Z
zana
Guest
what is a valid Catholic response to the claim that the book of James was written by a half brother of Jesus
- Status
S
Scottgun
Guest
Got any more detail? Jesus having a half-brother is not doctrinally problematic unless they are claiming that the half-brother was born in utero from the Blessed Virgin Mary. I seem to recall there is a reason that half-brothers is not a possibility, but I’m not sure.
F
FCEGM
Guest
Welcome to CAF!
This article gives the reason why the claim cannot be true:
catholic-legate.com/articles/ohbrother.html
D
Della
Guest
An article on the topic: catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp.
Z
zana
Guest
Thank you for responding
R
Robbinson
Guest
That “brother” as used in that culture and at that time meant “breathern”) and that they are likely cousins.
Blessings,
Brian
5
55442andy
Guest
I feel I should mention a couple of important points here:
The idea quoted that James the Just is not Jesus’ brother goes directly against the writings of Josephus one whom we rely for much of the historical authentication of the Bible.
- The Greek word “adelphos” used in Matthew 12:6, Matthew 13:55, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31, John 7:1-10, Acts 1:14, Galatians 1:19 is the specific word commonly used to mean “brother”. It isn’t used in the Bible with any other meaning.
- When talking about Jesus’ siblings, the Bible makes no mention of any other parents for these siblings.
- The notion that Joseph was much older than Mary and had children through a prior marriage is fabrication - there is no mention of it in scripture.
- Matthew 1:25 says “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus”.
The idea quoted that James the Just is not Jesus’ brother goes directly against the writings of Josephus one whom we rely for much of the historical authentication of the Bible.
R
Ruthie
Guest
A valid Catholic response would be, “Could be, if you assume that Mary was Joseph’s second wife. Or James could be His cousin, because Aramaic had only one word meaning both ‘sibling’ and ‘cousin,’ and that word was translated into Greek as ‘brother.’ The second is more likely, since it was Jewish law that the sons would take care of their father’s widow. Jesus gave Mary into John’s care, which implies that there were no half-brothers.”
Ruthie
Ruthie
M
mattkubes
Guest
Through 21st century eyes, yes that’s problematic. But the word “until” carried a different sense in the times that the scriptures were written. It simply implied that A did not happen before B, without carrying forward the notion that the opposite was true afterwards - even John Calvin agreed with this use of the word “until” (not to mention Mary’s perpetual virginity as well
). It is used several other places in scripture which show this to be true…if you’d like, I can post some later?I’m off to bed or I would have addressed all your points - hopefully some other will come along (but this topic has really been beaten to death).
J
jean8
Guest
To anyone,Through 21st century eyes, yes that’s problematic. But the word “until” carried a different sense in the times that the scriptures were written. It simply implied that A did not happen before B, without carrying forward the notion that the opposite was true afterwards - even John Calvin agreed with this use of the word “until” (not to mention Mary’s perpetual virginity as well
I’m off to bed or I would have addressed all your points - hopefully some other will come along (but this topic has really been beaten to death).
Where were the brothers at the cross?
They are conspicuously absent. Not mentioned in scripture at all.
Also, Jesus gave the care of his mother to John, why not the brothers?jean8
5
55442andy
Guest
Ruthie:
I’d draw different conclusions than you did regarding the use of the word “brother”.
The gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. The gospels of John and Luke and the book of Acts were written in Greek and it’s probable that Mark’s Gospel was also written in Hebrew.
The authors may have spoken Aramiac in normal everyday speech - they also may have spoken Hebrew, Greek or Latin. We don’t know.
The point is that in Greek and Latin there are specific words for cousin and brother that are very different. I do grant you that Hebrew and Aramaic don’t have precise words for cousin - you’d have to say “my uncle’s son” or something like that.
Luke was a doctor and would have used Greek in his daily work. So you can say reliably that the people Luke was talking about were brothers not cousins.
So in most of the places the word "brother"is used, the writers were writing in neither Aramiac or Hebrew.
The word “cousin” by the way, does not appear anywhere in the New Testament (NIV)
Thanks!
I’d draw different conclusions than you did regarding the use of the word “brother”.
The gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. The gospels of John and Luke and the book of Acts were written in Greek and it’s probable that Mark’s Gospel was also written in Hebrew.
The authors may have spoken Aramiac in normal everyday speech - they also may have spoken Hebrew, Greek or Latin. We don’t know.
The point is that in Greek and Latin there are specific words for cousin and brother that are very different. I do grant you that Hebrew and Aramaic don’t have precise words for cousin - you’d have to say “my uncle’s son” or something like that.
