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

[Hodos]

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.

Interesting.

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.

And yet you have no issue with every usage of brother where it is used in the sense I am speaking, except where it contradicts your doctrine. You can shrug all your want, but you have not demonstrated any hermeneutical defense.

 

[Gorgias]

And yet you have no issue with every usage of brother where it is used in the sense I am speaking, except where it contradicts your doctrine.

No, not at all. We’ve got scores of references to “brothers” and “sisters” in the Bible. Sometimes they’re uterine siblings; sometimes, they’re cousins; sometimes, they’re fellow adherents to the faith. Now, who’s the person in this discussion who is insisting that one particular reference must mean “uterine sibling”, because it fits his doctrine (just coincidentally, I’m sure)? Hmm… let me think…

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

Have often heard this apologetic but it falls on its face when you read the entire passage/book.

No it doesn’t “Fall on its face”.

If you take at least two of the “brothers” and follow them through the other Gospels it almost certainly suggests they are mentioned in the context of their mothers being explicitly named.

And it is NOT the Blessed Virgin Mary!

If you want, you can read about it. Karl Keating breaks it down in Catholicism and Fundamentalism but it is too labor intensive for me to unpack here right now.

Also don’t you think that any of the native Greek-speaking Fathers would have picked up on your tradition?

WHY did THEY ALL miss it, but YOU get it right?

Do you see ANY problem with this Hodos in the way of arrogance? Or are THEY all wrong?

All Marian doctrines have Christologic implications.

What does DENYING the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary mean concerning Jesus?

Do you think if there were eight other kids running around in the yard, do you think that helps AFFIRM or DETRACT from the Virginal conception and birth narrative? The early Church era heretic Cerenthus agreed with you on this point Hodos.

 

[Cathoholic]

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.

Sure it does.

I think your actions speak louder than words. I think it does bother you.

“The record is pretty clear he did” ONLY in a Hebrew sense. I have no problem with that.

I have a BIG problem with ADDING to Sacred Scripture and pretending that this means something not stated in Scripture.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos from post 47 . . . .

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

OK. Let’s look at Matthew 12:46-50 (You DO understand that Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:19-21 is the same story as Matthew 12:46 and following right? They are merely a synoptic account of the same story).

stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my . . . . my brethren!

(It doesn’t sound like Jesus thinks “brethren” ONLY means uterine brothers Hodos.
Certainly YOU don’t think all “his disciples” were Jesus’ uterine “brethren” or “brothers” do you??)

Here is the rest of the rest of the passage . . .

MATTHEW 12:46-50 46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” 49 And
stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brethren!
50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

This supports a BROAD use of “brethren”, not a narrow use!

A narrow use would be the “eisegetical reading of the text” Hodos.
A narrow use-ONLY of brethren could only be asserted in these verses if you ASSUMED a tradition of men, then proverbially threw your tradition into the passage.

Jesus puts His hand towards MANY people and calls them His “BROTHERS” or “BRETHREN”.

By the way Hodos. Do you affirm “Justification by faith ALONE?”

Because if you do, it seems you are contradicting yourself by asserting
you become a “brother” of Jesus
by “whoever DOES the will of my Father in heaven” instead of by “faith ALONE”.

.

NOT MATTHEW 12:50 (but a phantom verse) 50 For whoever has faith ALONE is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

.

MATTHEW 12:50 50 For whoever DOES the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

 

[John_Martin]

Matthew written in Aramaic uses the word “brother”, a broad term.
When translated to Greek, the Greek translator uses “adelphos”, either unwittingly thinking they are the same in both languages or not realizing they should have used a less broad term.

Peter being a Jew uses the broad Hebrew and Aramaic terms in his thinking of brother and when he tells Mark “adelphos” is the word they use in their discussions, and this is the word Mark uses in writing his gospel without considering that they might need to be more precise for the 20th and 21st centuries.
A second language is never learned with the same detail as a primary language - a much smaller vocabulary is sufficient usually. But we need to take that into account in our reading.

