"Brothers" of Jesus

[TMC]

There are a lot of strong opinions here. Can I ask why it matters? I find it interesting, but not theologically significant. Is there more to it than mere curiosity?

 

[Eliza10]

I read your post. Your reasoning seems to amount to a bunch of ‘feels’. It appears to me to be more an appeal to emotion than a rational argument. Nonsense like your critique of what you call Joseph’s Bi-Vocation. There was no “Big Blended Family”, Joseph’s children were almost all adults by the time Mary was brought into his life, most being married and having children of their own.

True, I use the word “feels” too much for the taste of some. Keep in mind that “feels” and “rational argument” are not mutually exclusive. There can be overlap. And the way I see it, they are in fact rather related. Because the truth is rational, and the truth *feels *right.

As to my calling it the “Big Blended Family”, that’s what Joseph’s alleged former family man vocation sounds like to me. Because we *know *Joseph was a Just Man. Just as Our Lady and Our Lord always were who they were, and did not repent and change from some other different kind of person, most likely Joseph always was who he was, a Just Man, and did not have something to repent from (like, not being a just-enough father in his alleged previous vocation) at the time he took on his alleged “second” family of Most Holy Mary and Our Lord.

So if Joseph had been, as you and JB propose, a man of *two *overlapping, but separate, vocations - - a “Bi-Vocation Man”, in fact, then, being truly a Just Man, in his first vocation he would have been a *most *ideal, loving husband and father. There would have been remarkable, GREAT loving unity in the family of his first (primary??) vocation, as he certainly would not have been the kind of father one could just leave and forget about when one started his own family.

Yes, each of Joseph’s previously conceived children would have loved him and remained involved in his life. And all would have had wonderful memories of his first much-loved wife and their mother, and they would have had a need to reminisce about her when together, and to carry that memory on to their own children who would have wanted to know about their own dear now-passed Grandma, so much loved by dear Grandpa.

Also certainly some of his sons would have been carpenters, and been in business with Dad. With such a perfect father, certainly some would have wanted to be just like dear old Dad. So, sons and grandsons, too - not just a peaceful Jesus and Joseph like we picture traditionally, but a whole milling crowd in the workshop business.

And *all *his children would have wanted Grandpa Joseph to be a part of their own children’s lives. Would you not want to share your beloved parents with your children? It would be very important to you, especially if your father was the one known for ALL TIME as “The Just Man”. Yes, you would have been anxious to have them favored by your amazing wonderful father Joseph, and would have been calling for his attention to your children while he was also guarding over our Lord and Our Lady.

Also consider that all the children and the grandchildren of The Great Just Joseph would have sorely missed him and been worried sick during the years they spent in Egypt. Because Joseph could not have sent them any word, or let ANY one of propitious progeny know his whereabouts, because he would have put Our Lord in danger. So in this case his new, important vocation would have been in direct conflict with his previous but still current vocation. He would have to allow them all to worry themselves sick about Dad/Grandpa in order to protect Our Lord as this was his new, extra vocation. As if exile were not enough of a cross.

And on return to Nazareth with his new family, made extra close by the peaceful blessed solitude in the family of three in exile, they would all now lay claim to his time and attention, having missed him so, and wanted to rebuild that closeness. So a big adjustment for all - Grandpa’s back with his new well-loved youthful family, and changes have to be made from the Holy family of three to the “Big Blended Family”.

That’s why “Big, Blended Family” seems an appropriate name for this theory of Joseph being a “Bi-Vocation Man”, to me.

 

[Eliza10]

There are a lot of strong opinions here. Can I ask why it matters? I find it interesting, but not theologically significant. Is there more to it than mere curiosity?

If it was an important matter for faith it would be Dogma. So if you don’t have an opinion, or don’t want to form one on it, you’re fine.

 

[prodromos]

True, I use the word “feels” too much for the taste of some. Keep in mind that “feels” and “rational argument” are not mutually exclusive. There can be overlap. And the way I see it, they are in fact rather related. Because the truth is rational, and the truth *feels *right.

