I'm Quitting Piano Forums

[dnephi]

Well, I came, at length, to the conclusion that I must stop posting on these forums and thereby give myself more practicing time. I have gotten things of value from here, but I have gotten all I can get, I feel, and I don't think that cracking jokes about Thalberg will better my playing.

Overall I have:
1. Learned better practice habits
2. Decided to check out some Scarlatti
3. Become familiar with the repertoire, even the not so famous
4. Realized that not all good pianists are heralded as Gods... or behave like them anyhow.  (That's a poke at Thal)
5. Met a real composer. (Homage to Alistair Hinton, whose papers I have seen on Jstor.)
6. Decided that I am not really into operatic fantasies.  They're 2 zl*w.... 
7. I like the number 7.

Take care, and wish me luck guys.

Until we meet again.

[ahinton]

Well, I came, at length, to the conclusion that I must stop posting on these forums and thereby give myself more practicing time. I have gotten things of value from here, but I have gotten all I can get, I feel, and I don't think that cracking jokes about Thalberg will better my playing.

Sorry to see you go.

Overall I have:
....
5. Met a real composer. (Homage to Alistair Hinton, whose papers I have seen on Jstor.)

Thanks a lot - but if you've seen those papers on Jstor, that's more than I've ever managed to do! I tried getting access privileges to it but without success.

All best,

Alistair

[nicco]

I'm Quitting Piano Forums

Quitter

[pianistimo]

i've tried.  tell me how it goes when you come back.  actually you are inspiring me.  must get the piano tuned and regulated.  has to be several months after school clothing.

[thalbergmad]

i've tried. 

Not hard enough, evidently.

Thal

[zheer]

 I've tried quitting the piano, this difficult.

[leucippus]

dnephi has the right idea.  Pick up some tips and then get back to work practicing!  If I practiced as much as I play on the forums I be known as Horowitz the 2nd.

Instead, they call me Horrible Dimwit the 1st. 

[pianistimo]

who called you that?  let me handle this 

[leucippus]

who called you that?  let me handle this 

My imaginary friends.

You see, I'm so mentally ill that I can't even imagine having good friends.

[tds]

i believe no one should consider quiting pf specially when pianonut still hot and kickin

[pianistimo]

i still have no idea who you are, tds.  i am awaiting andre watts playing the brahms piano concerto #2.  now, how did your trip to italy go?  or, are you , as we speak - in the midst of a concertizing schedule?  or was it - you were looking to take some lessons?  i can't remember.  seems that you do some of both.  i wish you would just tell us if you are a concert artist and who you really are.

tell us about italy.  what did you get sloshed on ?  italian ice?  they're supposed to be really good.   but, it's fall over there, too, right?  so what's the temperature?  did you find a teacher?  where did you travel (or where are you travelling?)   do you always travel without a real itinerary and then sort of figure it out when you get there?  i'm curious how it's all been going.

and, leucippus - what are you doing, now that your boiler is built?  i'm still confused just a little.  do you use it to heat water outdoors.  why did you not build the boiler indoors?  too much fire hazard?  i am unfamiliar with them at all.  but, i regularly see all kinds of things in people's backyards.  for a long time - i kept asking - why do some houses have outhouses in the front yard?  turns out - they are sheds to hold tractors and lawnmowers.  but, they cut moons in the door?!  people are crazy here in general.  but, in a good way.  they're all honest and hard working.

[pianistimo]

dnephi, i will never again use the site 'ringnebula' for research.  does that change anything?

