Desposyni

Not Desposyni, but along a similar vein of witnesses to the life of Jesus having descendants (traditionally);

There is an 11th Century Islamic work by Shaykh Tusi that tells how a descendant of St. Simon, “one of the closest
companion and successor of Prophet Jesus”, married Joshua, the son of the Caesar and ruler of Rome, and that their daughter Malikah, or Narjes, married Hassan al Askan, the 11th Shi’ate imam (d.874 and a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed), and was mother to Mohammad al Hassan (b.869), the 12th imam, by some believed to be the Mahdi who is still alive and will return to rule before the Days of Judgement.
The St. Simon mentioned could be Simon, Bishop of Jerusalem, but would more likely fit Simon Peter. The reference to the Caesar of Rome is, however, anachronistic. And I cannot find a Joshua in the family of the Holy Roman Emperor, or that of the Byzantium Emperor.
In the New Testament, Simon and Andrew are brothers and fishermen. Jesus visited Simon’s home and healed his wife’s mother. Jesus also renamed Simon ‘Peter’ as a sign of how important he would be in the history of the Christian church.
Apparently there are people today with the surname Semaan in Antioch, where Simon Peter visited and left his family, who claim to be descended from him. But the surname Semaan seems to be very common amongst Christian families with links to the earliest Christian communities, so it more likely was a name adopted as a declaration of faith (it means ‘the listener’), rather than an indication of who an ancestor was.

Callistratus was the descendant of Neocorus/Okurus who, as a soldier under Tiberius, had witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus and was converted to Christianity. Callistratus was born in Carthage to Christian parents, and like his own father, was a soldier. The emperor Diocletian decreed Christianity illegal in the army, but Callistratus was heard praying to Jesus during the night, and was hauled before his commander. During his interrogation and torture, 49 of his fellow soldiers converted to Christianity, and they were all martyred together, c.300 AD.

When the Empress Helena, mother of the Emperor Constantine, travelled to Jerusalem in 327AD, she was seeking holy relics. On the track of the Holy Cross she met a Jew, Judas the son of Simon the son of Sachias, who knew, from knowledge passed down in his family, where the site of Golgotha was. Whether there was a tradition that his family saw the crucifixion, I haven’t read.

Originally posted by Sidney 3. Why did their claims die out? Did they all forget, or the lines become extinct. How late did the tradition last of being related to Jesus?

Interesting questions, I hope you keep us updated with your research.

I would suggest that the desposyni died out during the reign of Trajan. Julius Africanus coined the term desposyni, but he does not claim that any relatives were still living.

Hegesippus tells us that Simeon and James were made bishops and that the grandsons of Judas became bishops of the Church as was natural in the case of those who were . . . of the kindred of the Lord. And . . . their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trojan.

These men were all martyred and would likely have been celibate or continent:

St. Paul says in the first letter to the Corinthians (7:7-38) that he wishes that all were celibate like himself. Eusebius, commenting on this , says,

I am glad to say we are able to provide teachers and preachers of the word of holiness, free from all ties of life and anxious thoughts. And in our day these men are necessarily devoted to celibacy that they may have leisure for higher things; they have undertaken to bring up not one or two children but a prodigious number, and to educate them in godliness, and to care for their life generally.

And Tertullian writes, commending the clergy and women devoted to celibacy:

How many men, therefore, and how many women, in Ecclesiastical Orders, owe their position to continence, who have preferred to be wedded to God; who have restored the honour of their flesh, and who have already dedicated themselves as sons of that (future) age, by slaying in themselves the concupiscence of lust, and that whole (propensity) which could not be admitted within Paradise! Whence it is presumable that such as shall wish to be received within Paradise, ought at last to begin to cease from that thing from which Paradise is intact.

In his On Monogamy Tertullian explains that the wives of the apostles became ministers to them and not women with whom they had marriage relations.

And Jesus Christ said,

For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

My still-undecided-and-open-to-change thoughts are; The New Testament interpretation is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, not that she remained a virgin all her life.

The Virgin Mary seems to have taken a vow of virginity because she had no intention to have sexual relations. When the angel tells Mary you will conceive, she responds, how shall this be?

In any case, the interpretation of the early Church was that she was ever-virgin (see for example Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8). The notion that the Christian religion is based on the New Testament and not vice versa did not exist until the 14th century.

