Creeping Catholicism in Scofield's Notes?

Vivificat! News, Opinions, Commentary, Reflections, from a personal Catholic perspective ^ | 12 September 2006 | Teófilo

[Teófilo]

Cyrus Scofield thought that "Jesus' brethren" were not Mary the Virgin's children, but her nieces and nephews. That's exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.

Folks, this Scofield note has always caught my attention:

Six Marys are to be distinguished in the N.T.:

(1) the mother of Jesus; by the context.

(2) Mary Magdaalways clearly identified lene, a woman of Magdala, " out of whom went seven demons" Luke 8:2 She is never mentioned apart from the identifying word "Magdalene."

(3) The mother of James (called "the less," Mark 15:40) and Joses, the apostles. A comparison of ; John 19:25; Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40 establishes the inference that this Mary, the mother of James the less, and of Joses was the wife of Alphaeus (called also Cleophas), John 19:25 and a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. Except in ; Matthew 27:61; 28:1 where she is called "the other Mary (i.e. "other" than her sister, Mary the Virgin); and John 19:25 where she is called "of Cleophas," she is mentioned only in connection with one or both of her sons.

(4) Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus, mentioned by name only in Luke 10:39-42; John 11:1,2,19,20,28,31,32,45; 12:3 but referred to in ; Matthew 26:7; Mark 14:3-9.

(5) The mother of John Mark and sister of Barnabas Acts 12:12.

(6) A helper of Paul in Rome Romans 16:6.

Notice what Scofield doesn't say but loudly implies: the so-called "brethren of Jesus" which detractors of Mary's perpetual virginity bring forth as "proof" that Mary didn't remain a Virgin were, according to this prominent Protestant biblical commentator, Mary's (the Mother of Jesus') nieces and nephews, children of her sister, Mary!

Far out! Note too how Scofield refers to Mary the Mother of Our Lord as "Mary the Virgin" without any qualifications.

Now, according to the Wikipedia,

Scofield's notes teach dispensationalism, a theology that was in part conceived in the early nineteenth century by the Anglo-Irish John Nelson Darby, who like Scofield had also been trained as a lawyer. Dispensationalism emphasizes the distinctions between the New Testament Church and ancient Israel of the Old Testament. Scofield believed that between creation and the final judgment there were seven distinct eras of God's dealing with man and that these eras were a framework around which the message of the Bible could be explained. It was largely through the influence of Scofield's notes that dispensationalism and premillennialism became influential among fundamentalist Christians in the United States.

What are we to make of the above note which undermines so much of the Protestant anti-Marian polemic? I say two things: not bad for a Fundamentalist and may God bless the man, for he knew exactly what Scripture said and in this instance, did not allow Protestant theological prejudice to drown what Scripture really said.

[Teófilo]

Typos. Blunders. Mine.

[Teófilo]

PING!

[the invisib1e hand]

Catholicism always creeps back into Protestantism, like a child grows to bear the marks of those whose genes he is truly made up of.

[Teófilo]

Uh, you mean "Protestantism creeps back into Catholicism" for Catholicism came first. Hopefully this "creeping effect" is on things that really matter.

-Theo

[Fester Chugabrew]

One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. Catholicism is not a thing to be shunned. It's just the way it is. But you were probably more concerned about the Roman Church, which, insofar as it may be subject to weakness (as we all are in this life), might teach and confess things not said in the biblical texts. The Church is begotten and sustained from above, not below. Whatever agreement exists in accord with the Head of the Curch is due solely to God's grace in Christ Jesus as worked by the Holy Spirit. That agreement becomes manifest in multiple and unlikely ways, as the Church continues under the cross.

[ladyinred]

for he knew exactly what Scripture said and in this instance, did not allow Protestant theological prejudice to drown what Scripture really said.

I don't know where the scriptures are that say that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Not being argumentative, I am seriously asking for the verses. Thanks.

[Teófilo]

Oh, wait. I misunderstood what you said!

I agree with what you say. My bad. I better go to sleep...

LOL!

-Theo

[PetroniusMaximus]

"What are we to make of the above note which undermines so much of the Protestant anti-Marian polemic? "

I'm afraid you've gotten some bad info. Protestants and Evangelicals are not "anti Mary". Many Evangelicals recognize the existence of strong arguments in favor of Mary's continuing virginity (chief of which in my mind is Jesus' giving of Mary to John at the cross, an unspeakable insult to the next-in-line were he to be James.)

I can not speak for all Evangelicals, but generally, we agree with you were we find your position to be in line with the Scriptures. And where we think you depart, or hold positions without Biblical support, there we must part ways.

That freedom of conscience I see clearly in the NT. It is something which I find, unfortunately, to be lacking in many periods of Church history. Paul did not stand on his authority, but invited his hearers to search the Scriptures themselves to see if what he was saying was true.


Although I do grant that there are certain folks who seem to have an "if Catholics believe it, we will believe the exact opposite" attitude.