[tds]

i still have no idea who you are, tds.  i am awaiting andre watts playing the brahms piano concerto #2.  now, how did your trip to italy go?  or, are you , as we speak - in the midst of a concertizing schedule?  or was it - you were looking to take some lessons?  i can't remember.  seems that you do some of both.  i wish you would just tell us if you are a concert artist and who you really are.

tell us about italy.  what did you get sloshed on ?  italian ice?  they're supposed to be really good.   but, it's fall over there, too, right?  so what's the temperature?  did you find a teacher?  where did you travel (or where are you travelling?)   do you always travel without a real itinerary and then sort of figure it out when you get there?  i'm curious how it's all been going.

italy is pretty stunning. take rome, for instance, with all the majestic, historical buildings n treasures, it is simply marvelous. pisa tower is still, well, tilted . beaches around italy are ok, many look like a comunnal bathing venues. funny that many establishments ( hotel, resorts, etc ) claim that their beaches are 'private'. i love the italian alleys VERY much, so characteristic and charming. tho tho tho, i wish italians spoke some english!! i had the hardest time to communicate in this country. i try my hardest, by trying to do all kind of body gestures- some are so extravaganza that i beat italians in that respect, can you believe? , but it only worked 2 percents of the time, while to my surprise it tended to create a major confusion and panic. btw, weathers been perfect here, bout 19-24 degree celcius ( 50s to 70s fahrenheit ). yeah i tend to travel without itinerary, its fun.

not sure if i wanna call myself a performing artist. tho yes, i perform abit. two weeks ago i gave a concert in holland and tickets were sold out. and yeah, i loved dutch audience and i found they were most appreciative. my recital wasnt the best, and not even close, but the standing ovations at the end were felt genuine and quite insistent that i had to give three encore, and told something at the end as if to say 'that's it dear people, thank you very much'.

i tried to call maria tipo for a couple of lessons, but apparently she wasnt there to pick up the phone. i love her scarlatti. her playing in general is so superb that it  makes my playing sound like a sick donkey in parts. she deserves to be more famous. by the way, are u familiar with the name? or her playing?

[pianistimo]

no, i am afraid to say that i have never heard (to my knowledge) maria tipo.  i will now try to find some recordings.  sorry you didn't get lessons with her.  but, now, you probably have her address?  but, still do not speak enough italian for her to give lessons in italian?  so, maybe she speaks english?  or, you could use hand signals during lessons?

of course, you're bright enough to just listen to her examples and mimic.  i suppose that a wordless piano lesson would still bring a lot of understanding between two musicians.  basically, i learn the most from seeing what is meant by the dialogue.  to explain it best means sitting down and showing someone, imo.

[tds]

no, i am afraid to say that i have never heard (to my knowledge) maria tipo.  i will now try to find some recordings.  sorry you didn't get lessons with her.  but, now, you probably have her address?  but, still do not speak enough italian for her to give lessons in italian?  so, maybe she speaks english?  or, you could use hand signals during lessons?

of course, you're bright enough to just listen to her examples and mimic.  i suppose that a wordless piano lesson would still bring a lot of understanding between two musicians.  basically, i learn the most from seeing what is meant by the dialogue.  to explain it best means sitting down and showing someone, imo.

i cant seem to reach her and i believe it aint wise to just go to florence w/out making any appointment. sure, i learn so much by watching. demonstration is worth a thousand words.

op. 135, huh? many years ago, when i first listened to it, i was totally transported, i then understood the difference between ordinary music and a masterpiece created by a genius! in op. 135, i heard a message of fate, humanity, never-ending depth of soul, serenity and awe. btw, i was in sistine chapel the other day, and i must say it was also very touched.yes, talking about the fresco of michaelangelo-unspeakable wonder.

[pianistimo]

imagine it is glorious.  just that, it is one's imagination as how the heavenly looks and probably not even close.  but, perhaps in the literal sense, very close.  i mean, how could someone create a masterpiece like this without a little help?  interesting too how musical genius and artistic genius are similar in that they used sketchbooks and basically wrote down sketches piece by piece and then put it all together.  writers, the same way.

i guess literally Christ walked the earth and was God with man for 33 some years.  He brought things down to our level.  and, yet our best artwork cannot contend with his omnipotence.  the glory of the moon tonight confirms this for me.  it is soooo bright here.  noone could paint it as beautifully as it stands in real life.  the cool air must bring out the brightness.  if the moon is bright -and the sun is awesomely bright - how would we ever see God in his brightness without some kind of sunglasses?  especially since their will be 'neither day nor night'  but at even it shall be bright - speaking of after the milleneum and that the sun and moon will no longer give their light(rev 21:22)- but the Lord himself shall be our light.  So, is he like the sun?  did michelangelo not put enough yellow around God?  if i remember right -there is the white against blue.  i think it needs some giant flames of yellow lunging right and left.

