Apologetic: The Jewish Birthright - "Behold, your son!"

[TimothyH]

Those who claim that Jesus had brothers and sisters may not be familiar with the Jewish concept of the birthright. Remember that the people in the Bible were Jewish. A look at how Jesus handle’s his birthright gives us important clues to his family structure.

First born sons in Israel had the “Right of the first born”, or the birthright. The birthright was extremely important in Jewish culture.

***Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore to him, and sold his birthright **to Jacob. (Genesis 25:33)

**And they sat before him, the first-born according to his birthright **and the youngest according to his youth; and the men looked at one another in amazement. (Genesis 43:33)

though Judah became strong among his brothers and a prince was from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph. (1 Chronicles 5:2)

but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his. (Dueteronomy 21:17)
The first born son recieved the birthright, and with it came a double share of his Father’s inheritance - twice as much as his brothers. The “Right of the first born son” was part of the Levitical law given to Moses by God. The birthright was divine law.

But with the double inheritance of the birthright came responsiblity. The oldest brother was head of the household when his father died - the responsiblity to care for the family fell to him. This was a formal responsibility which was passed from father to first born son, and this formal status of having the right of birth could be rejected. One could refuse to accept the birthright. Esau did exactly that, rejected his birthright and sold it for a plate of food. Transferring a birthright - selling it, giving it away, recieving it from one’s brother - or the formal transferring of leadership of the houshold by a dying father to his first born son, these would have been major events in the life of a Jewish family.

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” (John 19:26)

This wasn’t just a sentimental gesture by Jesus. This wasn’t Jesus telling his mother that he was going to miss her. Jesus was Jewish. Mary was Jewish. John was Jewish. They were Jews. Knowing that he was going to die, Jesus was giving his birthright to John. If Jesus had a brother - another son of his mother - the birthright would have surely passed to that brother. But Jesus didn’t have any brothers, so he gave his birthright to his closes friend, one who reclined at his bosom at the Last Supper.

Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:27)

A true understanding of this verse is only possible in the context of Jewish culture in the first century and in the context of the Levitical law under which Jesus and Mary lived. Remember, these were Jews! I can’t stress that enough. Taking Mary “into his own home” was a statement that John had accepted Jesus’ birthright, had accepted the formal responsibility of taking care of Jesus’ family, especially young girls and and elderly women.

There is no way a Jew in first century Judea would have not passed a birthright to a brother if such a brother existed. John accepted the birthright, and this shows that Jesus had no brother’s to give it to. The birthright was extremely important to Jews, and when we read scripture must never, ever forget that these people were Jews. The way they handle the birthright is an important clue in Jesus’ Jewish family structure.

-Tim-

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Yes, very thoughtful this is. However, look at the recording from Hegesippus (who was Jewish) from Eusebius:

“After James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as our Lord had for the same reason, Simeon, the son of Cleophas our Lord’s uncle, was appointed the second bishop, whom all proposed as the cousin of the Lord. Hence they called the church as yet a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses…” (Eusebius : Ecclesiastical History, book 4 chapter 22).

It is very clear that if the brothers of Jesus were actually cousins, they would be called cousins. This recording was written in the early 2nd century, written by a Jew, and remember not all the gospels or 1 corinthians were written to jews, but also gentiles.

 

[acarlson]

It is very clear that if the brothers of Jesus were actually cousins, they would be called cousins.

But from how I understand it, there was not a unique word to describe “cousin” apart from “brother.” To call one his brother did not necessarily mean a sibling born of the same mother and father; it could have easily meant one’s relative. So such a distinction, “they would’ve been called cousins if they were cousins, not brothers,” could not have been made.

Those who claim that Jesus had brothers and sisters may not be familiar with the Jewish concept of the birthright. Remember that the people in the Bible were Jewish. A look at how Jesus handle’s his birthright gives us important clues to his family structure.

First born sons in Israel had the “Right of the first born”, or the birthright. The birthright was extremely important in Jewish culture.

***Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore to him, and sold his birthright ***to Jacob. (Genesis 25:33)

**And they sat before him, the first-born according to his birthright **and the youngest according to his youth; and the men looked at one another in amazement. (Genesis 43:33)

though Judah became strong among his brothers and a prince was from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph. (1 Chronicles 5:2)

but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his. (Dueteronomy 21:17)

The first born son recieved the birthright, and with it came a double share of his Father’s inheritance - twice as much as his brothers. The “Right of the first born son” was part of the Levitical law given to Moses by God. The birthright was divine law.

