![](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/12\/Madonna-205x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Lucas Banzoli<\/a> is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ\u2019s human nature after His death.\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster for six blogs. He\u00a0has many videos on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n This is my\u00a062nd refutation<\/a> of Banzoli\u2019s writings. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote not<\/em>\u00a0one single<\/em>\u00a0word<\/em> in reply, claiming that my articles were \u201cwithout exception poor, superficial and weak\u201d<\/span> and that \u201conly a severely cognitively impaired person\u201d would take<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>them\u00a0\u201cseriously.\u201d<\/span> Nevertheless, he found them so \u201centertaining\u201d\u00a0<\/span>that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to \u201cmake a point of rebutting\u201d\u00a0them<\/span>\u00a0\u201cone by one\u201d<\/span>;\u00a0this effort being his\u00a0\u201cnew favorite sport.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n He has now replied to me\u00a015 times<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(the last one\u00a0dated 2-9-23<\/a>). I disposed of the main themes of his numberless slander in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page<\/a>\u00a0(where all my replies to him are listed). I shall try, by God\u2019s grace, to ignore his innumerable insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for all these blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).<\/p>\n Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas\u2019 Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0Words from past replies of mine to him will be in\u00a0green<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is my reply to Lucas Banzoli\u2019s article, \u201cDave Armstrong muda de teoria sobre Josefo e reconhece seu erro sobre Heg\u00e9sipo\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[Dave Armstrong Changes His Theory About Josephus and Acknowledges His Error About Hegesippus<\/em>] (1-5-23].<\/p>\n [I]n September of last year, Dave wrote <\/span><\/span>this article<\/span><\/a>, where he argues that Josephus could not be taken seriously, basically, because he was not a Christian.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not quite that simple. I cite Josephus all the time in disputes regarding historical fact. But in this instance, it\u2019s a bit different, as I explained:<\/p>\n Why does he want to rely on a Roman Jewish historian, when it comes to questions of Christian doctrine?\u00a0 Josephus, not being a Christian at all, obviously wouldn\u2019t even accept the virgin birth of Jesus, let alone a proposed perpetual virginity of Mary.\u00a0 So why would Lucas appeal to him . . .? . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Lucas\u2019 reliance on Josephus with regard to the issue at hand, reminds me of the Protestant falling back on the post-Christian Jews with regard to the biblical canon, because they\u00a0rejected<\/em>\u00a0the deuterocanonical books, whereas the early Christians\u00a0included<\/em>\u00a0them in the Bible. If it comes to a question of refuting Catholics, any \u201cwitness\u201d is good enough to enlist. They\u2019ll follow the opinion of religious Jews rather than early Christians, if needs be.<\/span><\/p>\n That<\/em>\u2018s a perfectly valid point, as opposed to Banzoli\u2019s caricature: that I supposedly dismissed Josephus and his stature as an ancient historian merely<\/em> because he was Jewish.<\/p>\n Dave could have used the occasion to simply also admit that Josephus is evidence against the Marian dogma of perpetual virginity and leave it at that, if only because that does not end the debate, which\u00a0<\/span>is<\/span><\/i>\u00a0biblical rather than historical in nature.\u00a0<\/span>But that would be asking a lot, since Josephus, a contemporary of Jesus, would hardly be mistaken on this point . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The exact opposite<\/em> is true: of course<\/em> he could<\/em> and likely would<\/em> be mistaken, per the point I made above in my previous reply. Why would we expect a non-Christian to be objective about our supernatural doctrines? Both the virgin birth and Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity (rightly and fully understood, including virginity [an intact hymen] during<\/em> Jesus\u2019 birth) would clearly not be accepted by a non-Christian. Therefore, we wouldn\u2019t and shouldn\u2019t (before we start analyzing what he wrote) expect Joseph to accept either<\/em> doctrine. I haven\u2019t renounced that<\/em> part of my formerly stated position, because there is no need to.