As to my calling it the “Big Blended Family”, that’s what Joseph’s alleged former family man vocation sounds like to me. Because we *know *Joseph was a Just Man. Just as Our Lady and Our Lord always were who they were, and did not repent and change from some other different kind of person, most likely Joseph always was who he was, a Just Man, and did not have something to repent from (like, not being a just-enough father in his alleged previous vocation) at the time he took on his alleged “second” family of Most Holy Mary and Our Lord.

So if Joseph had been, as you and JB propose, a man of *two *overlapping, but separate, vocations - - a “Bi-Vocation Man”, in fact, then, being truly a Just Man, in his first vocation he would have been a *most *ideal, loving husband and father. There would have been remarkable, GREAT loving unity in the family of his first (primary??) vocation, as he certainly would not have been the kind of father one could just leave and forget about when one started his own family.

Yes, each of Joseph’s previously conceived children would have loved him and remained involved in his life. And all would have had wonderful memories of his first much-loved wife and their mother, and they would have had a need to reminisce about her when together, and to carry that memory on to their own children who would have wanted to know about their own dear now-passed Grandma, so much loved by dear Grandpa.

Also certainly some of his sons would have been carpenters, and been in business with Dad. With such a perfect father, certainly some would have wanted to be just like dear old Dad. So, sons and grandsons, too - not just a peaceful Jesus and Joseph like we picture traditionally, but a whole milling crowd in the workshop business.

And *all *his children would have wanted Grandpa Joseph to be a part of their own children’s lives. Would you not want to share your beloved parents with your children? It would be very important to you, especially if your father was the one known for ALL TIME as “The Just Man”. Yes, you would have been anxious to have them favored by your amazing wonderful father Joseph, and would have been calling for his attention to your children while he was also guarding over our Lord and Our Lady.

Also consider that all the children and the grandchildren of The Great Just Joseph would have sorely missed him and been worried sick during the years they spent in Egypt. Because Joseph could not have sent them any word, or let ANY one of propitious progeny know his whereabouts, because he would have put Our Lord in danger. So in this case his new, important vocation would have been in direct conflict with his previous but still current vocation. He would have to allow them all to worry themselves sick about Dad/Grandpa in order to protect Our Lord as this was his new, extra vocation. As if exile were not enough of a cross.

And on return to Nazareth with his new family, made extra close by the peaceful blessed solitude in the family of three in exile, they would all now lay claim to his time and attention, having missed him so, and wanted to rebuild that closeness. So a big adjustment for all - Grandpa’s back with his new well-loved youthful family, and changes have to be made from the Holy family of three to the “Big Blended Family”.

That’s why “Big, Blended Family” seems an appropriate name for this theory of Joseph being a “Bi-Vocation Man”, to me.

What you have just done is construct a strawman which you are then able to effortlessly knock down with more of your feels. Not an argument I find very convincing

 

[TMC]

If it was an important matter for faith it would be Dogma. So if you don’t have an opinion, or don’t want to form one on it, you’re fine.

I have plenty of opinions on the topic. Given the level of heat on this topic, I think I should just keep those opinions to myself. I don’t understand why people get so hot about a topic that has little or no theological relevance, and which can not be established historically one way or the other. Its fun to speculate about, but we seem to have forgotten the “fun” part.

 

[Eliza10]

I have plenty of opinions on the topic. Given the level of heat on this topic, I think I should just keep those opinions to myself. I don’t understand why people get so hot about a topic that has little or no theological relevance, and which can not be established historically one way or the other. Its fun to speculate about, but we seem to have forgotten the “fun” part.

Yes, it does start to get “not fun” sometimes, and then I back off…

 

[Eliza10]

What you have just done is construct a strawman which you are then able to effortlessly knock down with more of your feels. Not an argument I find very convincing

Well, I guess that “feels” thing really throws you off. You probably don’t “feel” the connection that I do about rational truth “feeling” right.

Does it also throw you off so much that you cannot consider, without bias, the practical reality of Joseph’s family vocation not just being “over” when he allegedly started a “second” vocation as head of the Holy Family and Protector of Our Lord and Our Lady?? Can you see, rationally, how his first alleged previous life’s vocation was “for life”, just as his alleged “2nd” vocation was, and so, Joseph’s two vocations would be “blended”, while Mary and Jesus, instead, would have had the ONE vocation? Note that that makes a rather unbalanced Holy family, too - and I wonder why God would do that? What would be the Holy purpose that would tie that perfectly into Jesus’ mission??