[tds]

  i think it needs some giant flames of yellow lunging right and left.

thatd be your abusive paraphrase of michelangelo,s Final Judgment. and id be the least surprised when u want to replace the face of virgin mary with anything. hmm, perhaps with your own?

[pianistimo]

well, with three children,i couldn't exactly call myself the virgin mary.  but, people even in Jesus Christ's day thought that she couldn't be because Jesus had other brothers and sisters.  what they didn't know is that Jesus was different. 

if you want truth - painting it doesn't make it more so truthful.  you can look at works of art - but they cannot fully express truth.  only partially.

so - be angry for me expressing that i think it might be God literally how michelangelo imagined him to be (and i'm sure he read bible text) - but it doesn't prove to me that God literally looked like that.

you have to follow the point!

[tds]

well, with three children,i couldn't exactly call myself the virgin mary.  but, people even in Jesus Christ's day thought that she couldn't be because Jesus had other brothers and sisters.  what they didn't know is that Jesus was different. 

if you want truth - painting it doesn't make it more so truthful.  you can look at works of art - but they cannot fully express truth.  only partially.

so - be angry for me expressing that i think it might be God literally how michelangelo imagined him to be (and i'm sure he read bible text) - but it doesn't prove to me that God literally looked like that.

you have to follow the point!

the thing is michelangelo was, amongst other things, a theologian. and talking about picturial perception, one can always argue. what do you think virgin mary might have looked like? perhaps you got a clear pic in your head? OR vaguer one? OR even a pictureless figure on your mind ? OR you dont even wanna think of it. whichever and however you perceive it. its yours! but now can you please tell me if your perception/ or lack thereof of virgin mary figure is any "better" than michelangelo,s. u know what i mean? perception is a highly personal thing, but regards of great artists and geniuses come from huge collections of people. my one cent

[pianistimo]

if i was thinking day and night about the virgin mary - something would be wrong with me.  i have no clear picture at all.  in fact, there are no distinct records of her picture in history that i know of.  so, perhaps the only thing to go by would be living relatives.  did michelangelo find some.  i have no clue.  perhaps he was guided to paint something pretty close.  i am not discrediting his talent.

you seem to misunderstand my point.  it is precision.  no artist can be God.  God reserves some knowledge for Himself.  about the only likeness we have of God and i'm not sure even it's entirely accurate description - would be the shroud of turin.  but, even that is only a sort of an x-ray version.  and, of course God the Father and God the Son may look somewhat different. 

did you know that in the bible it is a sin to make a graven image of anything?  so why are all these images in a church?  this is another point that i'm trying to make.  we worship art - but we should worship God Himself as He is.  i don't need an image to help me worship Him.  also, the virgin Mary - even though she was God's servant (and proclaimed herself that) - was not worshipped by her own Son.  He said, 'who is my mother and my brothers - those that hear the word of God and do it.'  i'm not saying i'm perfect or any Christian is perfect - but we are just as much a part of the family of God as any other saint.  granted, Mary has a special place.  but, never of worship or adoration.  that would be replacing worship of the one true God for an Ishtar image. the pope calls her 'the queen of heaven.'  a 'co-redemtrix.'  i believe she is dead and buried and will be ressurrected at the coming of Christ, perhaps the first after Christ.  but, prayers to her now are rather useless.  this is my opinion - and i harbor no antagonisms against catholics.   we learn to love each other despite differing beliefs.  from a literal perspective (which is my own) i cannot see how the virgin Mary (as she was before the birth of Christ) could be a perpertual virgin.  after Jesus was born - she went on to have other children.  were these all virgin birth?  if you are a literalist - it wouldn't make sense because then they would also be 'gods.'  the perpetual virginity is a carry-over, imo, from the idea of the goddesses of the temple that were prostitutes and still called virgins. 

