Did Jesus have brothers? Article dealing with the question of whether Mary was always "the Virgin Mary."

[Cathoholic]

To lurkers here . . .

Above holytext pointed out in post 19 . . .

1. In committing Mary to John, he was providing the best for Mary by not committing her to the siblings who had abandoned him. Also, he gave John a higher place than he gave to Peter regarding Mary. Notice that Jesus told Mary first to look to John–not John to Mary. This dispels any idea that Mary has any supremacy in the church. We later see in Acts that Mary took her place among (not over) the believers at a prayer meeting. “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.” (Acts 1:14).

There were so many problems with this I didn’t know where to begin.

But this thread is not about the “supremacy” of the Blessed Virgin Mary (whom by the way, . . . holytext at least here . . . . neglects to refer to Mary as “Blessed”–see next post for insight into that in the context of some sense of “supremacy”).

It is about the “brothers” of Jesus and what “brothers” mean in a Hebrew and Biblical context.

With holytexts quote of Acts 1:14, another subtle mention of the “brothers” or “brethren” was made in verse 14.

Yet if holytext was trying to inform you of the context, adding verse 15 would have been very EASY (which shows a HUNDRED AND TWENTY BRETHREN).

It was probably a mere oversite that holytext forgot to include this important fact on a thread such as this.

But if holytext is engaging in slipshod exegesis here, then the obvious question you need to ask yourself is: "What OTHER points made here by holytext should be looked at with much more scrutiny?

.

ACTS 1:14-16a 14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled . . .

.

It is pretty clear here, that the Jewish use of “brethren” is being used broadly.

But if you only looked at verse 14 which is what holytext put up. (And again. I am not charging that holytext was attempting to FOOL you. I am going to assume the best and figure this was more “slipshod exegesis” from holytext), you would not catch this broad usage or at least SUGGESTED broad usage of “brethern”.

By the way. These “brothers” that “abondoned him” that holytext was alluding to . . .

Third, it is possible that because He desired to have John take care of Mary (due to his faithfulness) instead of his brothers who had abandoned him, it was necessary for Jesus to specifically declare what he wanted.

Here at least SOME of the brethen (" Mary the mother of Jesus, and WITH his brethren") are in the Upper Room about to receive the Holy Spirit!

So much for MAINTAINING that “abandonment” by Jesus’ “brethren” and the wrong holytext theory regarding this event.

 

[Cathoholic]

. . . . For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed . . .

LUKE 1:39-49 39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40 and she entered the house of Zechari′ah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” 46 And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.

 

[Hodos]

Have often heard this apologetic but it falls on its face when you read the entire passage/book. When you look at Matthew 12:46-50, or Mark 3:31-35, or Luke 8:19-21, Jesus presents a stark contrast to the listeners. He is using the illustration of his actual mother and brothers and sisters by the flesh, and contrasting that with those who actually hear and obey God’s word. Also, from an exegetical-grammatical standpoint, you look at the normative use of the word, which means literal brothers or sisters, and start from the premise that this is the author’s meaning, unless the text gives you reason to use the less frequent meaning of the word. As discussed previously, the text doesn’t give this impression, the paradox set by Jesus is the intentional contrast between his blood family and those who obey God. Reading it the other way demonstrates an eisegetical reading of the text that actually takes apart the impact of Jesus’ intended message.

 

[Gorgias]

Jesus presents a stark contrast to the listeners. He is using the illustration of his actual mother and brothers and sisters by the flesh, and contrasting that with those who actually hear and obey God’s word.

Except that He’s talking about inclusion in the Kingdom of God… and He’s talking to Jews. So, to His audience, inclusion in a religious group is all about blood relationships, but Jesus is explaining to them that inclusion in His context is all about “do[ing] the will of God” or “hear[ing] the Word of God and act[ing] on it”!

the paradox set by Jesus is the intentional contrast between his blood family and those who obey God

This isn’t so much “oy vay, my family’s so meshuggeneh!” as it is “here’s what ‘family’ means in the context of my teaching”…!

