I’d like to provide this quotation from Keating’s
Catholicism and Fundamentalism:
The first thing to note, when trying to understand such verses, is that the term “brother” has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to brothers german or half brothers. The same goes for “sister” and the plural “brethren”. Lot is described as Abraham’s “brother” (Gen 14:14), but Lot was the son of Aran, Abraham’s deceased brother (Gen 11:26-28); this means Lot was really Abraham’s nephew. Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen 29:1 f). Cis and Eleazar were the sons of Moholi; Cis had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren”, the sons of Cis. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chron 23:21-22),
The terms “brethren”, “brother”, and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives, as in the above examples. Sometimes they meant only a kinsman (Dt 23:7; 2 Esd 5:7; Jer 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of king Ochozias (2 Kings 10:13-14). The words could mean even people apparently unrelated, such as a friend (2 Sam 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32), or just an ally (Amos 1:9).
What’s interesting to note, also, is that when the original Hebrew of the Old Testament was translated to Greek, and the Greek proliferated throughout the Jewish diaspora and is what was most quoted by the New Testament authors, the Greek translators transliterated the references of “brothers” and “sisters” even though there were greek words available to describe the relationship.
The Scripture does give the testimony of those who knew the family of Jesus (Matt 13:54-56). Since the Gospels are concerned with Jesus, it is not surprising that there is no mention of Mary giving birth to others. That being said, it still identifies 4 named men and 2 (or more) unnamed women as brothers and sisters in the context of a family unit.
It’s the last part of your phrase that fails. “In the context of a family unit.” That’s a context not stated by scripture and which fails when actually put into the context of first century Jewish sibling responsibilities and relationships towards younger and older siblings. Furthermore, you assume that context even though the Hebrew and Aramaic language, which is the language that the disciples would have referred to one another in most commonly, do not imply it. Even if we assume a immediate family familial relation, again, they are never referred to as “sons of Mary,” even though the New Testament doesn’t hesitate to tell us who important disciples were sons of. They could have been sons of Joseph from a prior marriage, but that’s not necessary, either.
First, the Scriptures were inspired by God.
Yes. The thing is, we probably have different understandings of what the scriptures being “inspired” means. You seem to have a very Islamic perception of scripture, in that it seems to you that it was dictated word-for-word by God, whereas the Catholics understand it to mean that the writers wrote with their own personalities and understandings and biases and genre, but wrote inerrantly (that is, they were prevented by God from writing error) on matters of faith and morals.
Let’s take this quote from Saint Paul in his letter to Philemon:
"Thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius; so that no one can say it was in my name you were baptized. (Yes, and I did baptize the household of Stephanas; I do not know that I baptized anyone else.)”
Did God forget who Paul baptized? Or require a train-of-though correction to himself? Was Paul “thwarting” God’s inspiration? Or was he not writing what God wanted him to write?
Second, God knows the relationship of Jesus and these brothers and sisters.
Of course.
Third, God directed that the Scriptures (those which even your church agrees are divinely inspired) should be written in Greek.
Well, it fit into God’s plan that Greek was a very extensive language throughout the empire. It wouldn’t have worked as well if that wasn’t the case, but Greek isn’t a holy language. Matthew is also attested to have been first composed in Aramaic. We have no extant copies, unfortunately, but neither do we have the original Greek copies of Matthew.
Fourth, Scripture nowhere identifies these brothers or sisters of Jesus as being any other relationship (unlike with Abraham and Lot). Conclusion - your argument is refuted (unless you want to assert that the writers were able to “thwart” (for lack of a better term) the inspiration of God, and wrote in The “Hebraism” instead of what God actually wanted them to write).
There’s no thwarting of inspiration, I just wonder where you got this definition of “inspiration” from, anyway. It’s certainly not scriptural. Sounds like a “tradition made ‘dogma’” that’s nowhere attested to in scripture and which you only accept on the authority of men and women who, oddly enough, claim they don’t have the authority needed to make any such non-scriptural doctrinal determinations.
Given the thin thread your arguments hang on, I’m not sure I buy that you’ve refuted anything. Whether cousins or (step-)nephews/nieces (entirely feasible given the language) or step-siblings, scripture never states that Mary had any children besides Jesus, and both scriptural evidence and the majority of Church testimony allows us to conclude that she didn’t.
Maybe stating that Mary was a perpetual virgin can be seen as “adding” to scripture (at least turning what’s seen as implicit into an explicit statement). You stating that Mary had other children is also certainly adding to scripture, at best in the same way. But my faith doesn’t take scripture as the sole rule of faith. But it sounds like yours might (?). So I don’t see *myself *as being in a bind over the issue.
