Brothers of the Lord

[Pons]

Hello friends. A long long time ago, I posted some questions here about Eastern views on the “brothers of the Lord” - Eastern views on the family of Jesus

I greatly prefer the old forum design but anyway. According to the oldest traditions or knowledge passed down about the brothers of Jesus, they were biological children of Joseph not Mary. Thus stepbrothers (and stepsisters), not cousins or some other kind of relatives as has been thought in the Latin church thanks to St. Jerome.

But if Joseph had older sons, wouldn’t they have been “sons of David” too? At the risk of showing my rustiness, does it matter if Jesus wasn’t the “oldest heir”? In any case he was a son of David at least legally through Joseph. Wouldn’t James, or as you call him James the Just and the “Brother of God”, be the oldest heir? Did a bit of reading and found out that in the East he, Joseph and King David are celebrated on the same day, so it certainly wasn’t overlooked.

 

[Inbonum]

Jesus’s brothers and sisters

 

[CRM_Brother]

Hello Pons,

While the ‘cousin’ interpretation was popularized by Jerome in the West, it was not a new interpretation. In the early Church, both the ‘cousin’ and ‘stepbrother’ interpretations were similarly accepted by both Easterners and Westerners. They grew in scattered pockets across the various communities. The ‘cousin’ interpretation died out in the East due to it being seen as too Western. All-in-all, it wasn’t really that important for the Early Church, whether they were cousins or stepbrothers.

The title “Son of David” would not be a title which any son of Joseph would use. To do so would be somewhat blasphemous for a Jew of this time. It was uniquely tied to the Messiah. It was an allusion to the messianic concept of the Priest-King. Solomon was the original “Son of David”. In him we find God’s promised kingship and the erection of the First Temple. Even David’s other sons, like Absalom, were not ‘Sons of David’. They were ‘sons of the House of David’. The “Son of David” title represents the permanent erection of the worship of God.

The sons of Joseph may be ‘of the House of David’ but they were not ‘Sons of David’. The unification of the feast days of Joseph and David in the East was specifically in relation to Jesus and Solomon.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Solomon was the original “Son of David”. In him we find God’s promised kingship and the erection of the First Temple.

I would add that Solomon healed the sick and exorcised demons and so it was expected that the New Solomon (the Messiah) would perform the same signs.

 

[new-kirishitan]

In the Chinese language, although the words “brother” and “sister” technically mean your siblings only, but in casual speaking, they are also used for your cousins of the same generation. I would not be surprised if the Jews did the same.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

There was no word for “cousin” in Hebrew at the time of Our Lord (and afaik there still isn’t), so cousins were called “brethren”, “brothers”, and “sisters”. That’s how it is in Scripture.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Yes the original Greek is usually ambiguous when it comes to family relations. For instance, Mary of Clopas in John 19:25 could have been the wife or the daughter of Clopas.