It’s not “they are not my family” – it’s “you’re my family, too!”

Reading it the other way demonstrates an eisegetical reading of the text that actually takes apart the impact of Jesus’ intended message.

It’s eisegesis to claim that Jesus is merely widening the meaning of (covenantal) familial inclusion, to an audience who assumes it means ‘blood relationship’, given that this is precisely what Jesus preaches throughout the Gospels? Hmm… not buying it.

Also, from an exegetical-grammatical standpoint, you look at the normative use of the word, which means literal brothers or sisters, and start from the premise that this is the author’s meaning, unless the text gives you reason to use the less frequent meaning of the word.

Is it really a “less frequent” meaning in other contexts? I haven’t done the word count, but my intuition is that the use of these terms other than ‘uterine sibling’ is very common in Scripture…

 

[Hodos]

Except that He’s talking about inclusion in the Kingdom of God… and He’s talking to Jews. So, to His audience, inclusion in a religious groupo is all about blood relationships , but Jesus is explaining to them that inclusion in His context is all about “do[ing] the will of God” or “hear[ing] the Word of God and act[ing] on it”!

Except he uses the word brother, not Israel.

This isn’t so much “oy vay, my family’s so meshuggeneh!” as it is “here’s what ‘family’ means in the context of my teaching”…!

It’s not “they are not my family” – it’s “you’re my family, too!”

Yes, that was precisely Jesus point, he is presenting a paradoxical juxtaposition, blood family vs. inclusion in the kingdom of God, you are proving my point. Also, drop the Yiddish nonsense, its prejudicial.

Is it really a “less frequent” meaning in other contexts? I haven’t done the word count, but my intuition is that the use of these terms other than ‘uterine sibling’ is very common in Scripture…

Again, meaning is determined by context of the passage. If what you say about the word adelphos is true, then why don’t you question whether John and James are brothers? The picking and choosing even though the context of the passage supports the other reading is the definition of eisegesis. And again, the use of adelphos in the broader meaning is evident in the texts where it is used that way, such as in the Pauline greetings to the congregations at various churches. In these passages, Jesus is very obviously referring to familial relationships, not brotherly camaraderie.

 

[Gorgias]

Except he uses the word brother, not Israel.

Umm… cousin (i.e., brother) is a family relationship.

he is presenting a paradoxical juxtaposition, blood family vs. inclusion in the kingdom of God, you are proving my point.

No, unless you’re saying you misspoke, your point was that it was about “contrasting [blood relatives] with those who actually hear and obey God’s word.” The implication there is that the blood relatives don’t “actually hear and obey God’s word.” So, please correct me if I’m misquoting you, but you’re saying that, on one hand, there are blood relatives who don’t obey God’s word, and on the other hand, there are non-relatives who do obey God’s word. No?

If you’re just saying “what makes us family is obeying God, not blood relationship”, then yeah… we’re saying the same thing – although it seems that you’re using to rather tangentially to attempt to argue that “brothers and sisters” must mean uterine siblings.

Also, drop the Yiddish nonsense, its prejudicial.

Oy vey. Kvetch, kvetch, kvetch…

Again, meaning is determined by context of the passage.

Agreed! And, since we (apparently?) agree that the meaning of the passage is “it’s not blood relation, it’s relationship to God”, then does the meaning of the passage change if we’re talking about cousins rather than uterine siblings? Of course it doesn’t!

If what you say about the word adelphos is true, then why don’t you question whether John and James are brothers?

Umm…maybe because the Bible explicitly mentions them as the sons of their father, Zebedee (Mt 4:21)? Oh… and it explicitly mentions that they have the same mother (Mt 20:20)? Yeah… that’s why it’s pretty clear that they are uterine brothers.

The picking and choosing even though the context of the passage supports the other reading is the definition of eisegesis.

