Replies

Hi, AlguyA!! It's nice to see you.

I have a habit of mentally categorizing each of my RC Opponents into the Roles they play in my own personal "education by Life-Theater" (I tend towards narcisstic solipsism. So sue me).

"Catholicguy" is a pugnacious brawler, and reminds me to attempt to remain Civil -- he can give as good as he gets. (All too often, better)
"Polycarp" is like a, hmm... Orthodox Ecumenicist, and reminds me to stay Friendly -- he attempts, while respecting our divisions, to find Common Ground where we stand together in this Present Age upon the foundation of Scripture and Tradition. A welcome alternative, I think, to the Anti-Orthodox Ecumenicists of Billy Graham and Tony Campolo and (dare I say) the current Pope.**
And you? You are like my own personal Roman Catholic Skeptic -- you always question, always doubt (in charity), always try to keep me intellectually honest. Which can only be a good thing.

Much obliged, and always a pleasure. But in response, I think I'll address your comments in reverse order.

Is it your contention John 3:16 would be better translated, "only-born" Son rather than "begotten" son? Or that there is no difference between the two?

No. The simple issue here is that New Testament Greek has two entirely different terms for "First-Born" (prototokon) and "Only-Born" (monogene), and both are used quite effectively in Scripture.

Monogene, meaning "Only" born or begotten, is used appropriately in John 3:16 -- Christ Alone is Eternally-Begotten of the Father, the "only-begotten" Son (monogene). But this isn't the terminology used with Mary -- the term there is "prototokos", meaning "first-born" Son AND NOT MEANING "only-born" Son, which is "monogene" (cf John 3:16, again).

In the Catholic Encyclopedia, Mr. Bechtel attempts to fudge the issue by pointing out that the "only" child to breach a woman's birthing canal is, by definition, the "first" child to do so. Well, yes, that's biologically true -- which together with a buck-seventy-five, will get you a cup of Hemingway java at Baby's Coffee outside of Key West. But Bechtel is still trying to skirt around the basic fact that, while his pedantic observation is biologically correct, these concepts demand two entirely different words in the Greek -- MONOGENE "Only-Born" or PROTOTOKON "First-Born". The Gospel writers had a clear choice, used "only-born" where appropriate, and chose "first-born" in regard to Jesus birth of Mary.

Moving along....

Hmmm, could you please provide the quotes Eusebius and Clement offer stating Jesus and James were "blood-brothers." The references I've seen from these two sources would argue just the opposite.

Here's a dollop of the relevant quotes:

Clement, the bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215 CE), who confirms in Outlines, Bk. VI: "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."

Eusebius (263 - 339 CE), Historia Ecclesia ii,23.4: ".....turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."

Hegesippus (c. 100 - 160 CE), Bk 5: "Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James...."

Origen (185 - 254 CE), quoting early Josephus: "These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

Josephus (37 - c. 100 CE), Antiquities xx: "So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

Clement: "When James the Righteous had suffered martyrdom like the Lord and for the same reason, Symeon, the son of his Uncle Clopas, was appointed bishop. He being a cousin of the Lord."

Eusebius: "A group of heretics accused the descendants of Jude...the brother, humanly speaking, of the Savior...on the ground that they were of David's line and related to Christ himself."

Now I've got two questions for you (and also Mr. Madrid):

