Are “Brethren” Brothers?
Your July/August issue was my first experience with your magazine. I found it very informative, especially the article “She Just Knows Catholics Are Wrong” by Karl Keating. However, in one part of Debra’s letter, which Mr. Keating was responding to, she wrote: “Matthew 13:55: ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?’ (Four brothers here.)” Mr. Keating never answers Debra’s question about Jesus’ brothers.
The Church teaches Mary always was, and remained, a virgin and that Jesus never had brothers. I remember learning that in Hebrew, or Aramaic, there was no word for “brothers” or “sisters” that was separate from “cousins” or other relatives. I’m not sure if this is a good or complete explanation of why we Catholics believe Jesus had no siblings. I wish Mr. Keating had answered this as he did many of Debra’s other misconceptions.
Ronald J. Franz
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Editor’s reply: Certainly the point you bring up is a primary one. The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use the Aramaic equivalent of “brethren” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father, plus other relatives (and even non-relatives). When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ. It is the source of most Old Testament quotations in the New Testament.)
In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek has the narrow meaning that the English word “brother” has. Greek does have a separate word for “cousin,” anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint favored adelphos, even for true cousins.
This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and so passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine just what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse you have to look at the context. See Mike Landaiche’s letter following for an excellent example of this
In This Case “Brothers” Are Not Siblings
In Karl Keating’s “She Just Knows Catholics Are Wrong ” (July/August, 1999), he passes over the claim that “Mary had children after Jesus.” I know that this is an often-repeated claim with little merit, and I wonder why John 20:17–18 is not mentioned as a supporting argument. In verse 17 Jesus tells Mary Magdalene to tell Jesus’ “brothers” (NAB, Jerusalem, and NIV) or “brethren” (RSVCE and KJV) about his Resurrection. Then in verse 18, all five Bibles have Mary going to tell his “disciples.”
It would have been a real mistake for Mary to tell the disciples first if Jesus really meant his blood brothers, especially considering the extreme importance of the event. In these two verses Jesus himself clearly equates “brothers” or “brethren” with people close to him, not siblings. Are these verses ever quoted as support?
Mike Landaiche
Peachtree City, GA
Editor’s reply: They are now.
A Certain Amount of Sarcasm
After reading Karl Keating’s article “She Just Knows Catholics Are Wrong” (July/August 1999) and after reading his posts under the apologetics column on the EWTN web site, and after reading his books available through Catholic Answers, and after listening to him on the radio show “Catholic Answers Live,” I’ve come to the determination that Mr. Keating has a certain amount of sarcasm, maybe a little smugness, and even, sometimes, just a tiny bit of non-charitable apologetics style.
You know what? I love it! Keep it up, Karl! You too are a fisher of men.
Kevin Lents
Loogootee, Indiana
I Was a Bit Displeased
I am a new subscriber to your magazine, and I greatly appreciate your efforts at evangelizing for the faith. I am a bit disturbed with the article “She Just Knows Catholics Are Wrong” (July/August 1999). It seemed that rather than responding to specific attacks with facts, in some places you responded in kind. I was particularly impressed with a statement in a later article on the Catholic Evidence Guild: “A speaker’s aim was not to win an argument, but to win over the person arguing.” So I was a bit displeased with statements like, “Debra may not be worried by such considerations” and “It seems not to have occurred to Debra that God might have provided, as the mother of the Savior, a woman at least as heroic in sanctity as other great women of the Bible.” These statements could have been rephrased so that Debra, as well as other readers, is not put on the defensive.
I am just beginning to study for evangelization, a daunting task to be sure. I hope I can depend upon This Rock to provide the substance it is known for, without resorting to undue emotional arguments.
Mark Pokorny
Tucson, Arizona
Vindicated at Last
I have several very old copies of the King James Version in my home left from my Fundamentalist days. A few years ago I purchased the updated New King James Version. How surprising to see so many changes! That version now reads much closer to the Catholic Bible than the older copies.
However, the biggest surprise came with the reading of the NKJV. It states that some scholars had believed that the text of the New Testament had been “officially edited by the fourth-century church” (aka the Catholic Church) but that “recent studies” now regard “the Received Text as far more reliable than previously thought.”