I explained it to you so that you can see why your theory can be truthfully named "Joseph’s Bi-Vocation Theory", and that’s the reason for the term “Big Blended Family”, since you questioned to me the validity of those names for your theory. And so I answered your question, showing why the use of those terms is logical and rational, based on the facts I provided -* not* on feeling.

I do use more “I feel” than you do but it is not logical or rational to discount the whole of what I say because of it. To do so would be “feeling-based” and not rational - don’t you think?

And I was just using logical imagination for what the Big Blended Family would actually live like. Did you ever think that through? I think my imagination of it is a rational one, based on the truths we know. Or did you just never imagine, at all, what your theory would live out like, and so my ideas were surprising to you?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Oh, dear, it sounds as if you are trying to start an argument. This is about opinions here. Perhaps I should not have said “more Catholic” but “more true” “more in line with Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture”. We are not talking about Dogma here, so there is room for differing opinions, and we all have our opinion of what seems more true. (The Holy Catholic Faith being the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, I used it interchangeably, perhaps misleadingly).

So its “unscriptural” now?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, not of Eliza10!

 

[prodromos]

That’s just it, your whole premise is based on your imagination. You’ve created thie so called Bi-Vocation in your mind and assumed that God would not require that of Joseph, despite the fact that this is exactly what happened with each of the Apostles if you want to use the lense of your imagining. They all had ‘vocations’ prior to being chosen by God, whether that be as fishermen or tax collectors or whatever. They all left their former vocation and committed themselves wholly to their new vocation of Apostles.

 

[Eliza10]

So its “unscriptural” now?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, not of Eliza10!

That’s pretty rude, JB. I did NOT say it was un-scriptural. I clarified that we are talking about our opinions. I said “more in line with”. Why do you keep on ignoring what I actually write and instead, pick at what I do NOT write? That’s what is rude and does not make for a nice conversation, as others have noticed in this thread.

Nowhere did I say un-scriptural.

I guess I was right wondering if you are just looking to argue. This is what makes me tired, continually making having to defend things I clearly did NOT say. Why can you not just address what I do say?

I sure hope I do not have to ask you this again.

…
The Gospel of Jesus Christ, not of Eliza10 !

Editing to add: this last part is particularly offensive, JB. To imply that I am trying to preach my own gospel. Its not very nice. I wish you would put your hostility away. I do not think that scoffing and mocking is something that should be allowed on Catholic Answers Forum.

 

[Eliza10]

I take it you mean, James the Less; not James the brother of John, correct?

The seating arrangements at the last supper, according to Jewish custom, would have the eldest recline behind Jesus; for Jesus was acting as the “patriarch” of the table; Therefore the youngest are on the other side. That means Peter was the eldest at table of All apostles, and both James and John (the greater) were the youngest. As those three were closest to Jesus.

Also: When Jesus selects people to go with him to special events, he takes the eldest and youngest as a sign of the whole group. eg: Peter, James, and John, are the trio that he usually selects.

I have never heard that the John spoken of at the transfiguration was the eldest, but always understood that was John the Great; the youngest of the apostles.
If that’s the case, John the Less can not be seen as being older than Peter.

However, I do see part of your point; for the council of Jerusalem, has a debate – followed by Simon/Simeon Peter standing up and telling everyone that the Gentiles are not to be placed under a yoke which was not bearable by even the Jews. See Acts, 15:7-10 usccb.org/bible/acts/15

And it is after Peter, that three people consecrated by Peter, James the (great) and John; Namely, Paul and Barnabas, and James the Less (or James the Just), speak.
They do not, however, speak on their own.

Notice that James the Just says “Simeon has said”, in order to qualify his judgment.
James the elder defers to Peter’s judgment, as a brother even older than himself.
James speaks only to ratify what Peter has said through experience.

Even though James the Just is elder than most of those assembled, he can not be oldest one there.

I would submit that shows, manners wise, that James the Just is recognizing the source of his consecration; eg: he recognizes only Simeon Peter as his elder for he quotes neither James the Great, nor John the Apostle – but only Simeon Peter (Cephas).