John Martin

 

[Hodos]

Matthew written in Aramaic uses the word “brother”, a broad term.

Show us the Aramaic translation and demonstrate that the Aramaic preceded the Greek. I often hear an appeal to this Aramaic translation when the Greek doesn’t meet someone’s doctrinal bias but I have never seen one produced.

 

[John_Martin]

Show us the Aramaic translation and demonstrate that the Aramaic preceded the Greek. I often hear an appeal to this Aramaic translation when the Greek doesn’t meet someone’s doctrinal bias but I have never seen one produced.

Show me a Greek version from the first century - you can’t, none exist.
The earliest fragment of Mark’s gospel, earliest of any NT text, is about 200 AD.
Matthew’s earliest Greek manuscript is about 250 AD. So, what is your proof that any of the New Testament was originally in Greek?

Whether written in Aramaic or in Greek, Matthew did not speak Greek as his first language, but Aramaic and Hebrew - my reasoning holds either way, that he did not consider there might be a different word for “cousin”, especially if not living in a greek society - immersed in familial greek culture.
One might argue that Luke, a greek physician, would know the difference - yes he would, but he was told all the events of Jesus life by those who would not be thinking in greek familial structures, but in Aramaic and Hebrew structures.

 

[Hodos]

And yours is a 4th to 5th Century Coptic/Syriac known translation from the Greek. You are the one making the claim not supported by scripture. The burden of proof is on you.

Also, whether Matthew’s first language was Aramaic or Greek is irrelevant. The gospel was written in Greek, his word choice was in Greek, for the purpose of communicating his gospel. Making up theoretical arguments that Matthew himself (or whoever the author of Matthew was) didn’t communicate in the medium that he selected is again making an argument from silence.

 

[John_Martin]

Here is Irenaeus of Lyons; closer than any existing manuscript to the originals. We are all Catholics; we can live with this and with Desiderius Erasmus’ defense of this also.
Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. ( Against Heresies 3:1:1)

Origen and Eusebius also stand by this.

As Catholics, we trust faithful witnesses.

 

[BartholomewB]

As Catholics, we trust faithful witnesses

But what do the faithful witnesses tell us? Do they claim to have read, to have seen, to have handled, a Gospel by Matthew in Aramaic or Hebrew? Or are they just passing on hearsay evidence?

 

[John_Martin]

Or are they just passing on hearsay evidence?

Hearsay evidence from a faithful witness is faithful hearsay because a faithful witness trusts a faithful witness in the Apostolic line back to the Sender.

 

[BartholomewB]

How many witnesses are there, then, faithful or not, who claim to have seen or read or handled a copy of the mysterious document?

I believe either Jerome or Eusebius may have made that claim, or possibly both. But nobody else, I think. It is curious that Jerome states in the De Viris Illustribus that he has been told about a copy of it in the library at Caesarea, but then never mentions it again. He says he used only Greek texts in his translation of the New Testament. It looks as though he may have changed his mind, at some stage, about the exact nature of that Hebrew or Aramaic document, whatever it was.

 

[Hodos]

Hearsay evidence from a faithful witness is faithful hearsay because a faithful witness trusts a faithful witness in the Apostolic line back to the Sender.

Interesting that Origen was so faithful he was declared a heretic.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I’m enjoying watching Hodos argue so doggedly against Luther’s position on Mary.

 

[Hodos]

I’m enjoying watching Hodos argue so doggedly against Luther’s position on Mary.

A few points: 1) Luther’s position on Mary evolved as he delved into the scriptures (check the Augsburg Confession Article XXI for example - On the Worship of the Saints), so you would have to tell me what year you are speaking about; 2) Luther never made a dogmatic statement about whether he believed in the perpetual virginity because it could not be proven scripturally, so he wisely did not bind people’s consciences to a privately held belief that may not be true; 3) The teaching of the Church is not based on Luther, so I am not bound by conscience to agree with everything Luther said or wrote (and he would support me in this point). My faith is a confessional faith whereby the basic doctrine of the Church is accepted because it is a faithful confession of the testimony of Jesus Christ according to scripture.

