Replies

But as pointed out, the mere possibility that "adelphos" can be used as a metaphor does not defeat a non-metaphorical usage of the term where appropriate.

I do not concede a metaphorical only translation in lieu of the same mother. I am of the Hebrew perspective and see Ach/Achim. I also allow the Greek Orthodox view since it arrives in the same kingdom, so to speak. I eschew the modern view prevalent in the 19th Century that these brothers and sisters were physical children of Mary, as well as the logically connected modern view that since Jesus was a rabbi he must have married and had children of his own so as to be accepted, and not scandalized, is his generation which is the same argument your brothers and sisters use on this forum with respect to Mary and Joseph having marital relations.

All well and good, except neither deviation from the Biblical account is creditable. The liberal theologian who wants to prove Jesus was married has no foundation in the text of Scripture. Instead, he must build a house of cards out of extra-Biblical speculation then read that back into the text. Likewise, the "perpetual virginist" has made a commitment to an extra-Biblical speculation concerning Mary that the text does not support, and so must attempt to force-fit that back into the text. It is those two who truly share the same modus operandi, not the straightforward reader of the text, who only wishes to find out what it says.

I for one have no prior commitment to how many children Mary had after Jesus, or whether she and Joseph had a normal sexual relationship after Jesus was born. My expectation would be that God has blessed marriage as one of the supremely good things ever done in all creation, and so I would expect a godly couple to live with all the joys and blessings of married life, including a normal, healthy sexual relationship, leading to children, as it typically does.

But if Scripture had gone against those expectations, and actually taught that Joseph and Mary were celibate after Jesus' birth, I would accept that as truth. Likewise, if Scripture had taught that Jesus had gone full cultural rabbi and married someone, while that would have been very difficult to understand theologically, I would have to accept it as true. God's word is the measure of truth. Not my expectations.

Happily, Scripture supports neither of those deviations from the plain text. The ordinary sense of "adelphos" is brother, and when Luke the Gentile uses it, he is using it because that's the word a native Greek-speaking Gentile would use for "brother," a "physical sibling." As for Jesus being married, the speculation is based on an incomplete representation of rabbinic culture, where one discovers, on closer examination, there are clear examples of respected rabbis who never were married.

So I am compelled to reject your analysis. Your effort to equate faithful translation to wildly errant liberal speculation is nonsensical. Without discipline in translation, Scripture could be made to say anything, as this thread amply demonstrates. Nevertheless, you are free to believe as you wish.

Peace,

SR