[tds]

if i was thinking day and night about the virgin mary - something would be wrong with me.  i have no clear picture at all.  in fact, there are no distinct records of her picture in history that i know of.  so, perhaps the only thing to go by would be living relatives.  did michelangelo find some.  i have no clue.  perhaps he was guided to paint something pretty close.  i am not discrediting his talent.

who says that you must think about the virgin mary day and night.

perhaps he was guided to paint something pretty close.  i am not discrediting his talent.

perhaps, perhaps not. i heard rumour that the figure of virgin mary was taken from a friend of michelangelo. so if its true, is it bad? and why? can we speak authoratitively? i know i cant, but i know that michelangelo had his reasons.

you seem to misunderstand my point.  it is precision.  no artist can be God.  God reserves some knowledge for Himself.  about the only likeness we have of God and i'm not sure even it's entirely accurate description - would be the shroud of turin.  but, even that is only a sort of an x-ray version.  and, of course God the Father and God the Son may look somewhat different. 

precision? hmm...what so precise when it comes down to feeling? taste? hmm, ART? no one here claim that artist can be God. why do you want precision? of course, many historical, mystical figures cant possibly be described precisely. but, i doubt that  the lack of precision can ever defeat the global message of the art created, specially the art of the greatest geniuses. it perhaps even enhances the power of enigma which partly makes the great art.

precision vs non precision: is precision better? what if God himself is above the concept of precision? and hence non precision of somesort? what is precision in your point of view. are you talking about precise measuments? or something that always can be humanly defined? perhaps you wanna enlightment me on this matter. "of course God the Father and God the Son may look somewhat different. " ( pianonut ). that sentence may appear very unprecise to some ears. but again, you are making my point here. it comes down to HUMAN perception. and not surprisingly, it governs our living life.

did you know that in the bible it is a sin to make a graven image of anything?  so why are all these images in a church?  this is another point that i'm trying to make.  we worship art - but we should worship God Himself as He is.  i don't need an image to help me worship Him.  also, the virgin Mary - even though she was God's servant (and proclaimed herself that) - was not worshipped by her own Son.  He said, 'who is my mother and my brothers - those that hear the word of God and do it.'  i'm not saying i'm perfect or any Christian is perfect - but we are just as much a part of the family of God as any other saint.  granted, Mary has a special place.  but, never of worship or adoration.  that would be replacing worship of the one true God for an Ishtar image. the pope calls her 'the queen of heaven.'  a 'co-redemtrix.'  i believe she is dead and buried and will be ressurrected at the coming of Christ, perhaps the first after Christ.  but, prayers to her now are rather useless.  this is my opinion - and i harbor no antagonisms against catholics.   we learn to love each other despite differing beliefs.  from a literal perspective (which is my own) i cannot see how the virgin Mary (as she was before the birth of Christ) could be a perpertual virgin.  after Jesus was born - she went on to have other children.  were these all virgin birth?  if you are a literalist - it wouldn't make sense because then they would also be 'gods.'  the perpetual virginity is a carry-over, imo, from the idea of the goddesses of the temple that were prostitutes and still called virgins. 

please give us the biblical verse of your statement. now, who says so and so "worship" the art? is practicing piano more than 5 hours aday a kind of worshiping the piano? how about 4.9999 hours? how do you define the word worship? can it be precisely measured?

