|
BerianAardvark -> RE: Where's Joseph? (7/23/2008 11:48:06 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
It's actually supported not just by Tradition, but by scripture. Particularly of interest is the attitude of the brothers towards Jesus. Check out John 7:3–4, where His brothers offer him some practical advice. For the younger brothers to do such a thing would be unheard of in that culture. Younger siblings don't offer advice, they ask for advice instead.
Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near. Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. "For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world." For not even His brothers were believing in Him. (John 7:2-5)
If you include verse 5 to put it in context, they weren't offering practical advice they were offering but more probably derision.
They did not truly believe on the Lord Jesus. They told Him that He should go to the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem and perform some of His miracles there so that His disciples might see what He was doing. The disciples spoken of here were probably not the twelve, but rather those who professed to be followers of the Lord Jesus in Judea.
quote:
In the gospel of Mark, we see that they went to seize Him thinking that "he is beside himself". Only older siblings would dream of doing that. Younger brothers simply wouldn't have the authority.
His Mother and brothers together would have had sufficient authority to do so, the authority of the eldest son was not absolute.
quote:
And you'll note that even though His "brothers" were still alive at the time of the crucifixion, Jesus entrusted Mary to John(John 19:26–27). Why would He do that if there were other siblings? The very fact that this was done blows away the idea that James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude were the children of Mary. The children of Joseph likely, but certainly not Mary.
When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He *said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household. (John 19:26-27)
And why wouldn't He chose to ask His closest follower and friend, someone for whom He had great love as affection to take care of His mother? There was nothing in the culture to prevent Jesus from assigning the care of His mother to someone even out side of the family whom He trusted to care for her. It serves as proof that Joseph was dead, but not that Mary was not the mother of the other members of Jesus household.
quote:
Indeed, there's other bits of evidence as well. Note how Our Lord is referred to as "THE son of Mary" in Mark 6:3. If Mary had other sons, then the people would have referred to Him as "A son of Mary." Instead they refer to Him in a way that shows there was only a single son of Mary.
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him. (Mark 6:3)
Referring to Jesus as the son of Mary was calling His legitimacy into question, not stating that He was the only son of Mary. In that culture you were the son of your father, to be called the son (or daughter) of a woman was a way of saying that no one knew who your father was.
Even after the child's father was long dead they would be referred to as the son (or daughter) of their father....never solely as son or daughter of their mother unless their father was unknown. Notice His sisters didn't rate a mention by name, but His brothers did. It was a male dominated culture, linage was traced by paternal, not maternal lines.
So it seems your proof texts don't quite meet the test, there is an equally or even more likely way to see them that doesn't support your position at all. Of course none of this is new to you or anyone else who has studied this.
Tim
|
|
|
|