<\/p>\n and remember that, for Catholics, this doctrine cannot even be placed in doubt, as it is a\u00a0<\/span><\/i>dogma<\/span>,\u00a0<\/span><\/i>i.e., an <\/span>indisputable<\/span><\/i> doctrine\u00a0<\/span><\/i>and necessary to believe for salvation.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s correct. But I\u2019m not arguing<\/em> the matter a way that presupposes it as binding dogma. I\u2019m simply examining related biblical and historical evidences. The current question at hand is what Josephus meant in his one single reference<\/em> to James as Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrother\u201d (adephos<\/em>). That can be discussed with no reference or recourse to Catholic dogma whatsoever. It\u2019s an historical and literary question separate even from theology, let alone Catholic dogma.<\/p>\n As far as bias goes, of course Banzoli has a strong bias against<\/em> Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity. Neither one of us a completely objective logical machine. We have prior beliefs and we want the debate to have a particular outcome. Let\u2019s not fool ourselves. But I never bow to this silliness that supposedly Catholics are always too biased by their beliefs to have a normal, rational conversation, whereas Protestants are assumed to have no bias at all, since they are the only true Bible believers and walking truth machines, etc.<\/p>\n Hence they cannot simply admit the existence of such strong evidence to the contrary, for the mere existence of contrary evidence is enough to throw dogma into doubt (and a dogma can never be in doubt).<\/span><\/p>\n If I found such evidence, I would admit it, and then I would have a difficulty that I would have to work through. I would cross that bridge when I came to it. As of yet, I haven\u2019t found<\/em> such \u201cstrong evidence\u201d or even weak<\/em> evidence to the contrary.<\/p>\n This time, the theory is that Josephus cited James as Jesus\u2019 brother because he relied on the \u201cAramaic usage\u201d of the term (even though he was writing in Greek rather than Aramaic), where \u201cbrother\u201d can basically mean anything and everything, and problem solved.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Yes. It\u2019s a live possibility, plausible, and it hasn\u2019t been decisively disproven. The fact remains that we can\u2019t be sure<\/em> which meaning Josephus intended, and we can\u2019t because of 1) contemporary ranges of the meaning of adelphos<\/em>, and 2) Josephus\u2019 own use of it elsewhere as a half-brother <\/em>and not a full sibling, in cases where some might casually interpret his use as meaning as full sibling<\/em>. That\u2019s why we can\u2019t know for sure<\/em> what he meant in calling James Jesus\u2019 adelphos<\/em>.<\/p>\n To put it in simpler terms, Dave\u2019s new theory is as follows: Josephus wrote in Greek (a language that had specific words for brother and cousin) and spoke of cousins \u200b\u200b(anepsios<\/em>) on several occasions, but when it came to James\u00a0he<\/i> preferred say he was a brother (adelphos<\/i>) because he was suddenly attacked by a surge of Jewish nationalism and he remembered that in Aramaic there was no word for \u201ccousin\u201d, and so he wrote \u201cbrother\u201d in Greek. <\/span>And why then does the same Josephus refer to cousins \u200b\u200bon several other occasions in that same work?<\/span><\/p>\n Because that\u2019s how Greek works and how it also works for a Jew speaking Greek in a Jewish culture (with Aramaic as its current language). Sometimes anepsios<\/em> or suggenes<\/em> (\u201ccousin\u201d) are used, and sometimes adelphos<\/em> for cousins or even countrymen, fellow Christians, etc. I\u2019ve already shown at length that adelphos<\/em> was used this way for James and Joseph in the NT, because they are expressly stated to be sons of a different Mary: the wife of Clopas. Thus they can\u2019t possibly<\/em> (granting an inspired, infallible Scripture) be Jesus\u2019 siblings, yet they are called His adelphoi<\/em>.<\/p>\n The reason Catholics demand that the brothers of Jesus be named as children of Mary is because in Roman Catholicism, unlike the Bible, Mary is the strongest reference, and Jesus is an almost helpless being who lets Mary step in and take over.<\/span><\/p>\n Nonsense. First of all, she\u2019s not<\/em> the \u201cstrongest reference\u201d in Catholicism (Jesus is that, despite Banzoli\u2019s ridiculous, laughable caricature above). Secondly, as I noted above, the argument is not being made as if we\u2019re dong Catholic systematic theology, but rather, as an exegetical (biblical) and historical matter (re Josephus). No one is \u201cdemanding\u201d anything. We are simply making a logical observation that if the Bible had<\/em> called these \u201cbrothers\u201d the \u201csons of Mary\u201d then we would not be having this disagreement at all. All would agree, because it would be inexorably stated as a not-able-to-be-questioned truth in the inspired NT.