But with the double inheritance of the birthright came responsiblity. The oldest brother was head of the household when his father died - the responsiblity to care for the family fell to him. This was a formal responsibility which was passed from father to first born son, and this formal status of having the right of birth could be rejected. One could refuse to accept the birthright. Esau did exactly that, rejected his birthright and sold it for a plate of food. Transferring a birthright - selling it, giving it away, recieving it from one’s brother - or the formal transferring of leadership of the houshold by a dying father to his first born son, these would have been major events in the life of a Jewish family.

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" (John 19:26)

This wasn’t just a sentimental gesture by Jesus. This wasn’t Jesus telling his mother that he was going to miss her. Jesus was Jewish. Mary was Jewish. John was Jewish. They were Jews. Knowing that he was going to die, Jesus was giving his birthright to John. If Jesus had a brother - another son of his mother - the birthright would have surely passed to that brother. But Jesus didn’t have any brothers, so he gave his birthright to his closes friend, one who reclined at his bosom at the Last Supper.

Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:27)

A true understanding of this verse is only possible in the context of Jewish culture in the first century and in the context of the Levitical law under which Jesus and Mary lived. Remember, these were Jews! I can’t stress that enough. Taking Mary “into his own home” was a statement that John had accepted Jesus’ birthright, had accepted the formal responsibility of taking care of Jesus’ family, especially young girls and and elderly women.

There is no way a Jew in first century Judea would have not passed a birthright to a brother if such a brother existed. John accepted the birthright, and this shows that Jesus had no brother’s to give it to. The birthright was extremely important to Jews, and when we read scripture must never, ever forget that these people were Jews. The way they handle the birthright is an important clue in Jesus’ Jewish family structure.

-Tim-

Beautiful explanation. I’ve never heard it explained as such before.

 

[Mystophilus]

Yes, very thoughtful this is. However, look at the recording from Hegesippus (who was Jewish) from Eusebius:

“After James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as our Lord had for the same reason, Simeon, the son of Cleophas our Lord’s uncle, was appointed the second bishop, whom all proposed as the cousin of the Lord. Hence they called the church as yet a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses…” (Eusebius : Ecclesiastical History, book 4 chapter 22).

Sure, but, unlike Symeon, Joseph’s children by his previous marriage would not be Jesus’ cousins, but his half-brothers. As far as Scriptural reference to Jesus’ siblings in Mt 13:55-6/Mk 6:3 goes, it is worth considering both the linguistic and the historical evidence.

The Greek term used there, αδελφος, is broad enough to include a huge range of relationships, and it is well worth noting that there was also the verb αδελφιζωdelfi%2Fzw&highlight=brother), ‘to make someone a brother’, i.e. you could become one without having been originally so. Were that not demonstration enough of the broadness of the term, we see Josephus (also C1st) referring to Matthias as having been his own αδελφος “εξ αμφοιν των γονεων”, i.e. “brother by both parents” (Life, 8), an explanation which would have been wholly redundant if αδελφος necessarily meant the son of both of your parents.

As regards historical evidence, we have the Protoevangelium of James, written probably in the mid-C2nd, i.e. close enough to the time to have been denounced for any inaccuracies as colossal as saying that Joseph already had children and was far too old for Mary (section 9). We then have the early Greek-speaking Church reading the Bible untranslated and accepting this as the truth.

Having come from an Evangelical background myself, I always presumed that “Jesus’ brothers” were the children of Mary and of Joseph, but learning the language and studying the history persuaded me otherwise.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

But the language broadness and the cultural norms are not denied in anything that I have said. I am totally up for reading in the ancient world a way of reading adelphos as someone is a relative or something of the sort. No question about it.

However, when you are referring to the mother, father, and brothers of a person, it is likely that the family unit is in mind. It is not likely to have on a number of occasions the reference “is this not the son of the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of judas,etc,etc” and for it to mean cousins of distant relatives, it just plainly is not likely.

If it was just a singular term for “the brothers of Jesus”, then sure let’s be wide open for distant relatives, but mother, father, brothers???

And the argument which sees Joseph as much older than Mary is kind of weak, for where are these children when they are traveling to Egypt? And if the children of Joseph were from a previous marriage, that means that the children must be older than Jesus, and if this is the case, not one of them is married? Why are they all remaining in the household? You mean to tell me that 4 men who are over 30 years of age are half-brothers to Jesus and not one of them has married? Let’s just think practically, the earliest the Joseph could have married Mary is when his youngest son was born. And that would mean that the other three were born before on the minimum of 1 year difference (approx). This would mean by the time Jesus was 33, his step brothers were 34, 35, 36, 37 and none of them were married.

 

[JM3]

where are these children when they are traveling to Egypt?

 

[TimothyH]

But from how I understand it, there was not a unique word to describe “cousin” apart from “brother.” To call one his brother did not necessarily mean a sibling born of the same mother and father; it could have easily meant one’s relative. So such a distinction, “they would’ve been called cousins if they were cousins, not brothers,” could not have been made.

