"Brothers" of Jesus

[prodromos]

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

H κορυφή του βλασταριού:
ακρίδας ου σιτεύομαι ουδ’ αγαπώ βοτάνας (Προδρ. II 103).
Shoots or sprouts, otherwise known as pottage, such as what was eaten by the sons of the prophets in the Old Testament. The word also means “locusts”, and unfortunately that is the only definition listed in the vast majority of lexicons. I remember some of the monks on Mt Athos having a bit of a chuckle over this when the topic came up.

 

[Eliza10]

In one of his writings Jerome states his opinion was not the mainstream opinion at the time, so a host of scholars would disagree with him.

There were serious problems with mainstream opinions at the time. And the Lord knew the evil one was working hard to mess up Sacred Tradition early in the game, and so He rose up the great St. Jerome to rescue the situation. And God certainly picked the right man for the job!

, one of them being Eusebius of Caesarea. In his list of the Seventy Disciples, Eusebius includes James the Just…

And St. Jerome makes clear who is James the Just. It is James the Less, James the son of Alphaeus, 1st cousin of Jesus. That’s it.

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…

I really don’t know much about Papias, so I cannot have an opinion on him really. I do feel I know enough about St. Jerome to trust his scholarship.

St. Jerome just “feels right” to me. (Don’t whack me, prodomos!)

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. .

He was “the Disciple whom Jesus loved” and clearly the one who exemplified love of God the most, so therefore the most like Jesus and Mary, and certainly this was so natrual a choice no one at the time was the least surprised. What I find significant about this event is that Jesus did it from the cross. Why not some other time? Everything Jesus did He did for a reason. A deep, real reason. (and I hope I don’t have to say this but I certainly don’t mean it had anything to do with identifying his familial relations for posterity!).

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.

I think his brethren were his cousins Jude and James’ older brothers Joseph and Simon.

I realize your opinion is that these are Jesus’ elder stepbrothers, but as you must know by now, I go instead with the opinion of St. Jerome’s that the four were sons of Joesph’s elder brother Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Clopas (or, Mary of Alphaeus - the same), and therefore his first cousins that grew up so near him right there in Nazareth.
.
.
.

 

[Eliza10]

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.

Interesting. I guess the average person at the time of Jerome were not multi-language scholars, and of course, most did not have access to original documents, and God used St. Jerome;s natural gifts to get at the truth and set the record straight.

From what I am reading here, it does sound like just before St. Jerome there was a lot of assumption that “brothers” meant “brothers” or step-brothers - why should they mean anything else if you never heard of a culture that did not have a word for cousins? And that idea must have begun to take hold, which is why St. Jerome made it so explicitly clear they were cousins. And the Holy Pontiff gave St. Jerome this assignment, right? So it is good grounds for it being a holy work. Then the fact that he is a Saint and Doctor of the Church. As Doctor, he fixed these scriptural interpretation errors, and errors in Sacred Tradition which were rampant at the time St. Jerome was called to his great vocation.

• The Catholic Church regards St. Jerome as the GREATEST of all the DOCTORS in clarifying the Divine Word.
  .
  .
  .

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

There were serious problems with mainstream opinions at the time. And the Lord knew the evil one was working hard to mess up Sacred Tradition early in the game, and so He rose up the great St. Jerome to rescue the situation. And God certainly picked the right man for the job!

He also chose Eusebius and Ephiphanius as well.

And St. Jerome makes clear who is James the Just. It is James the Less, James the son of Alphaeus, 1st cousin of Jesus. That’s it.

Oh the supreme authority of St. Jerome. I have Eusebius and Ephiphanius and a host of scholars who say contrary to Jerome. Have you read Eusebius?

James bar Alpheus would be His half cousin.

Like I said, James or Yaakov was a common name back then.

I really don’t know much about Papias, so I cannot have an opinion on him really. I do feel I know enough about St. Jerome to trust his scholarship.

St. Jerome just “feels right” to me. (Don’t whack me, prodomos!)

He actually may have said that.

He was “the Disciple whom Jesus loved” and clearly the one who exemplified love of God the most, so therefore the most like Jesus and Mary, and certainly this was so natrual a choice no one at the time was the least surprised. What I find significant about this event is that Jesus did it from the cross. Why not some other time? Everything Jesus did He did for a reason. A deep, real reason. (and I hope I don’t have to say this but I certainly don’t mean it had anything to do with identifying his familial relations for posterity!).

And why would he entrust His holy Mother to John, He being a devout, law abiding Jew, if he wasn’t related to him?
This also explains why John was so close to Him!

I think his brethren were his cousins Jude and James’ older brothers Joseph and Simon.

That is speculation.