Well, it may sound irreverent, but when it comes to virginity...Mary may had conceived Jesus by non-penetrational sexual activity, and hence had been virgin when she bore him /many girls do that in order to keep a boyfriend but not no get too involved/ - but no one stays virgin after giving birth. Then she had other kids - if she wasn't married when she conceived Jesus she was when she conceived the others, so there was no reason to refuse her husband. Besides celibacy, even if embraced by Jesus, wasn't a feature of the everyday Jewish life, and Jesus's parents were ordinary people, not members of some elitist sect that was sworn to celibacy.

Tertullian was writing about and in later time - when the doctrine of celibacy /which I still think had to do more with Greek Stoic philosophy more than with Judaism/ was starting to spread. The only primary sources we have to rely about Jesus's intermediate family seem to be what Sylla1 posted - and to me they describe an ordinary family with kids etc.

Thank you, Leroy, for linking this work of Eusebius, which, I admit, haven't read.

Please note that in the case of James, TF Josephus explicitly called him & Jesus "brothers" in Greek language, within an historical non-religious work.

Originally posted by Sylla1 Mark 13: 55-56, copycated by Matthew 6: 3 :"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?" The canonical non-synoptic John mentions Jesus' brothers as a group twice:"After this he went down to Caper'naum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples; and there they stayed for a few days" (2: 12)"For even his brothers did not believe in him." (7: 5)

Thanks for the quotes, Sylla1.

Mentioning Jesus' brothers and sisters and mother and father together in Jesus' home environment certainly suggests that they were his close family, whatever interpretation you put on the term 'family'or on 'brother' - as full blood, adoption or half. Why mention brothers and sisters if they just meant cousins? Some of Jesus' cousins were his disciples, (the sons of Zebedee and of Alphaeus) but they are not called Jesus' brothers, and are not the brothers mentioned because we are told that Jesus' brothers didn't believe in him. Indeed, the above NT quote shows that the disciples and the brothers were seperate groups. If the brothers were his close companians, wouldn't 'disciple' cover them all?

I agree with you, Leroy, that celibacy certainly cut down on the likelihood of the Desposyni surviving in a long line. The last one mentioned (which does not mean the last one in existence)in Jerusalem was Judah, Bishop, expelled in 135AD in the time of Trajan. The Desposyni Bishops in Persia were alive in the mid 2nd Century, down to about the time of Marcus Aurelius. The last one I found reference to (up to now - and if I ignore the Welsh claims) was Conon in Turkey, in the time of Decius, about 220AD. If the story is accurate, that makes nearly 200 years of a family awareness. Maybe such claims were frowned upon, or even viewd by some as blaphemous (for similar reasons as these posts are illustrating - Christ had no brothers, and wasn't related to Joseph, so there can't be any descendants from them, and if there were they are not his relatives).

I wasn't aware of the idea that Mary was a consecrated virgin in the temple, so her suprise at being told she would be pregnant was not just that she was a virgin, but that she always intended to be one. But would a consecrated virgin of the temple be getting married in the first place? Her betrothal to Joseph occured before the pregnancy, and Joseph only hesitated about marrying her after Jesus was concieved. Wouldn't her temple status preclude a marriage (with or without sex)?

I'm not very good with understanding ancient languages. I'm okay accepting that there is no word for 'brother' in the Aramaic, and that the term used can have a multiple of meanings, but was the NT not written in Greek? Does it then apply to the Greek term 'brother'?But 'brother' also has multiple meanings in English -it can be full blood, half blood, adopted, in-law, spiritual, tribal, political, friendship, etc. But the same principle also goes for the term 'mother', 'sister','father' and son, so it gets to a bit of a stale-mate on the issue.

Edited by Sidney - 04-Apr-2012 at 14:39

Originally posted by Don Quixote About the Gospel of James - do you mean this one http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/jam2.html ? I cannot find in it a remark about Mary being a consecrated virgin, would you quote the relevant verses?

No, this one. The Gospel or Protoevangelium of James was written in the first half of the second century, when people who had known the apostles or at least their immediate disciples were still alive. In short, Mary's mother, Anne, vows that she would devote the child to the temple. Because of ceremonial considerations it was necessary she kept her virginity. Here is the relevant text:

"6. And the child grew strong day by day; and when she was six months old, her mother set her on the ground to try whether she could stand, and she walked seven steps and came into her bosom; and she snatched her up, saying: As the Lord my God lives, you shall not walk on this earth until I bring you into the temple of the Lord. And she made a sanctuary in her bed-chamber, and allowed nothing common or unclean to pass through her. And she called the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews, and they led her astray. . . .