Huiou Theou, I wanted to thank you for an interesting contribution to this discussion. I had never heard the point of view of the oldest-to-the-youngest. It seems to work with what you are explaining about the seating at the Last Supper table. I asked my husband about it, since he has studied much of scripture and history and seems to remember everything he ever read. He had not heard this either (he hasn’t heard everything!) but he did not see anything wrong about the idea (he often has interesting insights!). What we both found particularly interesting is your theory for the reason why Jesus chose Peter, James and John for the Transfiguration. I always wondered about the reasons for His choice! This one makes sense.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I just want to say, for the benefit of others reading this thread, since you are bringing up your “3 James Theory” again, in this thread as well, that the great and venerable scholar St. Jerome would disagree with you!

St. Jerome says there are just the two James which you refer to here, NOT THREE. Those are Jesus’ two apostles, one is the brother of John, and one the brother of Jude- those latter two being the cousins of Jesus.

So we have the one who is often referred to as “James the Greater” - Google that and you will see that James the Greater

“was a son of Zebedee and Salome, and brother of John the Apostle. He is also called James the Greater or James the Great to distinguish him from James, son of Alphaeus and James the Just. James the Greater is the patron saint of Spain.”

– That’s at the top of the Google page because that’s what the vast majority of Christian scholars say.

Then we also have the other one, of whom the great Biblical scholar St. Jerome said was:

** James the Less,
James, son of Alphaeus and
James the Just
who are one and the same person**.

That’s TWO James, not three, and that’s how the vast majority of Christian scholars over the centuries see it.

In addition, as far as Mary of Clopas/Alphaeus being a sister of Our Lady, no, I am not with that idea. I accept, instead, along with tradition supported by early writings like Jewish convert St. Hegesippus [c. 110 – c. April 7, 180 AD], whose work I have confidence in because he was early and because he was a Saint and because his work was known to Saint Jerome, that Mary of Clopas and Mary of Alphaeus were one and the same and that she is the **mother of Jude and James **and also their other brothers Joseph/Joses and Simon who are also mentioned in scripture.

Also I accept that Mary’s husband Alphaeus was the brother of the St.Joseph. Not the sister of Our Lady. I accept the long-standing tradition that Mary was an “only”, who came late in life to Anne, who was childless before her.

Also this was the opinion of Papias of Hierapolis, and since he was a longtime companion of Polycarp - a disciple of THE St. John the Apostle (the “disciple whom Jesus loved”), this adds to the trustworthiness of this interpretation.

In one of his writings Jerome states his opinion was not the mainstream opinion at the time, so a host of scholars would dissagree with him, one of them being Eusebius of Caesarea. In his list of the Seventy Disciples, Eusebius includes James the Just.

Papias has a lot of things attributed to him, one being that John son of Zebedee died at the hands of the Jewish authorities. I personally don’t trust him.

Also Jesus giving John to Mary testifies to him being a close relative of Jesus because if he wasn’t, Jesus would have to give him to one of those relatives.

Also John 7:5 says, “For even his brothers did not believe in him.” This would be highly unlikely if any of them were apostles. In fact, if you read the text, Jesus’ “brothers” are actually mocking him.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Apparently Judas Thaddeus is Jude brother of James to you. But Judas and James were common names back then. So you would probably have Jude brother of James the Just not of the Twelve and Jude brother of James the Less of the Twelve.

Also apostle was used in a much wider sense, like Paul or Barnabas.
In the book of Hebrews, Jesus is called the apostle.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

That’s just it, your whole premise is based on your imagination. You’ve created thie so called Bi-Vocation in your mind and assumed that God would not require that of Joseph, despite the fact that this is exactly what happened with each of the Apostles if you want to use the lense of your imagining. They all had ‘vocations’ prior to being chosen by God, whether that be as fishermen or tax collectors or whatever. They all left their former vocation and committed themselves wholly to their new vocation of Apostles.

And even continued their vocations in their families. Peter took his wife on travels with him.

 

[Eliza10]

That’s just it, your whole premise is based on your imagination. You’ve created thie so called Bi-Vocation in your mind and assumed that God would not require that of Joseph, despite the fact that this is exactly what happened with each of the Apostles if you want to use the lense of your imagining. They all had ‘vocations’ prior to being chosen by God, whether that be as fishermen or tax collectors or whatever. They all left their former vocation and committed themselves wholly to their new vocation of Apostles.