Luke was a doctor and would have used Greek in his daily work. So you can say reliably that the people Luke was talking about were brothers not cousins.
So in most of the places the word "brother"is used, the writers were writing in neither Aramiac or Hebrew.
The word “cousin” by the way, does not appear anywhere in the New Testament (NIV)
Thanks!
5
55442andy
Guest
Here are two reasons why not:To anyone,
Where were the brothers at the cross?
They are conspicuously absent. Not mentioned in scripture at all.
jean8
- I think we’d agree that the the disciples had run away or stood at a distance (Luke 23:49). John was “the disciple that John loved” and Jesus clearly had a special relationship with him - especially over his unbelieving brothers.
- Jesus’ brothers didn’t come around to the idea that he was divine at until a little later (Acts 1: 12-14). (Psalms 69:8)
L
love4mary
Guest
55442andy,then there is Equally strong circumstantial evidence that Jesus did NOT have siblings.
Circumstantial #1.No mention of other Births after Jesus
Circumstantial #2 No mention of siblings when Jesus was 12
Circumstantial #3 Mentioned before, Where were the siblings at the Cross?
You said that like His followers and Apostles, His siblings were most likely afraid which is why they stayed clear of the Crucifixion. Hmm…I can imagine NON family members being afraid, after all, their leader was being executed. But for Blood Family to be so scared as to not stay at the Foot of the Cross? and to leave their Mother there to suffer without them comforting her? Does THAT make any sense what so ever?
Circumstantial #1.No mention of other Births after Jesus
Circumstantial #2 No mention of siblings when Jesus was 12
Circumstantial #3 Mentioned before, Where were the siblings at the Cross?
You said that like His followers and Apostles, His siblings were most likely afraid which is why they stayed clear of the Crucifixion. Hmm…I can imagine NON family members being afraid, after all, their leader was being executed. But for Blood Family to be so scared as to not stay at the Foot of the Cross? and to leave their Mother there to suffer without them comforting her? Does THAT make any sense what so ever?
C
Cattitude
Guest
Where does it say that the brothers were “unbelieving”?
How many “brothers” does Acts say Jesus had?
Acts 1:15 “…there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place…”
120 minus the 11 apsotles, Mary and few other women leaves a LOT of brothers. Did Jesus really have 80 brothers?
When did the idea of Mary not being a pereptual virgin arise?
5
55442andy
Guest
John 7:5
Jesus’ four brothers are named in Matthew 13:55.
How many brothers can you fit into an upper room (Acts 1:14)?
Your mathematical expose is of a different time - there is clearly a break between Acts 1:14 and 15.
I think the converse is the appropriate question. The bible (Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, written within 40 years of Jesus’ death) for example, lists Mary’s children. It’s only authors such as Gregory of Nyssa, James (Protoevanglium) and Origen who are interpreters of the bible who put forth the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
I would say we could continue this discussion till we are both in heaven and able to ask Jesus himself! My choice is to believe Jesus had brothers and sisters. Your choice, which is required to support all your theology around Mary, is to believe the reverse.
I respect your right to believe what your church tells you to.
5
55442andy
Guest
I don’t think so. Because the Bible doesn’t mention where they were doesn’t mean they weren’t.55442andy,then there is Equally strong circumstantial evidence that Jesus did NOT have siblings.
Circumstantial #1.No mention of other Births after Jesus
Circumstantial #2 No mention of siblings when Jesus was 12
Circumstantial #3 Mentioned before, Where were the siblings at the Cross?
You said that like His followers and Apostles, His siblings were most likely afraid which is why they stayed clear of the Crucifixion. Hmm…I can imagine NON family members being afraid, after all, their leader was being executed. But for Blood Family to be so scared as to not stay at the Foot of the Cross? and to leave their Mother there to suffer without them comforting her? Does THAT make any sense what so ever?
The focus of the gospels in on Jesus and his relationships with and comparisons of his siblings are incidental to God’s message.
M
mattkubes
Guest
Isn’t this the same reasoning that you admonished in the case of Joseph having children from a previous marriage? Having said that, I don’t think we need to rely on this possibility to demonstrate Mary’s perpetual virginity at all, but still.
Either way, I think it’s an unfortunate mistake to ignore around 2000 years of constant teaching on the matter - even the original reformers thought so.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You may find this article helpful. It comes right here from the Catholic Answers Library and is called “Brethren of the Lord?”
