Consistency Error with Mary's Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter cgoss
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cgoss

Guest
In discussing the virginity of Mary with a friend, a seeming continuity error came up: In Matthew 13:53-56, people are attempting to discredit Jesus by saying “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

In a Catholic defense of Mary’s virginity, it is usually pointed out that “brother” and “sister” here are able to mean more than “immediate family.” They are able to mean something similar to “cousin” or “relative.” However, my question is, does it not pose an inconsistency if “brother” and “sister” were intended to mean “cousin” since, just prior to enumerating out the brothers and sisters, only Jesus’ immediate family is listed? Thus, it would only be consistent if the “brothers” and “sisters” were part of Jesus’ immediate family as well?
 
Take a look at the following scripture verses and you will see that these “brothers” are actually the children of another woman.

Matthew 13:55, 27:56
Mark 6:3, 15:40
John 19:25
 
I was just thinking about this and reading about it, too. It could be they are children of Joseph from a wife who died, or cousins. I think cousins, because 1. His “sisters” are not even named 2. His “brothers and sisters” did not look for him when he was lost, and they were not at his crucifixion 3. Only Jesus is called a “Son of Mary” in the same sentence that mentions his brothers.
 
So you are affirming that “brothers” is intended to mean “cousin” which would be to say that Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, is either St. Joseph’s sister? The other possibility would be that Mary, the mother of James and Joseph is St. Joseph’s former wife.
If you are saying she is St. Joseph’s sister, there is still the question of the possible consistency error.
If you are saying she is a former wife of St. Joseph, well, we see the problem there is that she is alive haha.
Furthermore, can we be sure that the James and Joseph mentioned in Matthew 27 are the same James and Joseph mentioned in Matthew 13?
 
Last edited:
I think the answer given in the Protoevangelium of James may be the best explanation because I don’t know if you can avoid the possible consistency error by saying the James and Joseph in Matthew 13 and Matthew 27 are the same people with the two Marys being different people due to the reason I gave in response to spiderweb.

Thoughts?
 
cgoss said:
Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”
Click to expand...
Well let’s do the math. Listed is 4 brothers plus Jesus makes 5 and it says all sisters not both so that is atleast 3, which brings us to 8.

Since it is known that back then 25% of all babies died within the first year of life and 50% died by age 10, we can estimate Mary had 12 to 16 pregnancies. Wow they were gettin busy. 😉

Now we also know from Luke 2:41-42 that only Jesus, Mary and Joseph went to the temple. So we can determine that up until the time Jesus was 12 no other brothers and sisters were born.

We also know that Jesus was around 30 in the verses in question.

So that means the other siblings must have been born in the 18 years between Luke 2 and Matthew 13.

Only Jesus and Mary were present at the wedding at Cana, so it is safe to assume that all of the other Children must have been at least 12 for Mary to leave them Home Alone 😲

I think you see where I’m going with this…

Which seems more plausible, these brothers and sisters were cousins or Mary had 7 other children in 6 years?

Hope this helps some.

Your friend is grasping at straws.
 
The Archangel Gabriel told both Zechariah and Mary that they would both bear “a son” - singular.
No “other children” of either Elizabeth or Mary are in scripture.
The “other children” is a post-reformation man-made invention.

Read the Book of Tobit. In it, we see that a man married his “sister” Does this mean incest? NO! Nonsense! It means that they were from the same tribe, one of the 12 tribes of Israel, and thus all from that tribe were brothers and sisters.
Tobit 7:16
And Rag′uel called his wife Edna and said to her, “Sister, make up the other room, and take her into it.”
Tobit 8:4
When the door was shut and the two were alone, Tobi′as got up from the bed
and said, “Sister, get up, and let us pray that the Lord may have mercy upon us.”
Tobit 8:7:
And now, O Lord, I am not taking this sister of mine because of lust, but
with sincerity. Grant that I may find mercy and may grow old together
with her.”
Click to expand...
Those who hate the Catholic Church will tell you that Tobit is not scripture. That is their confusion and their problem.

Now, in order to be true, every word of Messianic prophecy must be true.
Zechariah 12,10:
On David’s clan, on all the citizens of Jerusalem, I will pour out a
gracious spirit of prayer; towards me they shall look, me whom they have
pierced through. Lament for him they must, and grieve bitterly;
never was such lament for an only son, grief so bitter over first-born
dead.
Click to expand...
For man to make Jesus a first-born, but not an only son is to make void the word of God. Anti-Catholics probably will not like that accusation, but if the shoe fits…

Have them check the New American Standard Bible (NOT a Catholic bible!).
Luke 1:38
And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
Luke 1:48
“For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.
Click to expand...
The bondslave of the Lord - her own Son! How many masters may a slave serve?

