"Brothers" of Jesus

[thistle]

Remeber in John 7:1-5 when Jesus’ brothers advise him. In Jewish culture, you could not speak to your brothers that way unless you were older.
Also during the council of Jerusalem, James was the last person to speak. In Jewish culture the eldest person would speak last. This would have been a testament to James’ age at the time of Jesus birth.

I’m sure you have heard countless times what the word “brothers” means in that context. It does not mean blood or step.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I’m sure you have heard countless times what the word “brothers” means in that context. It does not mean blood or step.

Not necessarily.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Since Scripture has not indicated the perpetual virginity of Mary, I did some research on the subject using the Church Fathers.

Matthew 27:55 and Mark 15:40 both mention the women at a distance from the cross as Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome.

John 19:25 says that the women at the cross were Jesus’ mom, her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Another option would be that Mary’s sister is indeed Mary the wife of Clopas.

I will chose the first option, since it is unlikely Mary had a sister named Mary.

Mary the wife of Clopas can be identified with Mary the mother of James and Joses.
A theory has been proposed that Clopas and Alphaeus are the same since Clopas is a Greek translation of the Aramaic term Halpai and Alphaeus is Latin for Halpai. So Mary wife of Clopas is James the Less’ mom.

 

[prodromos]

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.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

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.

Actually the way I see it, Salome is the mother of the sons of Zebedee and the sister of Mary, making her an aunt of Jesus. Mark’s version of the story would make sense because James and John were Jesus’ cousins.
Check John 19:25.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

James the Just is the brother of Jesus mentioned in Galatians 2. He is also named in Mark’s story as one of Jesus’ brothers. It seems to me that James the Just, along with Joses, Judas, and Simon are Jesus’ older brothers and Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage.

Some people have tried to identify Judas Thaddeus as Judas the brother of James the brother of Jesus per Luke 6:16. This is a bad reference because Judas was a common name back then. In the Aramaic rendering of the text which I consider the more accurate version, Thaddeus is referred to as Yehudah bar Yaacov, or Judas the son of James. Also, in his letter Jude does not refer himself as an apostle but as a bondservant of Jesus.

In conclusion, James the Less, Joses, and Simeon are the sons of Clopas, and James, Joses, Simon, and Judas are sons of Joseph from a previous marriage.

 

[Eliza10]

I’m sure you have heard countless times what the word “brothers” means in that context. It does not mean blood or step.

That’s for sure! Countless times. JB Brother, this step-brother thing seems to be your pet theory. It looks to me that whenever anyone asks about the “brothers of Jesus” here at Catholic Answers Forum, their thread becomes your soap box to lecture on your theory. I mean, every single thread on this subject. What troubles me is that you seem to present it as a Catholic answer.

This is true:

About 150 years later. The origin of the speculation that Joseph was married before marrying Mary is the Protoevangelium of James.

Right! Thank you for clarifying the truth on the matter, thistle.

Here is a short article with a further explanation on that, for the benefit of any seekers on this question of the brothers of Jesus: patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/09/clear-thinking-about-the-protoevangelium-of-james.html

.
.
.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

That’s for sure! Countless times. JB Brother, this step-brother thing seems to be your pet theory. It looks to me that whenever anyone asks about the “brothers of Jesus” here at Catholic Answers Forum, their thread becomes your soap box to lecture on your theory. I mean, every single thread on this subject. What troubles me is that you seem to present it as a Catholic answer.

Because it is! The theory of Joseph being an older age than Mary has existed much later than your theory.

 

[Eliza10]

Because it is! The theory of Joseph being an older age than Mary has existed much later than your theory.

So you say, anyway. Its hard to date common sense, and the wisdom of Holy Mother Church holds the weight for me.

 

[Eliza10]

It is my understanding that there is no ancient Hebrew word that differentiates between cousins and brothers. If I am wrong about that could anyone tell what those words are?

You are right about that.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I’m sure you have heard countless times what the word “brothers” means in that context. It does not mean blood or step.

One of the Fathers says James the Just was killed at the age of 96 in 62 A.D. This would make him 64 years old in 30 A.D. and 35 in 5 B.C., which leads me to this question: thistle and Eliza10, why, with all the evidence I provided you and the belief of this theory by Eastern Rite Catholics, do you still regard it as not Catholic?