<\/p>\n The fact of the matter, however, is that this doesn\u2019t<\/em> occur, and that leaves the matter speculative, because of the latitude of meaning of adelphos<\/em>. A statement that these brothers were Mary\u2019s sons would cut through all that because it would prove<\/em> their status as siblings. Therefore, the lack of same makes it more difficult for those who deny Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity to make their biblical case. But we, on the other hand, can pretty much prove that James and Joseph were Jesus\u2019 cousins, from the Bible. Our case is a lot stronger.<\/p>\n Indeed, the very fact that these brothers of Jesus are mentioned alongside Mary on so many occasions is strong evidence that they were indeed Mary\u2019s children. It would be very strange for Mary to walk all the time with Jesus\u2019 brothers to and fro, if they were only Jesus\u2019 cousins \u200b\u200bwho had their own mothers (these mothers who abandoned them, apparently\u2026).<\/span><\/p>\n Not at all, in light of our understanding of the nature of Jewish families at that time and place \u2014 as I have written about<\/a> \u2014 as extended<\/em> in nature (to cousins and aunts and uncles); very unlike our present nuclear families, which are the norm in modern society: basically since the industrial revolution. Before that, even western cultures \u2014 in rural communities \u2014 tended to have more extended family structures. I majored in sociology. This is the sort of thing that I learned a lot about.\u00a0\u00a0For example, in the book,\u00a0Families in Ancient Israel<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(Leo G. Perdue, editor; Westminster John Knox Press, 1997) we find this description:<\/p>\n The familial roles of males in the household\u2019s kinship structure included those of lineal descent and marriage \u2014 grandfather, father, son, and husband \u2014 and those lateral relationships \u2014 brother, uncle, nephew, and cousin.\u00a0(pp. 179-180)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If Banzoli had known and understood this (and it ain\u2019t rocket science), he wouldn\u2019t have even made<\/em> the statement above.<\/p>\n [T]he Bible does not enter into \u201cintimate domestic contexts\u201d when it comes to the life of Jesus. Only Matthew and Luke narrate\u00a0<\/span>anything<\/span><\/i>\u00a0of Jesus\u2019 childhood (Mark and John completely omit it), and even then only in the context of Jesus\u2019 birth, when he had no siblings.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t have<\/em> to. We can understand much more about families in biblical times by pursuing historical studies in this area. Understanding that Jesus\u2019 first cousins would have routinely been present with Him in that culture, explains a lot related to the dispute at hand. Not<\/em> understanding this would lead one to likely assume without proper proof, that they are siblings.<\/p>\n As if there were some source before Tertullian calling them cousins\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n In the first century, the Bible proved this as regards two of the four named \u201cbrothers\u201d:<\/p>\n By comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph [aka \u201cJoses\u201d: Mk 15:40] \u2014 mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrothers\u201d \u2014 are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This \u201cother Mary\u201d (Matthew 27:61, 28:1) is called Our Lady\u2019s\u00a0adelphe<\/em>\u00a0in John 19:25 (it isn\u2019t likely that there were two women named \u201cMary\u201d in one family \u2014 thus even this usage apparently means \u201ccousin\u201d or more distant relative, or sister-in-law).<\/p>\n Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and \u201csisters\u201d along with James and Joseph, calling all\u00a0adelphoi<\/em>. Since we know for sure that at least James and Joseph are not Jesus\u2019 blood brothers, the most likely interpretation of Matthew 13:55 is that all these \u201cbrothers\u201d are\u00a0cousins<\/em>, . . .<\/p>\n James (along with sometimes Joseph) is called the son of this \u201cother Mary\u201d: wife of Clopas or Alphaeus [alternate names for one person], in Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 24:10, and \u201cthe son of Alphaeus\u201d in Matthew 10:3 \/ Mark 3:18 \/ Luke 6:15 \/ Acts 1:13. This second Mary is called \u201cthe wife of Clopas and the \u201csister\u201d of Mary the mother of Jesus in John 19:25. This is strong evidence that James and Joseph were not sons of Mary the mother of Jesus, and hence not Jesus\u2019 siblings (and indirect evidence that Simon and Jude are of the same similar status as relatives). Rather, it appears that they are Jesus\u2019 first cousins or more distant cousins.