I realize your opinion is that these are Jesus’ elder stepbrothers, but as you must know by now, I go instead with the opinion of St. Jerome’s that the four were sons of Joesph’s elder brother Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Clopas (or, Mary of Alphaeus - the same), and therefore his first cousins that grew up so near him right there in Nazareth.
.
.
.

So prodomos was right. You argue on “feels.”

 

[Eliza10]

He also chose Eusebius and Ephiphanius as well.

Oh the supreme authority of St. Jerome. I have Eusebius and Ephiphanius and a host of scholars who say contrary to Jerome. Have you read Eusebius?

No. St. Jerome did, though.

I hope you don’t just want to argue with me. Because its not comfortable for me. I am just expressing my opinion, which, as I explained, is based on rational confidence in the brilliant scholarship of Holy St. Jerome.

And why would he entrust His holy Mother to John, He being a devout, law abiding Jew, if he wasn’t related to him?
This also explains why John was so close to Him!

You are approaching this completely differently than me. You are approaching this event as if its purpose were to clarify familial relations. That does not sound logical to me. If he was close familial relations with John, then what would be the point of clarifying the obvious with with his last suffering breath?

I don’t think its about clarifying familial relations at all. After all, one of the great meanings is at this moment is that Mary is given to us ALL as Mother. I think its about John being CLEARLY the Disciple who LOVED most, and therefore was* the most like Jesus and Mary ***who were love. John was the one most like her Son, so would be the biggest comfort to her.

That is speculation.

Nope. Its rational confidence in the scholarship of St. Jerome, the greatest Doctor in the Church for clarifying Holy Scripture. Its rational, but yet, the rationality of this truth feels right.

So prodomos was right. You argue on “feels.”

This from you is not a surprise, I am sorry to say.

.
.
.

 

[prodromos]

The Catholic Church regards St. Jerome as the GREATEST of all the DOCTORS in clarifying the Divine Word.

Interesting that while St Jerome is pre-schism, he holds no such appellation in the East. I have a suspicion that if more of the Eastern Fathers works were available in translation (since only a fraction have been translated from the Greek, only one third of St John Chrysostom’s works for example), the Latins would not be so quick to heap such praise on St Jerome

 

[BartholomewB]

And St. Jerome makes clear who is James the Just. It is James the Less, James the son of Alphaeus, 1st cousin of Jesus. That’s it.

Yes, but Jerome is careful to point out that that is only his personal opinion and that other writers disagree. Jerome recognizes that nobody has factual knowledge of Joseph and Mary’s full family tree.

newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm

 

[BartholomewB]

H κορυφή του βλασταριού:
ακρίδας ου σιτεύομαι ουδ’ αγαπώ βοτάνας (Προδρ. II 103).
Shoots or sprouts, otherwise known as pottage, such as what was eaten by the sons of the prophets in the Old Testament. The word also means “locusts”, and unfortunately that is the only definition listed in the vast majority of lexicons. I remember some of the monks on Mt Athos having a bit of a chuckle over this when the topic came up.

That’s very interesting, and it’s something I’d never heard about until now. But I have a couple of questions. If, as you say, akris can mean both a locust and an edible plant of some kind, how can we know for certain which meaning it has in the Gospels?

In the plague of locusts in Exodus 10, the Hebrew word is ארבה (arbeh), which is translated as akris in the LXX. Is the word akris found anywhere in the LXX in the other sense, an edible shoot or sprout?

Thanks
Bart

biblehub.com/hebrew/697.htm

academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/2/100001/109999/ch/c2f38d1b9e71deb286cb6eb06f1cee31/

 

[BartholomewB]

Interesting. I guess the average person at the time of Jerome were not multi-language scholars, and of course, most did not have access to original documents, and God used St. Jerome;s natural gifts to get at the truth and set the record straight.

From what I am reading here, it does sound like just before St. Jerome there was a lot of assumption that “brothers” meant “brothers” or step-brothers - why should they mean anything else if you never heard of a culture that did not have a word for cousins? And that idea must have begun to take hold, which is why St. Jerome made it so explicitly clear they were cousins.

No, Eliza, that is incorrect. Jerome did not “make it explicitly clear” that they were cousins rather than Joseph’s sons and daughters by an earlier marriage. As I said in an earlier post, Jerome is careful to point out that that is only his personal opinion, and that other writers disagree. Here is the key phrase:

*ut nonnulli existimant, Joseph ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, Mariae sororis matris Domini

ut nonnulli existimant, *as some (literally, “not nobody”) consider,
ut autem mihi videtur, as, on the other hand, it seems to me.

Jerome, sensible man that he is, is fully aware that, for himself and for others living three centuries after the murder of James the Just, unchallengeable factual knowledge of James’ parentage is no longer available.

khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/hieronym/viris_l.htm

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

No. St. Jerome did, though.

I hope you don’t just want to argue with me. Because its not comfortable for me. I am just expressing my opinion, which, as I explained, is based on rational confidence in the brilliant scholarship of Holy St. Jerome.