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
*Just as a side note, before starting a thread on the forums on a particular topic, why not check to see if there is already an article ON the topic in the CA Library? It isn’t difficult to check and you’ll get a lot of information in one place from one source that is 'trustworthy." Not to say that posters here are not trustworthy, but come on, which would you rather trust --a poster who may or may NOT have the correct information, or a library/source document from a reputable site like this? And in any case, once you get the information, you can go on to ask posters their take on it. *
**
So to the OP : Please read the article from the library and then raise (separately please, one at a time) any ‘questions’ you may have over the individual ‘answers’ it gives.
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
*Just as a side note, before starting a thread on the forums on a particular topic, why not check to see if there is already an article ON the topic in the CA Library? It isn’t difficult to check and you’ll get a lot of information in one place from one source that is 'trustworthy." Not to say that posters here are not trustworthy, but come on, which would you rather trust --a poster who may or may NOT have the correct information, or a library/source document from a reputable site like this? And in any case, once you get the information, you can go on to ask posters their take on it. *
**
So to the OP : Please read the article from the library and then raise (separately please, one at a time) any ‘questions’ you may have over the individual ‘answers’ it gives.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Bonocore screws up again:
Yet, there are two essential problems with this position. Firstly, the Epiphanian view (in which James is the son of Joseph by a previous marriage) is contradicted by Scripture itself, which depicts the mother of James and his brother Joseph / Jose (per Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3) still alive and present at the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus (see: Matt 27:56, 27:61, 28:1, and Mark 15:40, 15:47, and 16:1). Given that this mother of James and Joseph / Jose is clearly a different woman than Jesus’ mother Mary, the only way that St. Joseph could be the father of James is if he were polygamous; and there is, of course, no tradition about that
This confusion of James is something Jerome comes up with. James the Lesser/James the son of Alphaeus and James the Just, the Brother of God. Since St. James son of Alphaeus appears only in the lists of the 12 Apostles, St. James the Lesser only in reference to his mother, and it is evident James the Just was NOT of the 12 (the Gospels are clear “even His brothers did not believe Him”) this blunder is without substance.
St. Jerome, btw, was maneuvering for a Holy Family not tainted with sex: for him, marriage’s only purpose was to produce virgins. Hence the need to eliminate St. Joseph’s widowhood.
Secondly, one must keep in mind that the Greek fathers, due to their very passionate opposition to Judaizing influences in the East, held a very strong disdain for Jewish culture and had very little direct contact with it. St. Jerome, on the other hand, was proficient in Hebrew and Aramaic, had very close relationships with Jews, and employed several Jewish rabbis to help with his translation of the Old Testament into Latin. Thus, while his explanation for James and the other so-called “brothers” is indeed later than that of Epiphanius and the Greek fathers, it is also far less ignorant of Jewish culture and of the extensive Jewish sensibilities found all throughout New Testament literature.
Here Bonocore plays lose and fast with the facts. In fact, while St. Jerome lived in Palestine, St. Epiphanius was FROM Palestine, from a JEWISH family, and spoke Aramaic, Syriac, Hebrew as well as Greek. He may have spoke Arabic: he wrote several Epistles to the Arabians. SS Epiphanius and St. Jerome knew each other: the latter translating the former’s works into Latin. Both were among the very few in support of the deposing and exiling of St. John Chrysostom.
Btw, the Jews snicker about Jerome’s abilities in Hebrew. And his reading of a vow on chastity into the Theotokos’ words in Luke 1:34-not “Jewish culture.”
Bonocore also doesn’t mention that among those “Greek fathers” is the Proto-Evangelium of James, our earliest (early 2nd cent.) source on this issue, on Mary as the new Eve (though at first in a negative sense), Mary’s perpetual viriginity, etc. It is our only source for the names Joachim and Anna for her parents.
newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm
The rest of Boncore’s talk about the Levitical (actually priestly) is a novel approach. The problem is that the sources also locate St James in the line of David, calling the Throne (i.e. cathedra) of Jerusalem the fullfillment of the promise to David, that the Desposyni (Lord’s family), the grand nephews of St. James were persecuted by the Romans for their Davidic descent, as recorded by Hegiseppus (HEBREW Chrisitan of mid 2nd cent.) Eusebius (bishop of Caesarea in PALESTINE) tells us Hegesippus knew Hebrew and Aramaic and the oral traditions of the Jews:
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done. So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work. Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life. Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church. When they were released they became leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trajan.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Btw, the use of adelphos for “step-brother” is attested: when Herod took his brother’s wife, as St. John reproached him, it was his STEP-brother.
- Status