Beautiful explanation. I’ve never heard it explained as such before.

This is the best explanation of cousin/brother/step-brother issue I have seen.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-are-jesus-brothers-ie-cousins-or.html

It is actually the text of a debate, but Dave Armstrong is excellent.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Bad Aramaic Made Easy by Jimmy Akin

Finally, I corresponded with Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. Though scholarly reserve would prevent him from saying so, he is regarded as an 800-pound gorilla among American scholars of Aramaic. In The Brother of Jesus, Shanks notes: “no one wants to get into the ring with Joe Fitzmyer when it comes to Aramaic” (47).

Fitzmyer was quite helpful. Regarding the idea that there was a word for cousin, he was direct: “In first-century Palestinian Aramaic there was no word for ‘cousin,’ but one used the circumlocution, ‘son of the uncle.’” Further, he adds, “I do not know of any word for ‘cousin’ (apart from the circumlocution) in any other Aramaic dialects.”

Concerning the word “brother,” Fitzmyer notes: “The word did not simply mean ‘blood brother,’ and you will find in the Book of Tobit a variety of broader meanings: ‘compatriot,’ ‘kinsman, relative,’ and even a generic usage when a speaker employs it, not really knowing (yet) the relationship proper. The young Tobiah even calls the Angel Raphael (in disguise), ‘Brother Azariah’ (6:7, extant in Aramaic). By that he certainly did not mean ‘blood brother.’”

Read More…

-Tim-

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I have never argued with the language variance of brother or sister.

But when in the context of a family household unit where father and mother are head of the brothers and sisters, it is clear what is meant unless something abnormal is going on.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Sorry I should have added that when there is 1 mother and 1 father, the brothers and sisters (7) in total are living under them, it is clear. If there were different mothers and fathers then it would make sense to go with the broader relationshiprelationship

 

[TimothyH]

Sorry I should have added that when there is 1 mother and 1 father, the brothers and sisters (7) in total are living under them, it is clear. If there were different mothers and fathers then it would make sense to go with the broader relationshiprelationship

Hebrews did not live in nuclear families like we do. We cannot interpret the Scriptures in the context of our modern lifestyles. This was an ancient culture, very different from our own.

Hebrew culture at the time of Jesus developed from the nomadic culture of Abraham. In Genesis 13 we see the clan splitting into two clans because the land could not support them. There was Israel the nation… the twelve tribes… sub-tribes or clans… and “houses” or “households”

*When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. (Genesis 14:14)

"Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, from twenty years old and upward, by their fathers’ houses, all in Israel who are able to go forth to war." (Numbers 26:2)

**Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house **divided against itself will stand; (Matthew 12:25)

For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17) *

Abraham’s “House” had 318 men. The census was taken by “House”. Jesus places cities and “Houses” in the same context because both are large - much larger than our modern nuclear family. God’s kingdom is called a houshold, with God at it’s head and multiple familes living under the head of the house. Modern day fraternaties are called houses, not because they live in a building but because all members have a fraternal - brotherly - relationship.

The basic unit of daily life for a hebrew was the house or bet-ab in Hebrew. The bet-ab consisted of two or more nuclear families (i.e., a married couple and their children) or composite families (an individual with multiple spouses and their offspring). Other kin (including grandparents), servants, concubines, and sojourners might also be part of the household or bet-ab.

Then Jacob set out from Beer-sheba; and the sons of Israel carried Jacob their father, their little ones, and their wives, in the wagons which Pharaoh had sent to carry him. They also took their cattle and their goods, which they had gained in the land of Canaan, and came into Egypt, Jacob and all his offspring with him, his sons, and his sons’ sons with him, his daughters, and his sons’ daughters; all his offspring he brought with him into Egypt. (Genesis 46:5-7)

This was Jacob’s bet-ab, his houshold. This is how Mary likely lived, in some form of bet-ab, with two or more nuclear families all together, most likely under the same roof. This is why the cousins were “Living under” Mary as you put it. This is why the cousins were always hanging around. This is why there was no word for cousin in the ancient Aramaic language. Even today people in semitic cultures who live in the same domicile with several nuclear families (bet-ab) refer to their cousins as brothers.

We can’t approach scripture from the basis of modern western lives. Assuming that people 2000 years ago and half way around the globe lived like we do today is a mistake, and we can’t bring those prejudices with us when we read Scripture.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Lot was Abraham’s nephew.

The Septuagint translators called Lot Abraham’s “adelphos” (brother) even though Lot was Abraham’s nephew (Gen. 13:8).

The Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew that was done in ancient times, translated cousin and nephew as “adelphos” - brother or “kin”.