 

[HelenRose]

The argument most compelling to me in believing that Mary had no other children is: It is hard for me to believe that Jesus would not have seen to it that His mother was safe with one of His brothers or sisters during the period of time before and during His crucifixion. What family of children would have not protected their mother. Grown son’s had say over their mother. No good son, knowing what was going to happen, would have allowed this unless there was a reason.

It seems to me that she was there because she has an integral part to play in God’s Salvation Plan. She was there because He was her only son and God’s plan included her to be the Mother of us all and to be the Queen of Heaven.

To be honest, none of us is going to be able to prove one way or another. I follow the teachings of the Church. This is my belief and my faith.

 

[prodromos]

Actually the way I see it, Salome is the mother of the sons of Zebedee and the sister of Mary, making her an aunt of Jesus. Mark’s version of the story would make sense because James and John were Jesus’ cousins.
Check John 19:25.

They were His nephews. All Jesus brothers (sons of Joseph) were older than Mary whereas John was quite a bit younger.

 

[prodromos]

About 150 years later. The origin of the speculation that Joseph was married before marrying Mary is the Protoevangelium of James.

Actually, the Protoevangelium of James was an early attempt at recording the Tradition regarding the birth and early life of Panagia. You’ve got it backwards.
Early icons of the flight into Egypt show a young James (son of Joseph) accompanying Mary, Jesus and Joseph. All ancient icons show Joseph as an elderly man.

 

[TMC]

One of the Fathers says James the Just was killed at the age of 96 in 62 A.D. This would make him 64 years old in 30 A.D. and 35 in 5 B.C., which leads me to this question: thistle and Eliza10, why, with all the evidence I provided you and the belief of this theory by Eastern Rite Catholics, do you still regard it as not Catholic?

I think your view is “Catholic” in the sense that, based on Church teaching, it is an acceptable interpretation. It is not the only interpretation that is acceptable to the Church, however. In other words, it is a Catholic interpretation, but not the only Catholic interpretation. Do you agree with that?

 

[Eliza10]

The argument most compelling to me in believing that Mary had no other children is: It is hard for me to believe that Jesus would not have seen to it that His mother was safe with one of His brothers or sisters during the period of time before and during His crucifixion. What family of children would have not protected their mother. Grown son’s had say over their mother. No good son, knowing what was going to happen, would have allowed this unless there was a reason.

It seems to me that she was there because she has an integral part to play in God’s Salvation Plan. She was there because He was her only son and God’s plan included her to be the Mother of us all and to be the Queen of Heaven.

Makes sense to me!

To be honest, none of us is going to be able to prove one way or another. I follow the teachings of the Church. This is my belief and my faith.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Actually, the Protoevangelium of James was an early attempt at recording the Tradition regarding the birth and early life of Panagia. You’ve got it backwards.
Early icons of the flight into Egypt show a young James (son of Joseph) accompanying Mary, Jesus and Joseph. All ancient icons show Joseph as an elderly man.

Any answers to my question, Eliza?

 

[Eliza10]

One of the Fathers says James the Just was killed at the age of 96 in 62 A.D. This would make him 64 years old in 30 A.D. and 35 in 5 B.C.,

Oh, wow, JB Brother, you also slipped in your other favorite theory into this thread, too! The “James the Just” one! You really seem to be quite fixated on these pet theories - theories that you support with the ridiculous and officially forever-rejected “Protoevangelium of James”! :ehh:

which leads me to this question: thistle and Eliza10, why, with all the evidence I provided you and the belief of this theory by Eastern Rite Catholics, do you still regard it as not Catholic?

That’s easy. I wrote about it in your “James the Just” thread for one. I am so surprised you ask this, and that you forgot we had this conversation so recently, on the same subject.

But here ya go. See Post #21- Why it makes more sense to me that Joseph was a consecrated virgin like Mary, and

**Post #26 **- Why the “Big-Stepbrothers”/“Jesus’s Blended Family” theory does not make sense and why it does not make sense to me that Joseph had two different but overlapping vocations instead of just the one very important one that he will be remembered for for all time.

