; I am just throwing in my thoughts on the possible meaning of the term brother, keeping in mind also that I doubt seriously the body of thought that James was a flesh and blood brother of our Lord.

Peace and love to you, and your loved ones. :slight_smile:


#20

[quote=Joseph Bilodeau]While this is one speculation about St Joseph, we should keep in mind that this is all this, a speculation. The Church does not teach that St Joseph was definitely married to another woman before Mary. There are also traditions that St Joseph, along with Mary, was a virgin throughout his lifetime.
[/quote]

In any writing by St. Katherine Emerich or the Life of Mary as seen by the Mystics, or the Life of St. Joseph none of them mentioned Mary or Joseph being previously married, they did mention that both were pure pure all of their lives.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.