Jerome actually knew his work was speculation. Check Bartholomew’s post again.

You are approaching this completely differently than me. You are approaching this event as if its purpose were to clarify familial relations. That does not sound logical to me. If he was close familial relations with John, then what would be the point of clarifying the obvious with with his last suffering breath?

I don’t think its about clarifying familial relations at all. After all, one of the great meanings is at this moment is that Mary is given to us ALL as Mother. I think its about John being CLEARLY the Disciple who LOVED most, and therefore was* the most like Jesus and Mary ***who were love. John was the one most like her Son, so would be the biggest comfort to her.

There is evidence for John being a cousin of Jesus in Scripture which is why Jesus would entrust His mother to him, John being the only believing relative around. John a younger cousin of the Master, would have been like His little brother.

John was not most like Him. John just needed teaching more.

Nope. Its rational confidence in the scholarship of St. Jerome, the greatest Doctor in the Church for clarifying Holy Scripture. Its rational, but yet, the rationality of this truth feels right.:

.
.
.

I’m also sure Eusebius and Ephiphanius had done their research, both of them being in the East. And even if Thaddeus is brother of James the Less, James was a common name back then. Jerome just conflated both men.
Basically you have provided no refutations for any of these, except “I feel.”

 

[Eliza10]

Yes, but Jerome is careful to point out that that is only his personal opinion and that other writers disagree. Jerome recognizes that nobody has factual knowledge of Joseph and Mary’s full family tree.

newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm

Okay. I have full confidence in St. Jerome’s scholarship, and I will go with his opinion, which is not only eminently scholarly, but makes a whole lot of sense when you think about all the implications of there being actual bothers and sisters of Jesus.

Implications like Jesus’ extra vocation of being Uncle Jesus. That means when scripture says that after being lost at the Temple, Jesus went home and was subject to his parents, AND he was subject to his role of being the favorite, best-Uncle-ever, to all the grandchildren of Joseph who vied for His perfect attentions.

My husband pointed out last night that the Church would have been really stretching it to ask Her priests to remain celibate (and the Orthodox, their bishops) if even Mary and Joseph did not do the same for their great vocation.

You see the list of far-out implications gets really long far when you say that Joseph’s vocation was not enough, that he had a complete, other, normal vocation to keep him busy with worldly realities before he started living out God’s great holy call for his life…

So i am glad that the opinion of of Jesus having a Big Blended family and Joseph a Bi-Vocation is not the opinion of the great St. Jerome, who definitely considered and studied all the aspects of every opinions of the day with his great mind, and who was called by the Pope himself to do the work on Holy Scripture.

 

[Eliza10]

No, Eliza, that is incorrect. Jerome did not “make it explicitly clear” that they were cousins rather than Joseph’s sons and daughters by an earlier marriage. As I said in an earlier post, Jerome is careful to point out that that is only his personal opinion, and that other writers disagree. Here is the key phrase:

*ut nonnulli existimant, Joseph ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, Mariae sororis matris Domini

ut nonnulli existimant, *as some (literally, “not nobody”) consider,
ut autem mihi videtur, as, on the other hand, it seems to me.

Jerome, sensible man that he is, is fully aware that, for himself and for others living three centuries after the murder of James the Just, unchallengeable factual knowledge of James’ parentage is no longer available.

khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/hieronym/viris_l.htm

Well I cannot read the Latin - or is it Greek? that you have quoted here, or on the website**, but unlike most readers here I have a husband here at home I can ask later.

Thank you for the correction, Bartholomew. Yes, I should have said I am aligned with the explicitly clear opinion of the great St. Jerome, not the explicitly clear* fact *stated by St. Jerome.

---

**I am curious what “skeptik” is in the url!

 

[Eliza10]

khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/hieronym/viris_l.htm

Is this a Russian or Ukranian website?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Okay. I have full confidence in St. Jerome’s scholarship, and I will go with his opinion, which is not only eminently scholarly, but makes a whole lot of sense when you think about all the implications of there being actual bothers and sisters of Jesus.

Implications like Jesus’ extra vocation of being Uncle Jesus. That means when scripture says that after being lost at the Temple, Jesus went home and was subject to his parents, AND he was subject to his role of being the favorite, best-Uncle-ever, to all the grandchildren of Joseph who vied for His perfect attentions.

My husband pointed out last night that the Church would have been really stretching it to ask Her priests to remain celibate (and the Orthodox, their bishops) if even Mary and Joseph did not do the same for their great vocation.

You see the list of far-out implications gets really long far when you say that Joseph’s vocation was not enough, that he had a complete, other, normal vocation to keep him busy with worldly realities before he started living out God’s great holy call for his life…

So i am glad that the opinion of of Jesus having a Big Blended family and Joseph a Bi-Vocation is not the opinion of the great St. Jerome, who definitely considered and studied all the aspects of every opinions of the day with his great mind, and who was called by the Pope himself to do the work on Holy Scripture.