Prodromos, I agree with most of what you write; we just disagree about the Blessed Mother, Ever Virgin being “Second Wife”. But I understand this is a popular idea in your faith tradition, and probably you never really considered it another way. And, I do think its wise to consider that having a feeling about a thing and it being rational are not mutually exclusive. God made truth feel right to our hearts for a reason.

Yes, its true what you say, like some priests today, some of the Apostles were married. Yes, and they had jobs, too. They weren’t just sitting around waiting to become an Apostle some day. Jesus worked as a carpenter! But I would not say that was his vocation.

This is different though from what I mean by “Bi-Vocation”. I mean having two different simultaneous overlapping vocations. (Not two different overlapping careers). St. Joseph;s vocation as head and protector of the Holy Family was pretty HUGE and all-consuming. We know Our Lady was specially chosen and quite prepared for her role - certainly everything in her life pointed to it and prepared her for her Great Vocation. She never would have asked, “What do I want to do with my life?” but instead, “God, what do you want me to do?”. It seems likely that Joseph would have been the same way. Not asking, “What do I feel like making of my life?” but, “God, what do you want me to do?” Everything in Josephs life would prepare him for his Great Vocation. I don’t think that having intimately loving relations with his first wife, naked and unashamed, would be the greatest preparation for a completely different kind of marriage to the Blessed Virgin Mary. So the tradition of Joseph being, like Mary, a Nazarite or already-vowed consecrated virgin makes more sense to me in that regard.

And I keep thinking of more reasons why its unlikely Joseph juggled parenthood and grandparent-hood with also being husband and parent to a very young Holy Family. Like, wouldn’t he have felt terribly guilty leaving his Lord and the Blessed Mother every time he had to leave to attend a Bris for a new grandson??

And then, Mary would have been “Bi-Vocation”, too. She would be not only Mother of Our Lord but “Blessed Step-Mom” and a “Blessed Step-Grandma!”

 

[BartholomewB]

In one of his writings Jerome states his opinion was not the mainstream opinion at the time, so a host of scholars would dissagree with him, one of them being Eusebius of Caesarea. In his list of the Seventy Disciples, Eusebius includes James the Just.

Papias has a lot of things attributed to him, one being that John son of Zebedee died at the hands of the Jewish authorities. I personally don’t trust him.

Also Jesus giving John to Mary testifies to him being a close relative of Jesus because if he wasn’t, Jesus would have to give him to one of those relatives.

Also John 7:5 says, “For even his brothers did not believe in him.” This would be highly unlikely if any of them were apostles. In fact, if you read the text, Jesus’ “brothers” are actually mocking him.

According to Richard Bauckham, Jerome was the first to come up with the idea that the “adelphoi” might have been cousins. Until then, as far as anyone knows, it had been taken for granted by the whole Church that they were Joseph’s sons and daughters by an earlier marriage.

 

[prodromos]

According to Richard Bauckham, Jerome was the first to come up with the idea that the “adelphoi” might have been cousins. Until then, as far as anyone knows, it had been taken for granted by the whole Church that they were Joseph’s sons and daughters by an earlier marriage.

St Jerome has made other errors. There are at least two errors in his translation of the New Testament into Latin which unfortunately, have become widespread in every translation i other languages. One is his translation of part of the Lord’s Prayer as “our daily bread”, and another is John the Baptist’s food of “wild honey and locusts”. Since almost everyone refers back to early translations of the Greek, even when starting a fresh translation, Jerome’s errors have taken on wide traction.

 

[BartholomewB]

St Jerome has made other errors. There are at least two errors in his translation of the New Testament into Latin which unfortunately, have become widespread in every translation i other languages. One is his translation of part of the Lord’s Prayer as “our daily bread”, and another is John the Baptist’s food of “wild honey and locusts”. Since almost everyone refers back to early translations of the Greek, even when starting a fresh translation, Jerome’s errors have taken on wide traction.