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n I cited James B. Prothro<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Scripture and Theology, whose academic work \u201cfocuses on the letters and thought of the Apostle Paul and on the ancient Greek language.\u201d He obtained a Ph.D. in New Testament from the University of Cambridge and an MA in classics and MDiv in theology from other universities. He wrote:<\/p>\n An instructive example comes from Philip\u2019s designation as Herod Antipas\u2019 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2, which the Synoptic authors write without qualification (Mark 6:17\/\/Matt 14:3\/\/Luke 3:19). . . . To ask whether Jesus\u2019 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af\/\u03b1\u03af and he shared a mother is not necessarily special pleading in the interest of some alien \u201ctradition,\u201d but an acknowledgment that our texts\u2014like most\u2014omit much specificity as unessential and that \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2\/\u03ae need not imply uterine fraternity\/sorority.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As it turns out, they were actually siblings, albeit on their father\u2019s side rather than on their father and mother (see<\/span>\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0and<\/span>\u00a0here<\/a>).\u00a0This does nothing to endorse the Catholic thesis that Jesus\u2019 brothers were only cousins \u200b\u200b(that is, that they were not his brothers on either his father\u2019s or mother\u2019s side).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s a good point, and one well-taken. It does not, however, help his case against Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity. It works against it, since it\u2019s yet another NT usage of adelphos<\/em>, not for a full sibling (common children of both a mother and father), but for a half-brother or half-sister (with one common parent only). Thus, this particular scriptural data would be in harmony with the Epiphanian theory (the \u201cbrothers\u201d as sons of Joseph and a former wife; he being a widower). It would not be evidence towards the \u201ccousins\u201d theory (I presented that evidence from Scripture, above). It could also conceivably be the case that both<\/em> things are true: some of the \u201cbrothers\u201d were cousins and some half-brothers.<\/p>\n But what Banzoli neglects to see is that this is evidence against Mary having other children, since if adelphos<\/em> can refer to half-brothers, then it can refer to Jesus\u2019 half-brothers (if that is what they were) in a way which doesn\u2019t include Mary (i.e., they are children of Joseph from a prior marriage). But even that would be in a legal sense only, since we all know that Joseph wasn\u2019t Jesus\u2019 biological father.<\/p>\n Catholics are free to accept either the \u201chalf-brother\u201d or \u201cstepbrother\u201d theory or St. Jerome\u2019s cousins theory. We\u2019re not required to hold to either; only to hold that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Eastern Catholics and some among Western Catholics, hold to the Epiphanian theory. Most Western or Latin Catholics (including myself) hold to the cousins theory. Either one upholds Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity.<\/p>\n In the first paragraph above, Dr. Prothro documents how Josephus (proven by his own express explanation) uses\u00a0adelphos<\/em>\u00a0in a sense\u00a0other<\/em>\u00a0than sibling, and in the second paragraph notes that he sometimes uses\u00a0adelphoi<\/em>\u00a0\u201cas an equivalent of \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 [syngene\u00eds<\/em>].\u201d\u00a0<\/span>[second statement referred to, with my bracketed clarification: \u201cJosephus\u00a0can use \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af as a collective as an equivalent of \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 [syngene\u00eds<\/em>: usually rendered \u2018cousin\u2019] (BJ<\/i> 6.356\u2013357). . . .]<\/p>\n This is simply false, because, as we have seen, the almighty Dr.\u00a0Protho was unable to produce\u00a0<\/span>a single quote<\/span><\/i>\u00a0from Josephus where a cousin is called a brother and not a cousin.