-Tim-

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

We are not interpreting scripture in modern western eyes. When one says ‘’ is this not the son of Joseph, the son of Mary, and don’t we know his brothers?’’ Its possible to understand this as Mary and Josephs children. Its not like every Jewish house had other relatives called brothers and sisters who were not from the same mother. Notice how the man who made that quote didn’t mention any other mothers for the brothers? Are the 6 other children under Mary and Joseph all adopted and 1st cousins? Why can’t they be Marys children? What is forbidding Mary from having children? What defect is there if it is true?

 

[TimothyH]

We are not interpreting scripture in modern western eyes. When one says ‘’ is this not the son of Joseph, the son of Mary, and don’t we know his brothers?’’ Its possible to understand this as Mary and Josephs children. Its not like every Jewish house had other relatives called brothers and sisters who were not from the same mother. Notice how the man who made that quote didn’t mention any other mothers for the brothers? Are the 6 other children under Mary and Joseph all adopted and 1st cousins? Why can’t they be Marys children? What is forbidding Mary from having children? What defect is there if it is true?

They can’t be Mary’s children because Jesus, her first born, was concieved by the Holy Spirit. If Mary had a child by another then she would be an adulterer.

Our Lord cannot be the son of an adulterer. It simply cannot be.

-Tim-

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Ans what is the rationale for this? What covenant is Mary in with the holy spirit the bound her from having another child? If Mary was in effect loathed to the spirit, why Mary Joseph?,

 

[TimothyH]

Ans what is the rationale for this? What covenant is Mary in with the holy spirit the bound her from having another child? If Mary was in effect loathed to the spirit, why Mary Joseph?,

Divine law. It was God’s own law.

The Levitical law given to Israel by God through Moses said that a woman who had children by two different spouses without the first spouse’s death was to be put outside the camp and stoned. This command is of divine origin. This is God’s own law. Mary concieved by the Holy Spirit and is therefor the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Had she then concieved by another, she would be an adulterer. The Levitical law given to Israel by God also stated that a woman had to be married before she had children, or she was to be burned.

Mary had to satisfy both laws - children by one husband unless the first died and married before she had children. Joseph was chosen so that Mary was able to satisfy the requirement that she have a husband, but she did not have children after Jesus to satisfy the law that she not have children by two spouses.

-Tim-

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

You gotta be kidding. What author for catholics has ever argued thus way? The holy spirit is not dead so she committed adultery by marriage???

 

[Mystophilus]

However, when you are referring to the mother, father, and brothers of a person, it is likely that the family unit is in mind. It is not likely to have on a number of occasions the reference “is this not the son of the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of judas,etc,etc” and for it to mean cousins of distant relatives, it just plainly is not likely.

I agree completely: it is very unlikely that any kind of cousin is meant. While the Greek term for cousin, ανεπιος, is not used in the Bible, the term συγγενες, “same family”/“relative”, is in Lk 1:36. Had the Gospel writers meant someone more distant than a member of the same nuclear family, they could have used that, at least.

And the argument which sees Joseph as much older than Mary is kind of weak, for where are these children when they are traveling to Egypt? And if the children of Joseph were from a previous marriage, that means that the children must be older than Jesus, and if this is the case, not one of them is married? Why are they all remaining in the household?

The reference to Joseph being older is not an “argument”, but a “testimony”: the Protoevangelium is our earliest historical source. Let’s not lose sight of that: in order to say that Joseph was not much older and that he did not have children from a previous marriage, we have to disagree, from a distance of two thousand years, with someone who was writing within living memory of this family, and whose testimony was accepted by subsequent generations. For that, we would need very compelling reason indeed.

As for “remaining in the household”, where does any of our sources say that? They most probably remained in Nazareth, and it is quite possible that they lived in the conjoined dwellings typical of people in their socio-economic position, but I cannot recall seeing any testimony to that effect.

Regarding the sojourn in Egypt, a quick glance at the many and various contradictions in detail between the Gospels shows us just how careful they were not being about such things: how many angels were at the Empty Tomb, and who went there?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

What sigificamce does Marys perpetual virginity have

 

[Mystophilus]

What sigificamce does Marys perpetual virginity have

If you are asking about its significance regarding a historical view of Jesus’ “brethren”, then the answer is that the causal relationship runs the other way: the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is an inference from this historical view of Jesus’ brethren, not a cause for it.

The Perpetual Virginity seems to me a reasonable inference, given what the Protoevangelium says about Joseph and Mary’s respective ages, and how Joseph is likely to have felt about Mary and Jesus after the whole Nativity situation with the testimonies of the shepherds and the magoi, but it is a slightly different situation in historical terms.