[pianistimo]

i think i understand your points better.  in the modern day, we don't typically worship art or use it (to my way of thinking) to worship God 'better.'  but, it is my understanding that in the past christian/pagan eras - temples and churches were sort of combined.  the pagan with christian.  God never wanted idolatry or idols to be put into the temple.  in fact, he calls it 'desecration.' 

now, if it is something sincerely created for the glory of God, it would be similar to the ideas in the creation of the tabernacle of God - which DID have assortments of literal things (pomegranets, almond blossoms) - but no physical likeness of God or humans.  the reason being is that it was part of the ten commandments (not to create a graven image).  in deuteronomy 4:16 'lest you act corruptly (by worshipping the art and not God) and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth, and beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars and all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them...'

it is interesting, even before this commandment - that God mentions (vs 15) that even the Israelites (though they had the cloud by day) never saw any form God (and neither did Moses - except for God's back). 

now, i realize that typically in our day - people do not go around worshipping - but simply admiring michelangelo's and other's artwork.  i'm not sure if personal art should be in a church (as God's commands speak of Him reserving His appearance so that others wouldn't worship an image or crucifix) - but that is for God to judge.  what i'm thinking (and this is my understanding) is that God is beyond art, music, human perception - and is totally in another realm.  perhaps one that combines all together?  anyways - this is speculative.  but, what is real is the commands of Jesus Christ.

I'll look up the scripture where someone in the crowd, during Jesus time, said 'blessed be the womb that bore you..'  and Jesus responded with the statement 'blessed be those that hear the Word of God and do it.'  and, yet - i'm sure Mary will have a very special place.  after all.  she was a servant.  perhaps not even a literal 'mother' of God, though - because God is alpha and omega.  beginning and end.  He literally had no beginning.

in terms of practice - it is a job and i'm sure the hours have to be put in.  if it is your calling - then it's what you were born to do.  just glorify God when you do it, right?!

[pianistimo]

ok.  there's several references to this quote in the gospels.  right now i find one in mark 3:30 'and his mother and his brothers arrived, and standing outside, they sent word to Him, and called Him.  and a multitude was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, 'behold, your mother and your brothers are outside looking for you.'  and he answered, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?'  and looking about on those who were sitting around him, he said, 'behold!  my mother and my brothers! for whomever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.'

there's another place in the gospels that mentions a woman speaking out - about the blessed womb.  i'll try to find that one.  the response is the same.  i don't know if these are two separate incidences or not. 

[wishful thinker]

No, this is a common protestant mis-interpretation.  The brethren (brothers) of the Lord are not his natural blood brothers.  A couple, such as St James the Less (the Gospel writer) were probably cousins, through Mary of Clopas, sister (or probably more precisely sister in law) of the Virgin Mary.  Though also "brothers and sisters" tends to have a wider and non filial meaning.  Just like you, sister 

[tds]

i think i understand your points better.  in the modern day, we don't typically worship art or use it (to my way of thinking) to worship God 'better.'  but, it is my understanding that in the past christian/pagan eras - temples and churches were sort of combined.  the pagan with christian.  God never wanted idolatry or idols to be put into the temple.  in fact, he calls it 'desecration.' 

now, if it is something sincerely created for the glory of God, it would be similar to the ideas in the creation of the tabernacle of God - which DID have assortments of literal things (pomegranets, almond blossoms) - but no physical likeness of God or humans.  the reason being is that it was part of the ten commandments (not to create a graven image).  in deuteronomy 4:16 'lest you act corruptly (by worshipping the art and not God) and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth, and beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars and all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them...'

it is interesting, even before this commandment - that God mentions (vs 15) that even the Israelites (though they had the cloud by day) never saw any form God (and neither did Moses - except for God's back). 

now, i realize that typically in our day - people do not go around worshipping - but simply admiring michelangelo's and other's artwork.  i'm not sure if personal art should be in a church (as God's commands speak of Him reserving His appearance so that others wouldn't worship an image or crucifix) - but that is for God to judge.  what i'm thinking (and this is my understanding) is that God is beyond art, music, human perception - and is totally in another realm.  perhaps one that combines all together?  anyways - this is speculative.  but, what is real is the commands of Jesus Christ.