7. And her months were added to the child. And the child was two years old, and Joachim said: Let us take her up to the temple of the Lord, that we may pay the vow that we have vowed, lest perchance the Lord send to us, and our offering be not received. And Anna said: Let us wait for the third year, in order that the child may not seek for father or mother. And Joachim said: So let us wait. And the child was three years old, and Joachim said: Invite the daughters of the Hebrews that are undefiled, and let them take each a lamp, and let them stand with the lamps burning, that the child may not turn back, and her heart be captivated from the temple of the Lord. . . .

8. . . . And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? . . .

9. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. . . ."

There are three more references to Mary as a virgin out of the temple of the Lord.

I cannot understand what the faith of people that Mary was a virgin has to do with her being a virgin or not?

She was by all historical accounts a perpetual virgin. That's my point.

I can believe in Santa Claus, this doesn't mean that objectively he exists. What are we talking here - about what objectively could have been, or about faith? Those are 2 very different things.

A proposition or belief is true if it corresponds to reality. You talk about knowing things objectively, but we can only know the-world-as-it-is-to-us and not the-world-as-it-is-in-itself. Belief is, therefore, a necessary condition of knowledge and knowledge a kind of belief.

I don't know if Desposyni have any descendants, or not, and frankly, I don't see it as relevant to anything; what I'm saying is that Jesus, if he existed, that is, was a person like anyone else, with relatives, etc;

It was relevant to the OP. The topic is about the desposyni remember.

Do you really doubt the historicity of Jesus? If you hold other historical figures to the same level of proof, you would have to dismiss the existence of a great many of them.

Besides, celibacy was not an universal Christian ideal, only the Catholic Church got set on it, the Orthodox Christianity doesn't teach celibacy, and the Orthodox priests get married; and the Orthodox Chtistianity has the claim to the the oldest Christian church, since the Catholics separated from it in the Schism at 1054. But this is another story.

Then I suppose the Orthodox Church imposed celibacy on all clergy at the Council of Elvira in 306.

Orthodox priests are allowed to remain married, not get married. Orthodox bishops are celibate. The same rules apply to the Eastern Catholic Church.

Originally posted by Sidney I'm okay accepting that there is no word for 'brother' in the Aramaic, and that the term used can have a multiple of meanings, but was the NT not written in Greek?

Yes, but most of the dialogue had to have been in Aramaic.

Does it then apply to the Greek term 'brother'?

It does in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament). Lot, Abraham's nephew, is called Abraham's brother, and Jacob, Laban's nephew, is called Laban's brother. The translators used the Greek word for brother even though Greek has a word for cousin. By literally translating the word brother they imported the Jewish meaning of the word into their Greek language.

Considering this, the context, the early Christian interpretation, and the very early reference (Gospel of James, see above) to Joseph's children from a previous marriage, it's more plausible that the word brother was used in the wider sense.

You seem to be focusing a lot on the New Testament, but there was no set New Testament for the early Christians. Not until the Council of Rome in 382 did the Christian Church universally agree on the canon of the New Testament.

thank you, Leroy, for linking this gospel I haven't read before I cannot take it as a historical proof per se, because of it's clear agenda, but it's an interesting read anyway.

As for the rest of the things we have to agree to disagree, due to our different POV.
I consider faith being different from historical research, and in many cases an obstacle to it, because is requires taking in faith things that are not seen, not proven, nor realistic. Faith requires putting a theology, dogma, doctrine, of a philosophical theory above the historical evidence - hence it cannot be a base for a purely historical research - this is what I think, and I'll keep myself to it.
All religions are man-made, by deifying people, along mythological lines, that repeat themselves - I read Joseph Campbell on that, Mircha Eliade, and Fraser on that.

Do I doubt the historictity of Jesus - yes, one of the possible possibilities I consider is that he may have never existed. Here are the possibilities I consider as possible:
- Jesus never existed, was a completely fabricated myth, like ones about Zeus or Heracles - which is less feasible than the 2nd one, because of the references we have, but it still a possibility
- he existed as a human, a moral teacher, and was later deified - which is my current hypothesis
- he existed as a son of god - which I don't believe in, but is still a possibility.