Vindicated at last!
It’s time for Debra (“She Just Knows Catholics Are Wrong,” July/August 1999) to catch up on her thinking with the present-day King James Bible scholars. She might also be interested to know that the Catholic Church has placed the KJV on the approved list of translations.
Margaret Finley
Banning, California
Poor Examples of “Soul Sleep”?
With all due respect to Jason Evert, the Transfiguration is not a good case against “soul sleep” or in favor of licitly communicating with people who are dead (“Quick Questions,” July/August 1999). Don’t get me wrong—I don’t believe in soul sleep and I frequently ask for the saints’ intercession. Allow me to explain.
In 2 Kings 2:9–12 Elijah is taken to heaven in a fiery chariot and whirlwind. While it is possible that this entailed some kind of death, it is not certain, and many believe Elijah never died. We have no evidence that Elijah’s body and soul are separated.
Moses did die, but his burial place is unknown (Deut. 34:5–8). The angelic war over his body and Michael’s victory (Jude 9) have given rise to speculation that Moses’ body and soul have been since reunited. Gelasius of Cyzicus cited an apocryphal document called “The Assumption of Moses.” Though we moderns have no text referring to Moses’ “assumption,” the dispute between Michael and Satan is a part of the document Gelasius cited. A belief that Moses’ body and soul may be reunited is therefore neither wholly unfounded nor novel.
I do not think, therefore, that the Transfiguration provides a great argument against soul sleep or in favor of speaking to people who are dead. There’s not sufficient evidence that Elijah and Moses are dead. Enoch, who does not appear again, falls into the same odd category (Heb. 11:5).
Personally, I think the strange cases of Enoch, Moses, and Elijah (not to mention Matthew’s resurrection [Matt. 27:52–53]) lend credence to Catholic belief in the Assumption of Mary, the feast on which I was received into the Church.
Cat Clark
Steubenville, Ohio
We Are Interested Only in Their Souls
I was pleased to read the several thoughtful letters (July/August 1999) responding to Mr. Oka’s letter (May 1999) concerning prisoner-convert Russell Ford, a frequent and eloquent contributor to This Rock. The sixth corporal work of mercy urges Catholics to “visit those in prison,” and our Lord makes it clear that our eternal destiny depends on what we do (or not do) “to one of these, my least brethren” (Matt. 25:40). As Mr. Monroe’s letter points out (“Our Lord Says to Visit Those in Prison, not Kick Them”), Russell Ford “has started a prison apostolate . . . [and] catechized well over a hundred inmates” while in prison.
That apostolate, First Century Christian Ministries (FCCM) is alive and working with Catholic chaplains in some fifty-five prisons to provide our nation’s 325,000 Catholic inmates with Bibles, rosaries, books, periodicals, and spiritual companionship. Should any of your readers feel inclined to help, we are in constant need of:
—Good Catholic Bibles (the number one request from prison chaplains). FCCM welcomes donated Bibles or contributions to purchase them.
—Orthodox Catholic books and literature, new or used. This Rock magazines are excellent resources, and we will happily send inquirers a list of prison chaplains and their specific needs. Catholic prisons are bombarded with everything from pornography to anti-Catholic “religious” material, so it important to reach them with the truths of the faith.
—Rosaries, prayer books and prayer cards. Rosaries must meet specific prison requirements, but FCCM ships thousands of them to the prisons every month. We need rosary makers and packers, and new or used devotional materials.
—Spiritual pen pals for serious Catholic prisoners who are screened by the chaplains. One or two letters per month is the normal frequency of correspondence.
FCCM does not minimize the crimes of these prisoners, nor do we dispute the right of the state to justly punish them. We are interested only in their souls, and should your readers wish to help further what Russell Ford has begun, they may contact me at 5120 Pheasant Ridge Road, Fairfax, Virginia 22030; e-mail: joseph.a.strada@aero.org.