I'll look up the scripture where someone in the crowd, during Jesus time, said 'blessed be the womb that bore you..'  and Jesus responded with the statement 'blessed be those that hear the Word of God and do it.'  and, yet - i'm sure Mary will have a very special place.  after all.  she was a servant.  perhaps not even a literal 'mother' of God, though - because God is alpha and omega.  beginning and end.  He literally had no beginning.

in terms of practice - it is a job and i'm sure the hours have to be put in.  if it is your calling - then it's what you were born to do.  just glorify God when you do it, right?!

yes, we're both aware that deuteronomy 4:16-19 was written to and about the idol worshippers. and true, obviously they used the art as the media to create the graven images and to decorate them. clearly, it is wrong when you start to worship them and/or to take them as a replacement to God himself. BUT, the art itself is not a sinful entity. art here "acts" as a media only. and as a media, art, just like any other things, can be used in many different ways by all kind of human beings.

i believe that God is the greatest artist of all. after all he is The Great Creator. I cannot seem to ever stop admiring his creations. Our creative soul is also given by the Lord.

anyway, how about some rule of thumbs: pieces of art are there to admire and celebrate, but NOT to worship or serve. do you agree?

back to the biblical quotes. i was also thinking that deuteronomy is part of the old testament, and we know that we now live by the grace. again, i tend to think that as long as we dont go worshipping ( neither one of us do anyway ), we are fine. otherwise, how many us will be burned in hell just because we draw a bird and make a cat sculpture. how about photographers? how about music that tells about animals? or human beings? hmm...

"God is beyond art, music and human perception."( pianonut). but God likes to "hang out" with us when we sing our praise and worship. i think God is IN art, music and human perception. he is certainly there for us to sense/feel. otherwise what kinda connection we have with him? he no alien. not to me, anyway.

[pianistimo]

yes.  i have to agree - even if 'the earth is His footstool' - somehow He does manage to 'dwell with us.'  it seems that in Jesus time - he was only in the temple.  the description of the temple of solomon has 'artwork' but a sort of prescribed avoidance of replications of God or saints on the walls.  also, the fact that Jesus could easily get lost in a crowd - means that he was not necessarily of very attractive appearance.  it's almost as if He was making a point. 

of course, as you say - if Christianity is to be real - then our posted artwork should be reflective of beauty of creation or something reflective of our beliefs and not demon oriented.  you can tell fairly quickly what feelings you get from certain artwork.  sometimes it's sensuousness - despite being realistic and stunning.  i mean the marble statues of david and several others - are really stunning - but i'm not sure if david were alive today he'd want to have everything exposed.  it's almost as if God wants to retain that privacy of each person and that deeper connection directly to Him.  nowdays, you don't know who is taking your picture and what they might be doing with it.  also, the invasion of privacy on the internet is a sort of 'take-over' of the position of God.  who has a right to spy on you?  nobody.

as far as the quote in the bible - in several places in the gospels of the same idea- it was literally Christ's mother.  the mother - who's womb bore him.  and, his real brothers would have been with his mother - james among them.

[wishful thinker]

The Brethren of The Lord.

There existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His "brethren". But as "brethren" (or "brother") is applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Genesis 13:8, 14:14-16; Leviticus 10:4; 1 Chronicles 15:5-10, 23:21-22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient heretics, like Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the "brethren" of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most of the Protestant exegetes. On the orthodox side two views have long been current. The majority of the Greek Fathers and Greek writers, influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of apocryphal gospels, considered the "brethren" of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first marriage. The Latins, on the contrary, with few exceptions (St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours among the Fathers), hold that they were the Lord's cousins. That they were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matthew 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His "brethren", or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression.

The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the "sister" of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether "sister" here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the MSS. of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other "brethren" may have been more distant than that of the above named four.