Both of the above are on this page: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13448038#post13448038

.
.
Also **Post #34 **- Where was Jesus’ giant, bustling step-family at the cross?

• and Post #43 - Why I mistrust what you write now.

Both of the above are on this page: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=987204&page=3
.
.
.

Also **Post #48 ** Why I trust St. Jerome"s scholarship.

And very importantly, **Post #56 ** - Examples on why the “Protoevangelium of James” is disgusting, and utterly stupid! Those of simple faith and simple minds of a child can see that! I included excerpts from this the “Protoevangelium of James” because you keep using at as a proof reference for your theories.:hypno: When you read the excerpts, its PERFECTLY CLEAR why the Church does not use it as a proof reference or ANY kind of reference at all.

Both of the above are here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=987204&page=4 For goodness sakes! How ridiculous.
.
.
.

And JB Brothers, do you keep saying your Stepbrother/Big Blended Family theory is older because its based on this old yet clearly RIDICULOUS, rejected-by-the-Church Protoevangelium of James???

I think you should give your far-out theories a rest here on Catholic Answers Forum. You have already fully explained them fully for anyone that is interested. And please, please stop bringing up The Protoevangelium of James, which has been rejected by Our Holy Mother the Church and by anyone of faith who holds basic common sense.
.
.
.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Oh, wow, JB Brother, you also slipped in your other favorite theory into this thread, too! The “James the Just” one! You really seem to be quite fixated on these pet theories - theories that you support with the ridiculous and officially forever-rejected “Protoevangelium of James”! :ehh:

That’s easy. I wrote about it in your “James the Just” thread for one. I am so surprised you ask this, and that you forgot we had this conversation so recently, on the same subject.

But here ya go. See Post #21- Why it makes more sense to me that Joseph was a consecrated virgin like Mary, and

**Post #26 **- Why the “Big-Stepbrothers”/“Jesus’s Blended Family” theory does not make sense and why it does not make sense to me that Joseph had two different but overlapping vocations instead of just the one very important one that he will be remembered for for all time.

Both of the above are on this page: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13448038#post13448038

.
.
Also Post #34 - Where was Jesus’ giant, bustling step-family at the cross?

• and Post #43 - Why I mistrust what you write now.

Both of the above are on this page: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=987204&page=3
.
.
.

Also **Post #48 ** Why I trust St. Jerome"s scholarship.

And very importantly, Post #56 - Examples on why the “Protoevangelium of James” is disgusting, and utterly stupid! Those of simple faith and simple minds of a child can see that! I included excerpts from this the “Protoevangelium of James” because you keep using at as a proof reference for your theories.:hypno: When you read the excerpts, its PERFECTLY CLEAR why the Church does not use it as a proof reference or ANY kind of reference at all.

Both of the above are here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=987204&page=4 For goodness sakes! How ridiculous.
.
.
.

And JB Brothers, do you keep saying your Stepbrother/Big Blended Family theory is older because its based on this old yet clearly RIDICULOUS, rejected-by-the-Church Protoevangelium of James???

I think you should give your far-out theories a rest here on Catholic Answers Forum. You have already fully explained them fully for anyone that is interested. And please, please stop bringing up The Protoevangelium of James, which has been rejected by Our Holy Mother the Church and by anyone of faith who holds basic common sense.
.
.
.

Did you read Prodomos’s post?

Or did you even read my friend Patrick’s post?

 

[TMC]

… And please, please stop bringing up The Protoevangelium of James, which has been rejected by Our Holy Mother the Church and by anyone of faith who holds basic common sense.
.
.
.

I think you are being a little hard on the Protoevangelium of James. I certainly agree that it is historically unreliable, late-written, and not written by James (or anyone with direct knowledge of the events it portrays). But it was well loved by many Christians in its day. It also remains the source of many traditions, such as the association of lilies with Joseph.

My own view is that it was written in large part as a defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary, including by attempting to provide an explanation of who Jesus’ brothers were, why Mary would have remained virgin, and so on. It may have also been written to fill some gaps in Jesus’ story. But in those things it is building to support a conclusion, not reporting historical facts. I find it a fascinating piece, with interesting insights into second and third century Christianity. I don’t find that it sheds much light on the life of Jesus or His relatives.