Perhaps it owes to my curious upbringing, but as some may savor the subtleties of a fine wine or perhaps admire the brush strokes of a master painter, I enjoy a good barb. Insults are to me like clay. Anybody can mold clay. Squish it, bend it, make into the facsimile of a horsey or a duck. But in the hands of the truly gifted, clay can become a work of immense beauty.
In the same vein insults, sarcasm, and snark in general are ubiquitous. Like paint on a wall, it surrounds you with inartfulness of a minimum wage workman. But the same paint on a canvas in the hands of a master is a whole ‘nother matter.
Here in the Catholic blogosphere your average blogger falls into two categories. The nice and the snarky. I appreciate the nice people, truly. I just don’t understand them. They are like contortionists in the circus. A curiosity. You wonder how they do it? Bending this way and that, twisting in unnatural ways simply in order to be nice. Like the circus contortionists, you admire their craft while they remain completely alien.
On the other hand, the purveyors of snark are everywhere. Most are bad at it. I fear I am in that category. Every once in a while you stumble upon a master in the art of not nice.
Meet Fr John Hunwicke SSC. Fr. Hunwicke, in the form of a faux dialogue with our protestant brethren, discusses the notion that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
The Gospels make it quite clear that Jesus had brothers. They don’t. Adelphoi can mean kinsmen. It doesn’t have to mean uterine (that is, born of the same womb) brothers.
So you say. But that’s the obvious meaning if anyone talks about “Jesus’ brothers” in any language, isn’t it? Not at all. Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels, in their accounts of the Crucifixion, both talk about “Mary the mother of James and Joses [or Joseph]”. If this Mary had been the same as Christ’s own mother, it would have been very odd for them not to refer to her as the Mother of Jesus.
So what? Well, in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55, the places where those “brothers of Jesus” are mentioned, the full text reads: ” Jesus the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses [or Joseph] and Judas and Simon”. We’ve just seen that James and Joses are apparently the sons of some Mary who was clearly not the same as Mary the Mother of Jesus. And they’re the first two on the list here. The list is thus clearly not itemising individuals who were uterine brothers of Jesus.Well, I still think it’s obvious that … If it’s so “obvious”, you’ve got some explaining to do. Throughout the second century the Gospels were increasingly regarded as ‘canonical’ and authoritative. If it is so “obvious” that James and the rest of those listed in the Gospels were uterine brothers of Jesus, then the tradition that Jesus was Mary’s only child must have arisen well before those Gospels came to be regarded as authorities. Otherwise, when somebody started saying “she never had any more children”, somebody who had read the Gospels would have said “Aha, you’re wrong: here’s a list of his brothers”. So, if you’re right about it being so “obvious”, you’re going to have to admit that Mary’s perpetual virginity is so early as to predate the acquisition of authority by the Gospels; which modern scholarship dates to the beginning of the second century at the latest. I’ve got you either way.
That’s all gobbledegook. It’s obvious …That’s the problem with you Prods and you Liberals. You’re impervious to reason.
Of course we are. Reason is the Devil’s Whore. Martin Luther said so. It’s obvious.
Ah! I just can’t get enough of beautiful words and phrases such as Gobbledegook, Prods, and Devil’s Whore. Music to my ears. As you can see, he starts out very nicely and lays out the facts for those who are willing to listen. Once he has accomplished that, he then takes out the frying pan and gives those less inclined to good humour and reason a good one right up side the head. This is something I understand,
Beautiful, a master. A master at work. Simply beautiful.
February 3, 2009 at 4:35 am
Uh Pat,
You might be spending a lot of time in Purgatory. I hope you’re cool with that.
February 3, 2009 at 11:32 am
Um…so how come when Fr John says Prods he gets a wink and a thumbs up, but when I say Fundie I get pinned down and my throat stomped on????
And yes, a good put-down, especially one veiled in meaningful charity is just tops. Theologians have known that one for centuries.
