HISTORY OF OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 59, 13 June 1874, Page 13

HISTORY OF OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.

Bj the AbbS J, E. Daeeas.

By (Translated from the French for the « New Zealand Tablet.'

34 — Meaning op the woed Brother amon&st the Hebbews It is then an incontestable fact that James, Joseph, Jude and Simon enumerated m the passages of, St. Matthew aad St. Mark quoted above, were not rhe brothers of the Saviour, in tne modern sense of word, but only his cousins-gerraan. The rationalistic criticism itself admits this. "It appears," it says, « that the four personages who were named as the brothers of Jesus, and among whom one, at least, —James— had acquired great importance, in the first years of the deveJopemnt of Christianity, were his cousins-german." (1) This avowal dispenses us from insisting further on the point in question Among the Hebrews the word "brother" (Akh) had two signhW Uon«, the one, general, and implying simply relationship in all its degrees, such as those of cousin, uncle, nephew, etc. ; the other, strict precise and formal, identical with our present acceptation. Lot was nephew to Abraham ; yet this does not hinder the sacred writer from saying : " Abraham having heard that his brother Lot was taken numbered off tbe servants born in his house, three hundred ami eighteen well-appointed, to deliver him, and he brought back Lot his brother with all his substance." (2). Labao was uncle of Jacob and yet he speaks thus to his nephew : " Because thou art my brother shalt thou serve me without wages ?" (3). The you»g Tobias and his spouse Sarah were cousins iv a very distant degree, yet Tobias calls her his sister. (4). These forma of expression are well known (o all who hove studied sacred or profane antiquity ; the identical formula being found among the Greek and Latin author?. It i* time that Protestantism should throw off its ignorance or at taut give up its dishonesty. b v

35 — 1 he Obcsube Beethren or JEStrs. As to the fanciful idea set forth by modern rationalism, which attributes to Mary eons and daughters, who " remained obscure," and "who do not appear to have equalled in importance their cousins " (5) rt ia a dreamy fancy which has nothing to justify it, and which we cannot follow in its flight. The tniracle by which the name of these obscure persons is found replaced "in the mouth of the men of ISazareth by the names of the sons of Cleophas," (6) must remain an enigma, inexplicable to all the learned commissioners that may wish to give themselves the trouble of examining it. In ihis excursion to the land of chimeras, one point alone is accessible to any discussion whatsoever. "The Bisters of Jesus," they toy, "were married at JN azareth. (7). Here, at least is an affirmation that has a substance : we can lay hold of ifc and touch it, so much more as the exegetist grounds it on a note running thus : " Mark, vi, 3." We open the Gospel, to seek out the alleged explanation, and we lead the following wefc-ds, which contain no illusion whotever to a marriage • " Is not this the carpenter, the eon of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon, are not also his sisters here with us ? and they were scandalized in regard of him." (8). In order to find in this text way indicaiioH of a marriage, one must have recourse to a freedom of interpretation which repeals all the ordinary laws of logic and common seiue. But it may be ihat rationalism has at its disposal a system of logio outside the sphere of reason.

(]). Vie de Jfiros, pag. US, 24. (2). Genes., xiv, H-ltf. (3). ibid xxii" (7). Sir=?faf&?ttr- (6) - Vie de J^« ■"*- i «> &s