Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[Moonwood]

Once again, you vomit out the same refuse'! Maybes and could be's are not exegesis. YOu have failed to prove your argument. And what about Simon and Judah? Are they part of the Clopas connection as you call it? where is the proof. You are great at making arguments, but they all lack empirical proof.

Until you can prove that adelphos in this setting and time meant cousins when it was not used that way in this time frame, you are just blowing wind!

Notice that your latest reply no longer focuses on the translation of adelphoi. Instead, you're asking for proof of the identification of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. That's significant because it confirms the distinction I've been making all along:

The lexical question and the identity question are not the same question.

We have already established that Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 translate adelphoi as "brothers." The question is who those brothers were.

You're now challenging my identification of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas with the Clopas family. That is a historical and genealogical question, not a lexical one. You write:

"What about Simon and Judas?"

That's actually part of the reason I appealed to the early Christian witnesses. Hegesippus, as preserved by Eusebius, specifically connects Simon with the family of Clopas. My appeal to Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome was never limited to James and Joseph.

You also keep saying:

"Prove it."

Historical identification rarely works the way you're demanding. We do not "prove" the identity of James of Alphaeus, James the Less, James the Lord's brother, or Simon son of Clopas by a single verse that explicitly states every connection. Rather, we evaluate whether multiple independent lines of evidence converge on the same conclusion. That is exactly what I did in my opening post. If you believe that cumulative case fails, then explain specifically where it fails:

• Is the association of James and Joseph with another Mary wrong?
• Is the identification of James the Lord's brother with James of Alphaeus wrong?
• Is the Clopas connection wrong?
• Is the genealogical argument wrong?
• Is the testimony of Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome wrong?

Merely saying "prove it" does not actually engage the evidence. Likewise, repeating that adelphoi means "brothers" still does not answer my argument, because I have never disputed that translation. As I've said repeatedly:

"Kinsman or relative" is the lexical category; "cousin by marriage" is my historical conclusion.

If that historical conclusion is wrong, then show specifically where the textual, genealogical, and historical evidence breaks down. That is the actual question under dispute.