As for your above post - I'm not talking about pagan influence, I'm noting the way in which all religious are created - through human archetypes, like the ones Jung talks about - and the archetype of dying-and-ressurected-god is one of those. I'm not saying that whoever copied the resurection ides from Dionysus - I'm saying that the resurrection idea is an old human archetype, that appears in many cultures, in some way in may be inbuilt in out brain structures, what Jung calls our "collective unconscious". As such, I has nothing to do with cultural borrowing, but is a stricture that, like the grammar structure that enables us to become literate, unables the human beings to create religions in their cultural context. Modern examples of creating denominations and religions are the LDS church and the cult of John Frum in Vanuatu. As I said, Christianity doesn't get special treatment from me - I acknowledge the positive value religion as for the psychological life on man individuals, but this by any means doesn't make it ground in any reality.

Now that you know where I stand, I propose we don't highjack the thread with proving the existence or not of god, but go back on the OP - on which I have to say, IMHO - that of Mary was a consecrated virgin for life, then Jesus wouldn't be born - conceiving required, in those times before the artificial inseminating, sex. Nor was Jesus unique, he had a family like everyone else. Which, I suppose, /in a possibility that god exists and Jesus was his son/, was the point - that Jesus was one ordinary person, like all of us, and he showed what the full capacity of a human being is - conquiering the matter=walking on water, and that the soul doesn't die - this of, course, only under a working hypothesis that deity exist.



Edited by Don Quixote - 05-Apr-2012 at 13:08

Originally posted by Leroy Lot, Abraham's nephew, is called Abraham's brother, and Jacob, Laban's nephew, is called Laban's brother. The translators used the Greek word for brother even though Greek has a word for cousin. By literally translating the word brother they imported the Jewish meaning of the word into their Greek language. Considering this, the context, the early Christian interpretation, and the very early reference (Gospel of James, see above) to Joseph's children from a previous marriage, it's more plausible that the word brother was used in the wider sense.You seem to be focusing a lot on the New Testament, but there was no set New Testament for the early Christians. Not until the Council of Rome in 382 did the Christian Church universally agree on the canon of the New Testament.

Good point Leroy. I've looked at some non-canonical New Testament sources. This site http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html has many early Christian texts.
Unfortunately they don't actually help in deciding what people believed about Jesus' brothers, although the majority take them to be the sons of Joseph, (and some that Jesus was too).
To quote;

1. The Gospel of James (aka Nativity of James, or Potoevangelium, dated mid to late 2nd Century)“And the priest said unto Joseph: Unto thee hath it fallen to take the virgin of the Lord and keep her for thyself. And Joseph refused, saying: I have sons, and I am an old man, but she is a girl: lest I became a laughing-stock to the children of Israel. “

2. The First Apocalypse of James (late 2nd to early 3rd Century) Jesus says to James..."See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially. And I am not ignorant concerning you; so that when I give you a sign - know and hear."

3. The Odes of Solomon (2nd Century) “And I did not perish, because I was not their brother, nor was my birth like theirs.”

So these sources state categorically that Jesus was not a (blood) brother to the children of Joseph.
However;

4. Clement of Alexandria (dated late 2nd Century)“Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, the brother of the sons of Joseph and very religious, whilst knowing the near relationship of the Lord, yet did not say that he himself was His brother. But what said he? "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ,"--of Him as Lord; but "the brother of James." For this is true; he was His brother, (the son) of Joseph.“ and also “…being certain that He [Jesus] had both a mother and brothers, they tested His divinity rather than His nativity.”

This suggests the sons of Joseph were considered Jesus' brothers, although 'considered;' doesn't mean they really were.

5. Hegesippus (dated late 2nd Century, quoted by Eusebius in the 4th Century) “There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother.”

Here it is clearly stated that Jesus had brothers in the flesh (but again we have your point that we don't know how specific the term 'brother' was).
However;

6.The Second Apocalypse of James (dated to mid 2nd Century) “This is the discourse that James the Just spoke in Jerusalem"...”Once when I was sitting deliberating, he opened the door. That one whom you hated and persecuted (i.e. Jesus) came in to me. He said to me, "Hail, my brother; my brother, hail." As I raised my face to stare at him, (my) mother said to me, "Do not be frightened, my son, because he said 'My brother' to you (singular). For you (plural) were nourished with this same milk. Because of this he calls me "My mother". For he is not a stranger to us. He is your step-brother [...]."