Joseph A. Strada
Fairfax, Virginia
Tend Your Own House
In her recent article “In Search of Eucharistic Theology in the Episcopal Church” (June 1999), Edwina Conason is “looking for love [spiritual, that is] in all the wrong places.” She cites numerous arcane tracts and books and overlooks the most obvious one.
Every Sunday and no doubt most other days as well, millions of Anglicans around the world open a book that has guided us since 1554: the Book of Common Prayer (BCP). Renowned for the beauty of its language, the BCP is quite clear about the nature of the True Presence:
During the preparation for Communion, the priest prays the Invocation over the elements, “these thy gifts of bread and wine.” At that point, the priest performs the epiclesis, bringing the Holy Spirit into the Eucharist, so that the communicants “may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.” The words “bread” and “wine” are never mentioned again.
In the Prayer of Humble Access, a prayer immediately preceding the Sanctus, we ask “to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood.” The 1928 BCP adds “that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood.” These words, beyond all others, should make very clear the theology of the Anglican Church on the True Presence.
Conason and other Catholic writers have recently been very concerned about what Anglicans believe when they take Communion. Since, as Tom Meagher notes in his January 1999 article in This Rock, “Don’t Bequeath Catholic Ignorance to Your Children,” “just 33 percent of Catholics recognize the Real Presence of Jesus,” these writers might better turn their attention to what Catholics believe.
Richard B. Hitchcock
St. Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church
Stone Mountain, Georgia
James Akin responds: The 33 percent statistic one hears is one of the most misquoted and abused statistics I know of. It should not have slipped through our editing process. (See “Quick Questions,” page 45, for more information).
The point of the article Fr. Hitchcock complains about was not how many Catholics or Anglicans believe in the Real Presence but the absence of an Anglican teaching standard on this point. And the author of the piece was right.
The Anglican communion has long prided itself on allowing contradictory understandings of core teachings. Conservative Anglicans, like nineteenth-century Tractarians or late-twentieth century users of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer,may take comfort in what has been said on someoccasions by some Anglican authorities concerning the Eucharist. But they are misleading themselves if they think the body of Anglican bishops is going to endorse their literal view of the Real Presence.
After all, Anglicanism Thirty-Nine Articles states: “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped” (article 18).
Burned to Ashes by Feminist Ideology
Rachel Fay’s article (“Wives Do What?” June 1999) reminded of an old Catholic distinction that held that the woman is the head of the household. My 1931 Catholic Dictionary edited by Donald Attwater and reprinted by the Macmillan Company in 1941, puts it this way: “The man is the natural and responsible head of a family, the woman, of a household; in either case the other partner is precisely a junior partner.”
I remember running into this distinction when I entered the military. Many of the married officers and enlisted men, both Catholic and non-Catholic, referred to their wives as the “home boss.” As a single man, I could go fishing if I wished on the weekend, but they needed to get a “kitchen pass.”
These men were not wimps. They were soldiers who had to subordinate much of the family life to the needs of the career. They were the heads of their families who followed them across the county or waited for them to return from overseas. The responsibility of their wives for the home front was much more obvious, and these men accorded it a great deal of respect. The wives, on the other hand, seemed quite adept at staking out and running the household.
This distinction has been burned to ashes by feminist ideology in the civilian sectors of our society. Perhaps it is still going on for some in the military.
Jack Taylor
Bristow, Virginia
A Shift of Emphasis in the Appreciation of this Doctrine
Thank you for the fine article by Rachel Fay on the authority of the husband in marriage and the role and dignity of the women as wife, mother and image of the Church with relation to the mystery of Christ the Bridegroom (“Wives Do What?” June, 1999).
While the theological structure of the family has not changed, there seems to have developed in the Magisterium a gradual movement from the strong position stated by Pope Leo XIII and quoted by Ms. Fay to a more nuanced understanding of the duties of husband and wife. I first noticed it when I could not find support in the Catechism of the Catholic Church for my understanding of a strong teaching on the husband’s responsibility to exercise his authority. I was disturbed and told one of our auxiliary bishops that this is one of the areas that had to be spelled out in more detail. As I pressed this view. he suggested I read Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, which again omits the emphatic point made by Pope Leo XIII.