Not a single one of the reformers doubted Mary’s perpetual virginity. Ask the accusers who leads them to oppose the reformers.
 
cgoss said:
So you are affirming that “brothers” is intended to mean “cousin” which would be to say that Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, is either St. Joseph’s sister? The other possibility would be that Mary, the mother of James and Joseph is St. Joseph’s former wife.

If you are saying she is St. Joseph’s sister, there is still the question of the possible consistency error.

If you are saying she is a former wife of St. Joseph, well, we see the problem there is that she is alive haha.

Furthermore, can we be sure that the James and Joseph mentioned in Matthew 27 are the same James and Joseph mentioned in Matthew 13?
Click to expand...
No, I am not saying that she is St. Joseph’s sister. What I am saying is that another woman is their mother. This woman is described as the “sister” of Mary (John 19:25), the wife of Cleophas.

At the cross at the crucifixion, several woman are listed.
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children. (Matt 27:56)

Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome (Mark 15:40)

Jesus’ mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene (John 19:25)
  1. Mary Magdalene is mentioned in all three accounts.
  2. The wife of Zebedee (Salome).
  3. Another Mary who is the mother of James, Joses.
  4. And Mary the mother of Jesus (only in John’s gospel account).
It seems that they are “cousins” of Jesus, not through Joseph but through Mary according to John 19:25. It seems very likely than that the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are his cousins. In the Bible, all we have are names given in Mark 6:3 and Matt 13:55. But it does seem likely that at least James and Joses are not Jesus’ mother Mary’s children.

No, it can’t be definitively established with 100% certainty either way from the Bible. Which is where “the Bible alone” idea just doesn’t work. We do have the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus birth and remained so afterwards.
 
Last edited:
In Eastern Catholicism we say that they were Jesus’ half brothers from Josephs first marriage. He was a widower.

This is the best solution to this question, IMO.
 
Yes, good point and in ordinary usage of a sentence, it would be consistent to understand it to mean Jesus immediate family and therefore his real brothers.

Only, we are reading about a first century Jewish people.

And even today, we still can find certain tribes that use the word ‘brothers’ merely to mean male relatives or members of the clan from the same area or village.

Thus, the verse is not conclusive in saying that Jesus had brothers or than Mary had other children.

A bigger picture has to seen in Mary, the Mother of God, and why she should be a perpetual virgin. I have no time to discuss that here , but others can do so or to simply just look it up.
 
Either solution is acceptable.

It’s orthodox and fine to say they were Jesus’ paternal half brothers, it’s orthodox and fine to say they were Jesus’ cousins or other close relations.

It is not okay, it is absolutely and strictly forbidden, and it is heterodox to say they were Jesus’ full blood brothers. Mary was a Virgin before, during, and perpetually after the Birth of Christ, who was both her firstborn son and her only child. This is the orthodox Faith.
 
Last edited:
cgoss said:
However, my question is, does it not pose an inconsistency if “brother” and “sister” were intended to mean “cousin” since, just prior to enumerating out the brothers and sisters, only Jesus’ immediate family is listed? Thus, it would only be consistent if the “brothers” and “sisters” were part of Jesus’ immediate family as well?
Click to expand...
Matt 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Well, have you ever noticed how closely related the Apostles were to Jesus?

Thy mother, above, is a reference to Mary. But thy brethren, is a reference to the Apostles. Let me explain:

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

James, Joses, Simon and Judas, some claim, are the other children of the Virgin Mary and therefore brothers of Christ.

They neglect the following verses:

Matthew 27:56
Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, …

We know this is not the Virgin Mary because there is another Mary who is kin to the Virgin Mary AND is frequently in the company of Mary Magdalene:

John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

So, who are James and Joses and Simon and Judas?

Joses is the only one whose identity is not known other than that he is the son of the other Mary. The other three, James, Simon and Judas are Apostles of Christ.

Here are the lists, I’ll skip over the other Apostles and focus on these three:
Matthew 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, … The first, Simon, who is called Peter,…James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Mark 3:16 And Simon he surnamed Peter;…and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

Luke 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; 14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) …James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

cont’d
 
cont’d

What about Joses? It is possible that Matthew is Joses. Most Bible Scholars agree that the Apostle sometimes referred to as Levi, is Matthew. Note that Levi is also a son of Alphaeus:

Matthew 9:9
And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

Mark 2:14
And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

One thing this tells us is that Jesus’ family was complicated. Jesus is a son of David. Yet, one of His cousins is St. John the Baptist, the son of Zechariah, a Levite. Whether St. Elizabeth is of the line of Levi is not mentioned. But it is doubtful since she is Mary’s cousin. It is possible that Levi/Matthew somehow is related to Jesus through this connection.