And further;

7. The Gospel of Philip (late 2nd to early 3rd Century) “Philip the apostle said; Joseph the carpenter planted a garden because he needed wood for his trade. It was he who made the cross from the trees which he planted. His own offspring hung on that which he planted. His offspring was Jesus, and the planting was the cross." and “Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying….And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father".

8. Acts of St Thomas(early 3rd Century) “And the Lord (Jesus) said to him (Abbanes, a merchant): I have a slave that is a carpenter and I desire to sell him. And so saying he showed him Thomas afar off, and agreed with him for three litrae of silver unstamped, and wrote a deed of sale, saying: I, Jesus, the son of Joseph the carpenter, acknowledge that I have sold my slave, Judas by name, unto thee Abbanes, a merchant of Gundaphorus, king of the Indians. And when the deed was finished, the Saviour took Judas Thomas and led him away to Abbanes the merchant, and when Abbanes saw him he said unto him: Is this thy master? And the apostle said: Yea, he is my Lord. And he said: I have bought thee of him. And thy apostle held his peace.“

9. Hippolytus of Rome (late 2nd to early 3rd Century) doesn't agree with these people, but states that “Carpocrates affirms that…Jesus was generated of Joseph, and that, having been born similar to (other) men, He was more just than the rest (of the human race).“ and “But a certain Cerinthus,…supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin, but that he was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner similar with the rest of men, and that (Jesus) was more just and more wise (than all the human race).“

So these show a belief that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and not of a virgin birth.

All pretty inconsistent. Taken together however, they show a tradition that the 'brothers' of Jesus were the sons of at least one of his parents. If you add that to my earlier post where I remarked that the Desposyni seemed to claim their relationship to Jesus through Joseph the carpenter, it strongly suggests an early belief that Jesus was the son of Joseph. This tradition seems to have survived alongside the belief that Jesus was the son of a virgin, until the virgin birth became the official version, meaning that any hint of a family in the flesh was down played, explained away, or denied.

As an aside to my OP - yet it has appeared here and maybe appropriate for another thread;
Reading these 2nd-3rd Century texts, there is no idea of a perpetual virginity for Mary. When they mention Mary as a virgin, it is to emphasise that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, and that after Jesus was born there was no physical evidence that she had borne a child (ie she was still a virgin). That Jesus was born of a virgin was important for prooving that Jesus fulfilled certain prophecies and that he was of divine origin. But there is no interest or comment in these texts about whether Mary stayed a virgin all her life.










Edited by Sidney - 05-Apr-2012 at 23:01

Thanks for this discussion Sidney, so far it has been interesting. I have to correct what I said before about Tertullian. He is in fact the only Church Father that denied the continued virginity of Mary (though affirming the virginal conception of Jesus like the rest).

On point 4, Clement actually explains the sense in which Jude is called the brother of Jesus. If he were saying that Jesus was the son of Joseph too, then he would contradict himself,

The Son of God -- of Him who made the universe -- assumed flesh, and was conceived in the virgin's womb (as His material body was produced). (The Stromata 6, 15)

and,

Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. "And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth," says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself, and not from conjunction. (The Stromata 7, 16)

On point 5, St. Paul in his Letter to the Romans identifies himself as a brother according to the flesh of the Jews. In Hegesippus the meaning is more narrow but can extend beyond biological brother.

On points, 6, 7, and 8, the gnostic gospels have no historical value because it's not possible to trace or link them to the apostles or one of their students or witnesses, and they were written decades or centuries after the apostolic age.

On point 9, St. Hippolytus also says that Cerinthus formed his opinions not from Scripture but from Egyptian gnosticism. In this he affirms the historical fact of the gnostic systems borrowing elements from a variety of religions, including Christianity, but only to illustrate their own principles.

To come back to the topic of Mary's virginity or her not having any other children besides Jesus. St. Ignatius writes around the turn of the first century:

You are … fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh … truly born of a virgin. (Smyrnaeans 1, 1)

Our God, Jesus Christ, was according to the appointment of God conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. (Ephesians 18)

The virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord. (Ephesians 19)

Note that Ignatius immediately succeeded Evodius as bishop of Antioch (possibly between 64 and 67) if Eusedius is correct (Church History, 22). According to a late account of his martyrdom he was a student of the Apostle St. John. That he knew St. John is plausible because his friend Polycarp was a student of the Apostle John according to St. Irenaeus. Irenaeus knew Polycarp and mentions him several times in his letter to Florinus, his letter to Pope Victor, and in his Against Heresies (3, 3). He writes to Florinus, a priest from Rome who became convinced by the gnostic Valentinus that God was the author of evil,

These doctrines, O Florinus, to speak mildly, are not of sound judgment. These doctrines disagree with the Church, and drive into the greatest impiety those who accept them. These doctrines, not even the heretics outside of the Church, have ever dared to publish. These doctrines, the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions of the apostles, did not deliver to you.