February 3, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Now, now, let’s all have some herbal, organic lemonade and try to hear where everyone’s coming from, okay? I mean, like, totally, I’m personally opposed to killing babies, sure, but if that’s your faith tradition I can, like, you know, get behind that, totally. I mean, like, the spirit of Vatican II and all that, y’know?
Mack
February 3, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Without trying to take away from your critique, I will say that the whole James, brother of Jesus, conversation has been going on for 1800 years or so and is not considered invalid, except if you assert that he is Mary’s biological son.
The earliest note in this whole controversy comes from the Protoevangelium of James c. 120 AD, and it states that St. James is the son of Joseph (and therefore the step-brother to Jesus). St. Jerome popularized the whole “cousin” idea and it is largely what is taught in the Latin Catholic Churches (Eastern Catholic embrace the step-brother view) neither takes away from Mary as the perpetual virgin. Neither impunes the faith. Frankly, it shouldn’t be all that controversial.
The Catholic Church does not reject tradition on this point. The Protoevangelium may not be canonical scripture, but it is considered Tradition.
For more info go here: http://orthodoxwiki.org/James_the_Just
February 3, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Mrs. Darcy
If you take a look at the post I linked, the topic at hand is Mary’s title “Ever Virgin.”
Therefore the assertion that brothers automatically means from the same mother is what is being addressed. It does not exclude, I think, your point.
February 3, 2009 at 5:35 pm
If Jesus had a “uterine” brother, it would not have been necessary (never mind appropriate) for Him to formally hand over His mother to the care of John “the disciple whom He loved,” who then “took her into his home.” This occurred while Our Lord was on the Cross, and was binding under Mosiac law, especially in the presence of eyewitnesses — a provision which the writer of John’s gospel took pains to underscore.
February 3, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Patrick,
Oh, I read it, and I understood the argument that you were making re: kinsmen . . .
Actually, I was in charity, hoping that the priest in question is not a complete tool, but it may be too much to hope for.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Darcy
February 3, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Anyway, it looks like I got who was making the looney argument wrong. . . so sorry . . . Some protestants are simply anti-history . . .
February 3, 2009 at 6:39 pm
David – In Catholic theology it is taught that by Our Lord saying “Woman behold your son” and “Behold your mother” to John, this was Our Lord showing how Mary is now NOT only the mother to John, but to humanity. Were it simply a case of legalistic care-taking as you state, the wording would have been different. He is clearly stating that Mary is not to be looked after, but that she is his mother.
Interestingly, extra-biblical tradition has it that it was indeed St Luke who ended up looking after Mary in her old age, and thus the fine details of the early childhood of Jesus in Luke’s gospel.
February 3, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Deusdonat:
Not SIMPLY a “legalistic care-taking,” but it would have had to be in part. Jesus would have had the same responsibility under the Law as any other first-born. And okay, she’s everybody’s mother. Nothing that I have said rules that out, nor that Mary would have lived with Luke at any given time.
Was there a precise Hebrew wording that would have sealed the deal? Why did John “take her into his home”? Why the need to verify the eyewitnessing of the account?
February 3, 2009 at 8:28 pm
David – I don’t know the exact wording (and doubt it would have been in Hebrew, since most likely they were all speaking Aramaic). But scholarship would suggest it would have been in an oath or testimony form, which biblical accounts dictate not only had certain verbal formulae (as well as responses by the party to whom any such labor, honor, debt or inheritance were bequeethed), but physical gestures as well. Granted, Jesus was presently nailed to a cross and couln’t put his hand on John’s shoulder or thigh, but I think most biblical scholars would agree this was not the verbage/rubrics of such an act.
Jesus’ responsibility at the point of His execution was to humanity, not to any individual. He made that clear during His ministry (who are my brothers and sisters?). Of course as a good son, He would have looked after His mother, but the text is much larger than the fundie version of “hey, John, look after my Mom while I’m gone, will you?” Much much deeper.