I agree. Why, then, do you insist that those who are not identified as literally sharing a mother and father are uterine siblings? Picking and choosing a bit there, aren’t ya?

In these passages, Jesus is very obviously referring to familial relationships

Agreed. It’s not explicit – as it is, for instance, in your example of James and John – that the familial relationship is “uterine brothers”. QED.

 

[Hodos]

Umm… cousin (i.e., brother) is a family relationship .

As is anepsios, also used in the Bible when describing familial relationships not involving the same mother or father. Luke, Matthew, and Mark however, chose not to use this term in this context, as again, the context of the passage is showing the contrast between brother/sister in the natural sense, and adoption into the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Hodos]

I agree. Why, then, do you insist that those who are not identified as literally sharing a mother and father are uterine siblings? Picking and choosing a bit there, aren’t ya?

I am not picking and choosing, I am using the text provided to me in the scripture. You are the one “picking” and “choosing” to insert a foreign understanding developed a hundred and fifty years later in a non-orthodox document into the text. The whole “caretaker” husband concept of Joseph espoused by the Protoevangelium of James (your non-Catholic source document for this doctrine) is in contradiction with Matthew which claims that Mary and Joseph were already betrothed to be married when the whole issue of Mary’s becoming pregnant came up. Then it took the intervention of an angel to prevent Joseph from divorcing his fiancé. Then you have the passage where it says that Joseph did not have sex with her until she had given birth to a son. In the entire context of what the scriptures tell us, it is clear that Jesus was referring to the blood relationship of brothers and sisters, not some broader concept that would take the entire point out of his statement that the one who obeys the will of my father is my brother and sister and mother. I notice you also don’t extend the “brother” doesn’t mean “brother” concept to Jesus mother (the Bible also uses mother in a broader concept as well in places). Again, this apologetic you keep offering falls apart at every level when actually examined through exegesis of the text because it requires an inconsistency not born out by the text itself.

 

[Hodos]

Agreed. It’s not explicit – as it is, for instance, in your example of James and John – that the familial relationship is “uterine brothers”. QED.

Exactly, you do not apply the same hermeneutical principles to those passages which don’t threaten your doctrine.

 

[MikeInVA]

I don’t think the precise relationship of James and John - where brothers or kin, affects the teachings of the Church.

When I bought a Knox Bible it has a booklet written by the Monsignor. One of the challenges with translation, he wrote, is the need for consistent use of certain words across a group of translators. Inherently it leads to less precise usage to prevent confusion.

I am far from being a Bible scholar but I think that changes in time and language may have led some to question something in a specific phrase that has no issue when seen in context.

 

[Gorgias]

As is anepsios, also used in the Bible when describing familial relationships not involving the same mother or father.

Wait a minute – you’re really attempting to use a hapax legomenon, which doesn’t even appear in the Gospels that we’re discussing – to prove your point about words for familial relationships in the Gospels?

Luke, Matthew, and Mark however, chose not to use this term in this context

No… Luke, Matthew, Mark and John never used this term, ever. This actually strengthens my assertions and weakens yours! After all, if they had used the term, but chose not to use it here, then you would have something to claim here. Rather, it’s simply a term that’s not in the vocabulary of their writing. Ever. So… the use of ‘brother’ to mean something other than ‘uterine brother’ is actually more likely here.

You are the one “picking” and “choosing” to insert a foreign understanding developed a hundred and fifty years later in a non-orthodox document into the text. The whole “caretaker” husband concept of Joseph espoused by the Protoevangelium of James (your non-Catholic source document for this doctrine)

Hang on a second. You can get away with a variety of mischaracterizations, but this one is just too bold.

First off, the Protoevangelium isn’t the source of the Catholic doctrine – the Church is. In fact, that document (which, although it is extracanonical, isn’t “non-Catholic”) was excluded from the canon, although it was highly regarded by early Christians.