[Teófilo]

There's no positive statement in Scripture that says that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Then again, there's no positive statement in Scripture saying that she wasn't and that was the point of this post.

Scripture, though normative, is not the sole source of faith, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. So the absence of any positive statement in favor of Mary's Perpetual Virginity doesn't bother us. The testimony comes from the Deposit of Faith handed down in Tradition, to which Scripture belongs and from which Scripture is rightly interpreted.

-Theo

[ecomcon]

In other words, you just make stuff up.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.

[Conservative til I die]

I'm afraid you've gotten some bad info. Protestants and Evangelicals are not "anti Mary".

I beg to differ. Most Protestants do their best to downplay and degrade her role. All because they have to be contrarian to the Catholics.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"Most Protestants do their best to downplay and degrade her role."

Why in the world would we want to do that???


"All because they have to be contrarian to the Catholics."

Not true! We desire to give her the same role she has in the Scriptures.

[The Old Hoosier]

We hand on what we received, both written and by word of mouth -- that's what St. Paul wrote that we were to do.

[Running On Empty]

What did you say?

[dangus]

Funny that the first time I see this argument in print, it is from a Protestant source. Here's an old vanity, describing my own studies in the matter:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1176488/posts

[dangus]

The relevant portion of my argument:

>> John 19:25 lists the women at the cross of Jesus as "his [Jesus'] mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."

In other words, you have three "Marys:" Jesus' mother (who I'll call BVM, for "the Blessed Virgin Mary," Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. The King James bible actually gets it right with the punctuation: John always puts the word "and" (trans. of "kai") between each item in a list. So, we know that "his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas" is actually one person.

This seems strange. How could a woman named Mary have a sister named Mary? That simply wasn't done! Well, in ancient times, there was no concept of an "in-law." Mary of Cleophas was apparently BVM's sister-in-law.

From the books of Luke, Matthew and Mark, we find that there is again another "Mary" at the resurrection. This Mary is defined as the "mother of James the lesser and of Joses." (Mt 27:56)

James the less also has a brother named Jude, according to Luke 6:16: "and Judas, [the brother] of James." We can't be mixing up Jameses either, because Luke 6:14 pairs the other James up with John. We know the other James is the brother of John. For instance, Matthew 4:21 refers to, "...James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father."

So, we have James, Joses and Judas who are sons of a woman named Mary who is not the mother of Jesus. And we know that we have at the same time a sister-in-law of the mother of Jesus who is also named Mary. But don't we know that James, Joses and Judas are sons of Alphaeus? How could they be sons of Mary, the wife of Cleophas?

Here's where the business of translation gets tricky. The King James bible calls James, "the [son] of Alphaeus." Why the brackets? Because the word, "son" does not appear in the original text. James is simply James of Alphaeus. Judas is simply Judas of James. Mary is simply Mary of Cleophas.

[Actually, that's Mary of "Clopas," in fact. The "e" and the "h" are inventions of the King James Bible. The authors of the King James bible sometimes changed names to distinguish between two people of the same name. For example, Judas the saint became known as Jude, while Judas Iscariot remained Judas. Why change "Clopas" into "Cleophas?" One of the disciples on the road to Emmaus was named Clopas, and there's no reason to doubt he's Mary's husband.]

While we know Clopas is a person, there is a city called Alphaeus in Northern Palestine. It seems odd for Jesus to have in-laws from that far North, but it seems stranger still for a Jew to be given the Greek name of a city. So, the two disciples who are called "[sons] of Alphaeus" are probably simply from Alphaeus.

In any event, we know that one apostle James is James of Alphaeus, and brother of Judas and Joses. We know the other James cannot possibly be the brother of Jesus, because he is the son of Zebedee. And in this case, we know that Zebedee is the name of James' father, because we meet him in Matthew 4:21, fixing the boat.

So, at this point, it seems more than likely that Jesus had cousins named James, Joses and Judas, and that neither James is Jesus' brother. <<

[dangus]

(I should note that "in ancient times" specifically meant in Israel. Although the Jews considered in-laws and blood relatives as the same, the Romans did have "in-laws.")

[Teófilo]

In other words, you just make stuff up.

Nooo...one avail oneself of other sources outside of Scripture that are equally binding.

-Theo

[jo kus]

PM, my friend, I must disagree with you on this point...

Paul did not stand on his authority, but invited his hearers to search the Scriptures themselves to see if what he was saying was true.

Paul quite often refers to his authority. He even considers himself infalllible when presenting the Gospel!

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Gal 1:8-9

Later, in the Pastorals, he tells Timothy and Titus to hold onto the deposit of faith given to them. For example:

"Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us." 2 Tim 1:13-14

Paul KNEW he was giving the true Gospel and commanded his successors to continue to preach THAT Gospel. There is no sense that an individual picks and chooses the contents of the Gospel in the New Testament.

Regards