Was Jerome there? Was your husband there?
There are married Catholic priests, you know. Or do you speculate on ALL your beliefs? Because Scripture and Tradition support the idea of Jesus having stepbrothers. Also the Gospels are about the message of the Messiah, not His family, although His family had a part to play in His message.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Well I cannot read the Latin - or is it Greek? that you have quoted here, or on the website**, but unlike most readers here I have a husband here at home I can ask later.

Thank you for the correction, Bartholomew. Yes, I should have said I am aligned with the explicitly clear opinion of the great St. Jerome, not the explicitly clear* fact *stated by him.

Yes, an opinion!

 

[BartholomewB]

Well I cannot read the Latin - or is it Greek? that you have quoted here, or on the website**, but unlike most readers here I have a husband here at home I can ask later.

Thank you for the correction, Bartholomew. Yes, I should have said I am aligned with the explicitly clear opinion of the great St. Jerome, not the explicitly clear* fact *stated by St. Jerome.

---

**I am curious what “skeptik” is in the url!

Thank you, Eliza, for your courteous reply. I apologize if my tone sounded a bit harsh.

Yes, it looks like a Russian website, but it’s one I’ve never used before. I’m using a borrowed computer for a few days, while mine is away at the repairers, so I don’t have access to my usual bookmarks. I just googled for De Viris Illustribus Latin and this is the one that turned up.

Regards
Bart

 

[Eliza10]

Yes, an opinion!

Well I don’t know why you find that remarkable. Practically every single post to you, I remind you that we are talking about our opinions.

 

[Eliza10]

Was Jerome there? Was your husband there?
There are married Catholic priests, you know. Or do you speculate on ALL your beliefs? Because Scripture and Tradition support the idea of Jesus having stepbrothers. Also the Gospels are about the message of the Messiah, not His family, although His family had a part to play in His message.

Re: There are married Catholic priests - Of course. I attended the ordination of one. It was beautiful.

Do I speculate on all my beliefs? What kind of question is that?

Re: Scripture and tradition supports Jesus has stepbrothers - Scripture is used to support all *kinds *of ideas. Yes, even a Holy Stepfamily it never mentions. Either Jesus had a Step-family or He did not. We know Holy Scripture makes no attempt to present and defend two opposing theories, and scripture is used to defend both. As to tradition, yes, obviously there are many traditions and I have clarified in many many posts to you that we are talking of different opinions and theories…

Re: The Gospels as the Message of the Messiah: Also I have clearly said in a post to you that the message of the Gospel is not about explaining familial relations, so, clearly, we are on the same page if that’s your opinion.

I don’t know why you hound me. Maybe you should just ignore me since you find my thinking so far off your radar that you cannot follow any of my points. Maybe our cognitive styles** are just too different for you to find what I write to be of any interest to you.

---

** Mine is “Holographical-Panoramic Cognition” Explained about 2/3rds down that page. My guess is that’s not your style, and *neither *is Vortical-Synergetic Cognition - because that’s my husband’s, and we follow each other fine! Maybe you are one of the other two, Causal-Determinist or Dialectical-Algorithmic
.
.
.

 

[PJM]

Here my friends is a very good article from EWTN on the OP’s topic question:thumbsup:

ewtn.com/library/scriptur/jesbrs.txt

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Re: There are married Catholic priests - Of course. I attended the ordination of one. It was beautiful.

Do I speculate on all my beliefs? What kind of question is that?

Re: Scripture and tradition supports Jesus has stepbrothers - Scripture is used to support all *kinds *of ideas. Yes, even a Holy Stepfamily it never mentions. Either Jesus had a Step-family or He did not. We know Holy Scripture makes no attempt to present and defend two opposing theories, and scripture is used to defend both. As to tradition, yes, obviously there are many traditions and I have clarified in many many posts to you that we are talking of different opinions and theories…

Re: The Gospels as the Message of the Messiah: Also I have clearly said in a post to you that the message of the Gospel is not about explaining familial relations, so, clearly, we are on the same page if that’s your opinion.

I don’t know why you hound me. Maybe you should just ignore me since you find my thinking so far off your radar that you cannot follow any of my points. Maybe our cognitive styles** are just too different for you to find what I write to be of any interest to you.

---

** Mine is “Holographical-Panoramic Cognition” Explained about 2/3rds down that page. My guess is that’s not your style, and *neither *is Vortical-Synergetic Cognition - because that’s my husband’s, and we follow each other fine! Maybe you are one of the other two, Causal-Determinist or Dialectical-Algorithmic
.
.
.

I would say the situation is vice versa.