But a later document by Pope John Paul II does indeed represent a distinct shift of emphasis in the appreciation and application of this doctrine as instituted by Jesus and stated by Paul in Ephesians. This nuance must be appreciated and taught so that both Christians and non-Christians might properly understand the Church’s teaching on the headship and authority of the husband in the family. I will close my comments with a long but important quote from § 24 of this document, an apostolic letter titled Mulieris Dignitatem , promulgated in 1988.
“The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way [‘in this love—of Christ as the bridegroom of the church—there is a fundamental affirmation of the woman as a person’] and the words: ‘Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord.’ For the husband is the head of the wife (5:22–23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a ‘mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ’ (cf. Eph. 5:22).
“This is especially true because the husband is called the ‘head’ of the wife as Christ is the head of the church: he is so in order to give ‘himself up for her’ (Eph. 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the church, in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual.
“In relation to the old’ this is evidently something ‘new’: It is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is ‘old’: what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.
“The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by the same traditional way of thinking and acting. The ‘innovation’ of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous intent of the evangelical message and is the result of the redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual ‘subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ,’ and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviors, and customs. This is a call which from that time onward does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew.
Rev. Alfred R.Guthrie
Brooklyn, New York
The Language of Contempory Life
Regarding inclusive language (“Balancing Act,” May 1999), I find it hard to believe that it is not an endorsement of a feminist agenda. It is those with such an agenda who brought it up in the first place and would be happiest to see it implemented.
A desire for inclusive language is really hypersensitive political correctness. If the Church starts changing to suit the politically correct, where will it end? One supporter of inclusive language, a nun, told me that the Church must change in order to remain alive and vibrant. Such change, I surmise, wouldn’t necessarily come through the work of the Holy Spirit, but instead through the work and leadership of a few “enlightened” individuals.
Inclusive language is more than just a linguistic fad. Everyday language is full of slang, much of which has base origins (e.g., “Bob really got ‘screwed’ on his taxes this year”). If people come to Mass with the language of contemporary life in their ears, it’s a very negative thing. The Church should not be taking its clues from the secular, anti-religious, anti-Catholic media and society in which we live. We should reject the influence of television, videos, movies, newspapers, magazines, and best-sellers. The Church is, and must remain, counter-cultural.
Felix Gorney
Fishers, Indiana
Do Lowercase Pronouns Diminish Reverence?
I am greatly concerned about the lack of reverence in church displayed by talking, receiving Holy Communion without proper preparation (especially confession of mortal sins), dressing as if one were going to the beach, chewing gum during Mass, et cetera.
I feel that dropping capital letters for pronouns referring to God in the missalettes and in Catholic literature¬including This Rock¬ diminishes respect and reverence. This may seem to you like a small matter, but I feel very strongly it is a part of the cause for disbelief in the True Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Jesus is King of the universe and deserves every effort, no matter how small, to recognize His greatness.
Regina J. Goerss
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Editor’s reply: Our stylebook is based on The Chicago Manual of Style, the most widely accepted standard in American journalism. It states, “References to deity as the one supreme God, including references to persons of the Christian Trinity, are capitalized” (7.79) and gives as among its examples “the Almighty, Most High, Lamb of God, Son of God, the Paraclete, the Third Person (of the Trinity).” It also states, “Pronouns referring to the fOregoing are today preferably not capitalized” (7.80) and gives as examples “God in his mercy, Jesus and his disciples. “
As a general trend in written English over the last century or so, capitalization has greatly decreased. This may be because frequent capitalizations tend to slow the reader down, however imperceptibly. Capitalizing Important Words used to be common to bring Attention to Them, but now to do so looks Odd and Archaic.
There are also many fuzzy grammatical situations that arise because of theological truths. For instance, it is true that God is identical to his attributes, such as Love and Mercy. Should we capitalize them as well when they refer to God? What about a sen¬tence like, “God and his fOllowers display mercy?” If we don’t capitalize “mercy” in this case, why draw the line here and not somewhere else?
It seems simpler and less arbitrary to stick to standard English capitalization rules. We trust that within the pages of our magazine the context of divine pronouns is reverent.