Not locusts? What were they, then? In Matt 3:4, is the Greek word akrides a mistake for something else?

biblehub.com/greek/200.htm

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Prodromos, I agree with most of what you write; we just disagree about the Blessed Mother, Ever Virgin being “Second Wife”. But I understand this is a popular idea in your faith tradition, and probably you never really considered it another way. And, I do think its wise to consider that having a feeling about a thing and it being rational are not mutually exclusive. God made truth feel right to our hearts for a reason.

Yes, its true what you say, like some priests today, some of the Apostles were married. Yes, and they had jobs, too. They weren’t just sitting around waiting to become an Apostle some day. Jesus worked as a carpenter! But I would not say that was his vocation.

This is different though from what I mean by “Bi-Vocation”. I mean having two different simultaneous overlapping vocations. (Not two different overlapping careers). St. Joseph;s vocation as head and protector of the Holy Family was pretty HUGE and all-consuming. We know Our Lady was specially chosen and quite prepared for her role - certainly everything in her life pointed to it and prepared her for her Great Vocation. She never would have asked, “What do I want to do with my life?” but instead, “God, what do you want me to do?”. It seems likely that Joseph would have been the same way. Not asking, “What do I feel like making of my life?” but, “God, what do you want me to do?” Everything in Josephs life would prepare him for his Great Vocation. I don’t think that having intimately loving relations with his first wife, naked and unashamed, would be the greatest preparation for a completely different kind of marriage to the Blessed Virgin Mary. So the tradition of Joseph being, like Mary, a Nazarite or already-vowed consecrated virgin makes more sense to me in that regard.

And I keep thinking of more reasons why its unlikely Joseph juggled parenthood and grandparent-hood with also being husband and parent to a very young Holy Family. Like, wouldn’t he have felt terribly guilty leaving his Lord and the Blessed Mother every time he had to leave to attend a Bris for a new grandson??

And then, Mary would have been “Bi-Vocation”, too. She would be not only Mother of Our Lord but “Blessed Step-Mom” and a “Blessed Step-Grandma!”

She was also James and John’s aunt, so blessed Aunt.
Did you see my last post?

 

[SnoopSword]

Orthodox Tradition states that Salome, the wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John, was one of the daughters of Joseph the betrothed. This makes perfect sense when reading Matt 20:20-21, as only an older sister would have the boldness to ask of Jesus what she did.

Makes sense to me.

Also we know Mary was a virgin after Jesus by using simple common sense; since her womb was considered by everyone ‘EXTREMELY blessed’, and thus ‘EXTREMELY Holy’. Even a woman shouted out about praising Mary’s actual womb. I’m tempted to get into Princess Diana’s womb, goddess worship, and old pagan beliefs.

Remember Christs coming eliminated the ancient worldwide religions by actually FULFILLING their dogmas and practices. Mary’s actual ‘blessed womb’, as well as astrological signs was all part of this so it wasnt a small matter back then. It was extremely important to many worldwide.

Imagine if what happened to Mary happened to YOU. Do people honestly think that Mary would have ‘defiled her womb’ with unpure Adamic seed considering the beliefs in those days? Remember all humans today were a result from inter-breeding with non-Adamic ‘entities’ before the flood. Our bloodtypes prove this beyond a doubt. Its the whole reason Noah was chosen and God had to flood the earth.

In my opinion Mary likely was pregnant at 11 or 12 years old BEFORE her first period or they would have deemed her womb unclean (according to them). This practice is still done today in cults in India - they want the pregnancy before the first monthly begins. ie: If the story of Jesus reaches deep into these jungles and they hear the Virgin Birth, they will instantly recognize it as their own truth and instinctivly know it was before her first flow. It also puts an end to their practice.

I can say a lot more on this, but it’s VERY unlikely Mary would have had brothers or sisters and we now that a person can become a virgin again after the seal is broken although God can easily re-seal which he LIKELY WOULD HAVE because that part of the body was considered (and still is by many) among the most powerful spiritual entry/exit points of our body.

I would say Jesus did NOT have any ‘half’ brothers or blood brothers at all. He would only have legal brothers before God possibly. I should look into this more because the inheritance comes from the biological Father (in this case God). It could be at baptism the brothers became Jesus full brothers like us lol?? Im sure the ‘brother’ labels do take on a meaning that is likely hurtful and something people like to keep hush… so I wont even bother with that one lol. I could easily be wrong though…