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n To the contrary, he did<\/em>. The reference is seen above (BJ<\/em> = Wars of the Jews<\/em>). Here is the exact quotation:<\/p>\n On the same day it was that the sons and brethren<\/strong> [\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af \/ adelphoi<\/em>] of Izates the king, together with many others of the eminent men of the populace, got together there, and besought Caesar to give them his right hand for their security; upon which, though he was very angry at all that were now remaining, yet did he not lay aside his old moderation, but received these men. At that time, indeed, he kept them all in custody, but still bound the king\u2019s sons and kinsmen<\/strong> [\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \/ syngene\u00eds<\/em>], and led them with him to Rome, in order to make them hostages for their country\u2019s fidelity to the Romans. (Book VI, ch. 6, sec. 4<\/a>; William Whiston translation, 1737)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n To see the exact mini-section<\/a>, with the original Greek text, too, see the translation by Henry St. John Thackeray (1928):<\/p>\n On the same day the sons and brothers <\/strong>[\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af \/ adelphoi<\/em>] of king Izates, who were joined by many of the eminent townsfolk, entreated Caesar to grant them a pledge of protection. Though infuriated at all the survivors, Titus, with the unalterable humanity of his character, received them. For the present he kept them all in custody; the king\u2019s sons and kinsmen<\/strong> [\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \/ syngene\u00eds<\/em>] he subsequently brought up in chains to Rome as hostages for the allegiance of their country.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We see, then (notwithstanding Banzoli\u2019s false and ignorant claim to the contrary), that Josephus used both adelphoi<\/em> and syngene\u00eds<\/em>\u00a0 for the same group of people in the same context: those allied with the sons of King Izates. This absolutely proves what he meant, because he interpreted his own usage by referring to the same group in both ways. As we are constantly reminded by the opponents of perpetual virginity, syngene\u00eds <\/em>or sungenis <\/em>or suggenes<\/em> [multiple spellings] primarily means \u201ccousin.\u201d The Blue Letter Bible<\/em> (Strong\u2019s #G4773<\/a>) explains:<\/p>\n Strong\u2019s Definitions<\/em>: a relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman:\u2014cousin, kin(-sfolk, -sman).<\/p>\n Thayer\u2019s Greek Lexicon<\/em>: of the same kin, akin to, related by blood, . . . in a wider sense,\u00a0of the same race, a fellow-countryman<\/span>:<\/p>\n Vine\u2019s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words<\/em>:<\/p>\n Cousin:<\/strong><\/p>\n in\u00a0Luk 1:36<\/a>\u00a0(so in the most authentic mss.) and\u00a0sungenes<\/em>\u00a0in\u00a0Luk 1:58<\/a>\u00a0(plural), AV, \u201ccousin\u201d and \u201ccousins,\u201d respectively signify \u201ckinswoman\u201d and \u201ckinsfolk,\u201d (RV); so the RV and AV in\u00a0Luk 2:44<\/a>;\u00a021:16<\/a>. The word lit. signifies \u201cborn with,\u201d i.e., of the same stock, or descent; hence \u201ckinsman, kindred.\u201d See\u00a0KIN, KINSFOLK, KINSWOMAN<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The same reference page indicates that the word is translated in KJV as \u201ckinsman<\/a>\u00a0(7x),\u00a0cousin<\/a>\u00a0(2x),\u00a0kinsfolk<\/a>\u00a0(2x),\u00a0kin<\/a> (1x).\u201d It\u2019s the word used to describe Mary\u2019s cousin Elizabeth (KJV: \u201ccousin\u201d: Lk 1:36). Jesus arguably used it in the same sense: \u201cA prophet\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0without honour,\u00a0but\u00a0in\u00a0his own\u00a0country,\u00a0and\u00a0among\u00a0his own kin<\/strong><\/em>, and in his own house\u201d (KJV: Mk 6:4; cf. Jn 7:5 (RSV): \u201cFor even his brothers [\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af \/ adelphoi<\/em>] did not believe in him\u201d).<\/p>\n Kittel\u2019s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament<\/em> (one-volume edition, p. 1097) has this for syngenes<\/em>:<\/p>\n 2) The LXX<\/em>.<\/p>\n a. The LXX uses the noun 44 times for \u201crelations,\u201d i.e., \u201crelatives.\u201d . . .<\/p>\n 3) Judaism<\/em>.<\/p>\n a. Philo has the noun some 80 times for \u201crelatives,\u201d . . .<\/p>\n b. . . . in Josephus, . . . syngenes<\/em> is very common and usually denotes the \u201crelative\u201d in the narrower sense.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n King Izates II<\/a> (c. 1-54) had but one sibling, Monobazus II<\/a> (both sons of Queen\u00a0Helena of Adiabene<\/a>\u00a0and King\u00a0Monobazus I)<\/a>. Therefore, for Josephus to refer to his \u201cbrethren \/ brothers \/ [\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af \/ adelphoi<\/em>] couldn\u2019t possibly be in reference to full siblings, since he had only one of those.\u00a0I documented last time how Josephus uses adelphos<\/em> for half-brothers:<\/p>\n In Antiquities<\/em>,\u00a0Book XVIII, ch. 4, sec. 6<\/a>, Josephus refers to \u201cPhilip, Herod\u2019s brother\u201d (likely using\u00a0adelphos<\/em>\u00a0there). In\u00a0Wars of the Jews<\/em>,\u00a0Book II, ch. 6, sec. 1<\/a>, he refers to \u201cArchelaus\u2019s brother Philip.