Now, if you want to make the claim that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary proceeds from the Protoevangelium, then let’s see the proof. Otherwise, your post hoc ergo propter hoc argument fails, being a logical fallacy.

I notice you also don’t extend the “brother” doesn’t mean “brother” concept to Jesus mother (the Bible also uses mother in a broader concept as well in places).

Glad you see that ‘mother’ doesn’t always mean ‘uterine mother’. Oddly, though, you can’t see this with adelphos. Hmm… wonder why not?

Exactly, you do not apply the same hermeneutical principles to those passages which don’t threaten your doctrine.

Really. Nice. Try.

When you asked why I don’t apply the same standard to James and John, and I point out the relevant Scripture passages that show that it’s a different kind of reference entirely… you reply “you apply different hermeneutical principles”? Really? I’m starting to think that this is a case of the eisegete calling the kettle black. Or… something.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

He is using the illustration of his actual mother and brothers and sisters by the flesh, and contrasting that with those who actually hear and obey God’s word.

These ARE actual brothers and sisters “by the flesh” in Hebrew parlance.

Cousins, second cousins, third cousins, fellow-tribesman, uncles, nephews, ARE “by the flesh”.

You DO understand that there is no ancient Hebrew word for cousins, etc. other than “brother” right?

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

As is anepsios, also used in the Bible when describing familial relationships not involving the same mother or father. Luke, Matthew, and Mark however, chose not to use this term in this context, as again, the context of the passage is showing the contrast between brother/sister in the natural sense, and adoption into the kingdom of heaven.

The problem with THAT Hodos, is it ASSUMES the “brothers” are cousins.

And it ASSUMES Gospel writers SHOULD put down something ELSE other than what was SAID in that Hebrew culture. (What if James and Joses were cousins, but Jude was a THIRD cousin? You are in essence . . . advocating that the Holy Spirit “inspire” ERROR!)

These are traditions you are following, but UNBIBLICAL traditions of men.

 

[Hodos]

No… Luke, Matthew, Mark and John never used this term, ever . This actually strengthens my assertions and weakens yours! After all, if they had used the term, but chose not to use it here, then you would have something to claim here. Rather, it’s simply a term that’s not in the vocabulary of their writing. Ever. So… the use of ‘brother’ to mean something other than ‘uterine brother’ is actually more likely here.

Another argument from silence which ignores the rest of the evidence in Matthew, Mark, and Luke already discussed. Again, you have no issue with adelphos being used in the familial sense where it doesn’t impact your doctrine.

First off, the Protoevangelium isn’t the source of the Catholic doctrine – the Church is.

Demonstrate this from the apostolic writings that this was the original teaching of the Church, otherwise, this is an unproven claim. I can demonstrate a non-apostolic document and point in time where this does creep into doctrine. That is far more evidence for my point than you have demonstrated in your answers thus far.

When you asked why I don’t apply the same standard to James and John, and I point out the relevant Scripture passages that show that it’s a different kind of reference entirely… you reply “you apply different hermeneutical principles”? Really? I’m starting to think that this is a case of the eisegete calling the kettle black. Or… something.

I am not picking and choosing, I am using the text provided to me in the scripture. You are the one “picking” and “choosing” to insert a foreign understanding developed a hundred and fifty years later in a non-orthodox document into the text. The whole “caretaker” husband concept of Joseph espoused by the Protoevangelium of James (your non-Catholic source document for this doctrine) is in contradiction with Matthew which claims that Mary and Joseph were already betrothed to be married when the whole issue of Mary’s becoming pregnant came up. Then it took the intervention of an angel to prevent Joseph from divorcing his fiancé. Then you have the passage where it says that Joseph did not have sex with her until she had given birth to a son. In the entire context of what the scriptures tell us, it is clear that Jesus was referring to the blood relationship of brothers and sisters, not some broader concept that would take the entire point out of his statement that the one who obeys the will of my father is my brother and sister and mother. I notice you also don’t extend the “brother” doesn’t mean “brother” concept to Jesus mother (the Bible also uses mother in a broader concept as well in places). Again, this apologetic you keep offering falls apart at every level when actually examined through exegesis of the text because it requires an inconsistency not born out by the text itself.