In the first place, regarding the Exaltation of James the Righteous to the Episcopal Throne of Pre-Eminence over the Apostles, what kind of sense does it make to propose that we are talking about James the Lesser? If James the Lesser was just (one of several) first-cousins, why Exalt him to the Episcopal Throne? And why call attention to his "brotherhood", if he is just a "brother", you know, "cousinly-speaking" (or whatever) as a basis for his Exaltation to the Episcopal Throne?
If James the Righteous is the Eldest half-brother of Jesus, we can read the Traditions exactly as written and it all falls quite neatly into place.... "good interpretive evidence for something very dramatic happening after Jesus’ crucifixion lies in the very fact that Jesus’ brothers didn't believe who He was (would your brothers?) until the resurrection (which would convince anyone!). Suddenly, the oldest surviving sibling is the head of the Jerusalem Assembly of Jesus Movement Jews."
But if we read the Traditions as (despite what they say) referring to James the Lesser (who was just one of several first-cousins), the records of Clement and Eusebius don't really make a lot of sense. The only reason we would even advance such an awkward proposition is if we were attempting to "square the circle" in favor of a Romano-centric, Petrine-successionist view of the Early Jewish Church which is simply incommensurate with the Facts of the Case.
If you think that is too harsh a critique on my part, try this -- when you offer your response, offer your response in terms of Ockham's Razor, and see if it really holds water -- capische?
And in the second place, Bechtel of the Catholic Encyclopedia stakes his entire case on the Claim that "James the Righteous" (son of Mary of Joseph) was the SAME PERSON as "James the Lesser" (son of Mary of Cleophas). Beyond the Point that this is Scripturally Impossible in terms of Matthew 10 and 13, this absurdity is also Magisterially Impossible given the fact the Blessed Saint Clement expressly records within a few years of the Fact that Cleophas was the UNCLE of James the Righteous, NOT his father as Bechtel claims -- thus directly contraverting Bechtel's fanciful imaginations, and directly supporting the Protestant Argument.

So pardon my sarcasm, AlguyA...

But exactly where does Bechtel get off, 1900 years after the fact, with his delusional claims that Cleophas was the Father of James the Righteous when the Blessed Saint Clement expressly states that Cleophas was the UNCLE of James the Righteous?!?! (which, incidentally, would make Joseph and Mary the FATHER and MOTHER of James the Righteous)?

Vietnam, Deja Vu?

We must burn down Tradition, in order to save it?

No dice, kemosabe.

best, OP

**-- (Dominus Iesus was a happy exception -- it was like that "Old Time Roman Catholic Hour", dredged out of the steamer trunk for one last rallying of the Faithful. But as the US Bishops declare the Conversion of Jews to be a fool's errand and the Pope busies himself with suckling a Koran on candid camera, I fear Dominus may be the last gasp -- in this Age, at least -- of the Robust Romanism I once knew, and loved-to-hate)

"The Gospel writers had a clear choice, used "only-born" where appropriate, and chose "first-born" in regard to Jesus birth of Mary."

First, thanks for your kind words. I'll be answering your post with several posts so please bear with me. Let's start with monogene.

I believe your observations are correct -in a sense. Monogene means "only-born" while the Holy Spirit chose "first-born" to describe Jesus' relationship to Mary. But I think I differ with you on the import of this fact. Monogene, when applied to Jesus, means something more than just "only-born" from what I've read on the subject. Indeed, from my understanding it connotes, also, a one-of-a-kindness, a specialness. And it is from this connotative sense that we derive, "begottenness" -the idea that the Second person of the Trinity, God the Son, has always coexisted with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.(And, of course, we especially derive it from the openning sentences John 1.)

Now, look what would happen had the Holy Spirit inspired the Gospel writers to apply monogene to describe Jesus as Mary's only child. The specialness of the relationship between God the Son and God the Father would be muddied. Indeed, on another thread right now, a Calvinist (God bless him) is pointing out an early Mormon belief of God the Son at some point being "born" to God the Father. Now, imagine how much stronger the Mormon heresy in this regard would be if the Holy Spirit had decided to use monogene to also describe the relationship between Mary and Jesus. Monogene is used in the New Testament several times to describe an only child, but it is reserved by John, when he references Jesus, for the special case of the relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity.

Hence, I would argue it makes perfect sense that, when inspiring the Gospel Writers, the Holy Spirit would reserve monogene to describe this special Triune relationship, while using the conventional OT "first-born" usage described by Bechtel to denote the relationship between Mary and Jesus.

It is good that believers ponder such things, even though I'm sure you'll disagree with me. In the last day or two, as I've pondered and prayed on your post, I have found it very fruitful just contemplating such things. Peace be with you and know that I will be addressing the whole "James the Rightous" part of your argument within the next day or so.