For when I was a boy, I saw you in lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in splendor in the royal court, and endeavoring to gain his approbation.

I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord.

This letter, besides indirectly proving the connection of Ignatius (via Polycarp) to the Apostle John, tells us that gnosticism was opposed by the Church from the beginning and did not receive any tradition directly from the apostles or their companions. This and the late date of the gnostic gospels excludes the possibility that the gnostic gospels are based on a reliable or first-century tradition.

The letters of St. Ignatius show that Mary was considered a virgin from the beginning. Against the opinion that she did not continue to remain a virgin, I would object that

it is not implied that she did not continue to remain a virgin in the New Testament or in the Fathers

her continued virginity is not a question raised in the New Testament

once it was raised, her continued virginity was affirmed in the Fathers

when the question of Jesus' brothers was raised, they are in the Fathers (except for Tertullian) identified as his cousins or stepbrothers

So the most plausible conclusion seems to me that Mary did not have any other children besides Jesus, and that we don't know the exact relationship of  James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon with Jesus, but they are according to the strongest tradition his stepbrothers.

Edited by Leroy - 08-Apr-2012 at 14:25

Originally posted by Don Quixote The NT ones are not written by John, Matthew, etc, nor do they state to be written so by them.

You would be correct in stating that we do not know who wrote the four Gospels. But the question of who wrote the four Gospels may be irrelevant to the authorship of the Gospels, and scholars are divided on what constitutes authorship. I suppose you could argue against the direct authorship or composition of the four Gospels. But in the ancient world, and today still, an individual was considered the author if the text was written according to his thoughts. For example, the first Letter of St. Peter ends with a greeting from St. Mark. And St. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis around 130, tells us that Mark became Peter's interpreter (Fragments of Papias, 6). It is therefore very probably that Mark wrote Peter's letter, but Peter was still considered to be the author in the broad sense. But, I'm not arguing for direct apostolic authorship, the point is that we have here a direct connection that is missing in all the gnostic gospels.

Moreover, they had been selected by a hardening church that was to became a political institution with real power and agenda to guard this power, so had been selected to fulfull this role.

Interesting evaluation and possibly entirely true, but irrelevant really to the matter.

The Gnostic gospels, in the case on Nag Hammadi ones, couldn't have been edited with agenda in mind because they were dug in the dirt, so we find them now as they had been written - which cannot be said about the NT gospels.

Do you have any historical evidence that the four Gospels included in the canon of the New Testament were edited with an agenda in mind or is your opinion, stated as fact, based on an evaluation?

The gnostic gospels are without historical value not because they were edited (I do not claim or know if they were) but because they lack any sort of connection to the apostolic period or the people associated with the apostles (such as Ignatius or Polycarp whom contradict them). They were actively opposed from the very beginning by Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, for historical reasons: these [gnostic] doctrines, the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions of the apostles, did not deliver to you.

So the historical evidence is quite clear that the gnostic gospels have nothing to do with the relevant people or period.

They had been written in roughly the time the NT ones were written, so have absolutely the same claim to be treated in the same way as the NT one are.

No, they were written decades after and most of them at least a century.

I see them as more pure than the selected and edited  with a political agenda in mind NT ones. I'm not buying anything that has been used for 2 millenia as propadanga weapon by churches to have bigger authentic value than one that has been not used as such.

How is all this relevant historically? With all due respect, but we are having a historical discussion?

The gnostic gospels show what the different groups of Gnostics thought about the matter - the Gnoctics weren't one stream, they were more like a phylosophical pool, in which Hermetic, pagan, Orphic, etc traditions mixed in with what was to come with the nascent Christianity.

Yes, they are interesting in so far as they tell us about different gnostic systems and schools, which is why I read them. The third century story about Jesus killing children that are making fun of him and then blinding their parents for complaining about it is especially entertaining. They are however based on the Greek god of mischief and used to illustrate the gnostic principles.


Edited by Leroy - 11-Apr-2012 at 12:09