Answered already.

 

[Hodos]

To tell you the truth, it doesn’t bother me if you believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters or not. The record is pretty clear he did. What is more concerning is that this assumed, yet unproven doctrine was declared a de fide dogma of the Church upon penalty of anathema. That is really what is at issue here.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, you have no issue with adelphos being used in the familial sense where it doesn’t impact your doctrine.

The problem isn’t “adelphos being used in the familial sense”, and that’s not even the argument you’re making here! You keep implying that “familial sense” explicitly means “uterine sibling”… and it doesn’t. When we keep reminding you of that, suddenly it’s “eisegesis” and “argument from silence.”

Demonstrate this from the apostolic writings that this was the original teaching of the Church, otherwise, this is an unproven claim.

‘Early Church Fathers’ is the usual approach. There’s no Apostolic writing authorizing individuals to go and protest and form their own ecclesial bodies, either.

I can demonstrate a non-apostolic document and point in time where this does creep into doctrine.

And that’s the logical fallacy known as a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

What is more concerning is that this assumed, yet unproven doctrine was declared a de fide dogma of the Church

Oh, we’re going there? OK… fair enough. Please define for me what the standard for authoritative declaration of doctrine is, in the Church? I seem to recall something about “taught by all for all time”. We can show that this is the case at least as early as Justin Martyr, and use Scriptural argumentation to back it up. On the other hand, you’ve got a second millennium understanding of the meaning of ‘brother’, as argued by folks who already had left the Church and started their own community.

 

[Hodos]

The problem isn’t “adelphos being used in the familial sense”, and that’s not even the argument you’re making here! You keep implying that “familial sense” explicitly means “uterine sibling”… and it doesn’t . When we keep reminding you of that, suddenly it’s “eisegesis” and “argument from silence.”

Exactly, you are making an argument from silence. When the scriptures mention that Jesus mother and brothers and sisters did something, the obvious reading of the text is that they were indeed “uterine” siblings, particularly when no other mother is mentioned, when Matthew, and Luke have already made clear that Joseph and Mary were married, when Matthew says that Joseph did not know his wife until Jesus was born…when Mark, Matthew, and Luke demonstrate Jesus drawing a distinction between his blood relatives and those who are adopted into the kingdom of heaven…Feel free to provide any positive evidence of your conclusion. Haven’t seen you even attempt to do so yet.

 

[Hodos]

‘Early Church Fathers’ is the usual approach. There’s no Apostolic writing authorizing individuals to go and protest and form their own ecclesial bodies, either.

Acts 4, there you go.

 

[Hodos]

And that’s the logical fallacy known as a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

It isn’t a logical fallacy. The teaching is not in the apostolic documents (at least you haven’t demonstrated it). The Protoevangelium is the earliest document to suggest that Jesus brothers and sisters were from a different marriage (precisely what your apologetics refer to when refuting the scriptures), and was quoted by Jerome when the subject was under debate. Blame your own apologists if that is incorrect.

 

[Gorgias]

Acts 4, there you go.

Wow. Amazing. Peter, who was given authority by Christ to lead the Church, tells the Jewish leadership that this is exactly what he’s going to do.

Who gave that authority to say that to the Church itself? Try again.

It isn’t a logical fallacy.

Re-read your assertion. You’re claiming that the Protoevangelium was written in the 2nd century, and then the doctrine appeared after that. That is literally the meaning of “after this, therefore because of this.”

The Protoevangelium is the earliest document to suggest that Jesus brothers and sisters were from a different marriage

You’re off by a good 75 years. The Scriptures make the claim, too. Read the accounts at the cross, and you’ll find relatives of Mary – that is, birth mothers to Jesus’ “brothers” – standing at the cross with her.