Anyway, these are the brethren of Jesus who have arrived at the house. It is natural that they would frequently keep company with the Virgin Mary, their aunt.

There’s another verse that mentions “sisters”.

This point is frequently missed by those who claim that Jesus had brothers. There are two women who are “kin” to Jesus and Mary. They are the other Mary, who is called His mother’s “sister” in Scripture. And her daughter.

The other Mary is the mother of James, Joses, Simon, Judas and Salome. Therefore, Salome is also Jesus’ cousin several times removed.

Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

So far, we’ve identified the Apostles James the son of Alphaeus, Judas his brother, and Simon also James’ brother as kin to Jesus. And possibly, Levi the son of Alphaeus also known as Matthew. That makes four Apostles kin to Jesus.

Salome, we identify as the sister of James, Judas, Simon and possibly Levi because they have the same mother and the same father. But Salome is also the mother of Zebedee’s children. James and John.

Matthew 27:56
Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

These are the same three women looking upon Jesus from afar during the Crucifixion. Salome then is the mother of Zebedee’s children which just happen to be the Boarnges, the Sons of Thunder, Sts. James the greater and John the beloved of Jesus. All of which are related to Jesus by virtue of being kin to His mother.

So, I don’t know, did you keep count? It looks like at least 5 of the 12 Apostles were Jesus’ brethren (i.e. kin).
 
MT1926 said:
Well let’s do the math. Listed is 4 brothers plus Jesus makes 5 and it says all sisters not both so that is atleast 3, which brings us to 8.

Since it is known that back then 25% of all babies died within the first year of life and 50% died by age 10, we can estimate Mary had 12 to 16 pregnancies. Wow they were gettin busy. 😉

Now we also know from Luke 2:41-42 that only Jesus, Mary and Joseph went to the temple. So we can determine that up until the time Jesus was 12 no other brothers and sisters were born.

We also know that Jesus was around 30 in the verses in question.

So that means the other siblings must have been born in the 18 years between Luke 2 and Matthew 13.

Only Jesus and Mary were present at the wedding at Cana, so it is safe to assume that all of the other Children must have been at least 12 for Mary to leave them Home Alone 😲

I think you see where I’m going with this…

Which seems more plausible, these brothers and sisters were cousins or Mary had 7 other children in 6 years?

Hope this helps some.

Your friend is grasping at straws.
Click to expand...
This is by far the most convincing answer I’ve seen. Not least of all because 25% is a low estimate. I think people tear themselves up in knots trying to reconcile erroneous statements in the bible. It contradicts itself!! It’s a bunch of things that were spoken for a long time, mainly in Aramaic, then put into Greek / Hebrew / Latin by people who never met Jesus, copied and possibly edited along the way and then translated into English. How can anyone possibly expect it to be perfect!?
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
In Eastern Catholicism we say that they were Jesus’ half brothers from Josephs first marriage. He was a widower.

This is the best solution to this question, IMO.
Click to expand...
The argument against step siblings is Jesus (on the Cross) entrusting Mary to John instead of his step siblings which would be the custom in those days.
 
Was “the custom in those days” for the son(s) of a deceased man and his first wife to step up and take care of their stepmother? Got a cite for that?
 
I agree that the Catholic position on Mary’s perpetual
virginity is the most scriptural, since she is addressed
by Elizabeth who was pregnant w/ St. John the Baptist
as the Ark of the Covenant(Luke 1:41-42, 2 Samuel 6:9)
It only takes COMMON SENSE to conclude that a
vessel that bears the very Person of the Lord of Hosts
should be pure, spotless and undefiled.
 
RedFan said:
Was “the custom in those days” for the son(s) of a deceased man and his first wife to step up and take care of their stepmother? Got a cite for that?
Click to expand...
Do a search. There have been threads about this over the years and this custom was confirmed by our Jewish friends who are members of these forums.
 
Did a search. Coudn’t find a reference to a source document.

It matters whether the custom you posit was enjoined by 1st century religious authorities, or was simply a civil custom. While Jesus was not shy about deviating from either variety (which automatically makes any argument against step-brotherhood from Jesus’ admonishment to John quite weak), if this particular custom was purely civil it would make the argument that much weaker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top