\u201d<\/p>\n But we know that\u00a0they were\u00a0not<\/strong>\u00a0siblings<\/em>\u00a0(sons of the same mother and father). In\u00a0Wars of the Jews<\/em>,\u00a0Book II, ch. 7, sec. 4<\/a>, Josephus mentions \u201cAlexander, who was the brother of Archelaus, . . . This Alexander was the son of Herod the king . . .\u201d Again, he likely uses\u00a0adelphos<\/em>, but is not referring to literal siblings, since we know that this\u00a0Alexander<\/a>\u2018s mother was\u00a0Mariamne<\/a>. Wikipedia (\u201c<\/a>Philip the Tetrarch\u201d<\/a>)\u00a0<\/span>informs us that Philip was \u201cson of\u00a0Herod the Great<\/a>\u00a0and his fifth wife,\u00a0Cleopatra of Jerusalem<\/a>, . . . half-brother of\u00a0Herod Antipas<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Herod Archelaus.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0The mother of the latter two men was\u00a0Malthace<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n All this being the case, we can\u2019t know for sure that when Josephus calls James the Lord\u2019s \u201cbrother\u201d adelphos<\/em>, he means full sibling, half-brother, or cousin. He uses the word in all three ways, so any of those meanings is possible in the one instance. Two out of the three are harmonious with Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity.<\/p>\n Banzoli can carp on and on about all this as much as he wants, but those are the facts, and he can\u2019t absolutely prove Josephus\u2019 meaning, as much as he tries or would wish to. And if he can\u2019t prove it, then he also has no grounds for mocking and belittling the Catholic position(s), as he always does (lest the sky fall down if he didn\u2019t).<\/p>\n After all this, Dave makes his final argument, based on a gross methodological error that would fail any university course (if he had taken one):<\/span><\/p>\n I wanted to include just one example of probably fifty or more in this one reply, of Banzoli\u2019s ceaseless and literally mindless insults and lies about me. Now he implies that I never went to college? I have a BA in sociology, cum laude; 3.47 GPA, from the third largest university in Michigan, Wayne State University in Detroit.\u00a0 This included many courses in philosophy (including logic), and history.<\/p>\n I should<\/em> have majored in history, or (if I had gotten serious about Christianity) theology. It\u2019s one of my few major regrets in my life. But God uses the education I received in my work all the time. All things work together for good (Rom 8:28). It helped me understand the secular \/ agnostic mindset (sociology being quite dominated by secular thought), and to love science even more than I already did: both of which are very valuable in discussions with atheists.<\/p>\n Banzoli then critiques my analysis of Josephus\u2019 use of terms for relatives, compared to the NT and LXX. Here he actually makes a rare minor valid point, but it has no ill effect against my argument (especially my more advanced and elaborate one seen above), so granting it gives him no further advantage. I think I adequately demonstrated that the usage was remarkably similar, for whatever that is worth (maybe not a whole lot but something more than nothing).<\/p>\n The \u201cmethodology\u201d that Dave devised to prove that Josephus made broader use of the term\u00a0adelphos<\/i>\u00a0(which included any prime) would be fine if it weren\u2019t for two problems.\u00a0The first: it makes no difference whether Josephus named infinitely more brothers than cousins, if there is not actually an occasion when he named a cousin as a brother.<\/span><\/p>\n Now I have documented that there is at least one such instance, as demanded by Banzoli. It was already cited but not typed out, in my last reply, but Banzoli in his rush to (always) mock and utterly dismiss my arguments, either missed it or pretended that it wasn\u2019t there. So he has made a fool of himself all the more, with silly statements that meet their fatal refutations (alas, a sadly and also comically regular occurrence).<\/p>\n And he knows he has none, because not even his coach \u2013 Dr.\u00a0<\/span>Protho, whom he paints as a great scholar of Josephus \u2013 had any text to quote us in that direction.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I do not<\/em> know that. I already knew the contrary<\/em>. And I knew it because Dr. Prothro (not \u201cProtho\u201d<\/span>) directed me to it. Now I have further analyzed it, complete with two variant translations of Josephus, and Greek parallel text, absolutely proving my point. I am so thankful that Banzoli counter-responded (one of only fifteen thus far, compared to my 62 refutations of his stuff), so that I could yet again greatly strengthen my argument. I \n