As I stated above, my issue with this dogma is less what it says (although there are major concerns there as well), and more with the fact that it is a de fide dogma which binds the conscience of the believer to a questionable doctrine unsupported by the apostolic witness.

 

[prayerrider]

I imagine if I were Joseph. I’m living with the woman who has conceived, birthed, and is nursing and caring for the Mother of God. The Incarnate God is living in my house and sleeping in the same room, since we’re typical Galilean in income and lifestyle. And I’m going to approach this holy, sanctified Mother of God for sexual relations? Really???

This insistence that Mary and Joseph engaged in sexual relations is absurdly illogical, is low Christology, hints at Nestorianism or Docetism, and is blasphemy toward the Holy Family.

 

[John_Martin]

Interesting that Origen was so faithful he was declared a heretic.

“Origen was not declared heretic. Yep, that’s right. You can’t anathematise (although later they did) a dead person who has died in peace with the Church. Moreover, all until 200 years after his death, nobody dared to question his authority.”
See why he was not declared a heretic at this site: Why was Origen declared a heretic by the Catholic Church? - Quora
One could learn a lot from Origen.

 

[John_Martin]

But what do the faithful witnesses tell us? Do they claim to have read, to have seen, to have handled, a Gospel by Matthew in Aramaic or Hebrew? Or are they just passing on hearsay evidence?

As for Irenaeus of Lyons, tomorrow’s second reading in the Office of the Readings is from his work. As a bishop he was not allowed to promulgate speculations but only the deposit of faith that was given to him. Here is a little bit about him and why we would be wise to trust his judgment about how Matthew was written.

Whenever we take up a Bible we touch Irenaeus’s work, for he played a decisive role in fixing the canon of the New Testament. It is easy for people nowadays to think of Scripture – and the New Testament in particular – as the basis of the Church, but harder to remember that it was the Church itself that had to agree, early on, about what was scriptural and what was not. Before Irenaeus, there was vague general agreement on what scripture was, but a system based on this kind of common consent was too weak. As dissensions and heresies arose, reference to scripture was the obvious way of trying to settle what the truth really was, but in the absence of an agreed canon of scripture it was all too easy to attack one’s opponent’s arguments by saying that his texts were corrupt or unscriptural; and easy, too, to do a little fine-tuning of texts on one’s own behalf. Irenaeus not only established a canon which is almost identical to our present one, but also gave reasoned arguments for each inclusion and exclusion.

 

[RobynP]

Also, whether Matthew’s first language was Aramaic or Greek is irrelevant. The gospel was written in Greek, his word choice was in Greek, for the purpose of communicating his gospel. Making up theoretical arguments that Matthew himself (or whoever the author of Matthew was) didn’t communicate in the medium that he selected is again making an argument from silence.

It’s not a theoretical argument though, because we actually have concrete evidence that exactly this sort of thing happened in the ancient world.

Just look at the Septuagint. For some reason the translators chose to use “adelphos” in several places to describe relationships that were not blood brothers even though there were more accurate words available in Greek they could have used. Genesis 13:8 is just one example. Abraham calls himself and Lot “adelphos”, even though they are uncle and nephew. Same thing in 1 Chronicles 23:22 which calls the actual cousins of the daughters of Eleazar their “adelphoi” (brothers). The book of Tobit is interesting because it was most likely originally written in Greek, and yet in Tobit 7:2-4 it uses anepsios and adelphos interchangeably and as synonyms.

So if these translators, who like Matthew knew both Greek and Hebrew, felt free to use Greek words in a Hebraic fashion instead of choosing the grammatically correct word that was available to them, I don’t see why it is some wild, baseless theory to say Matthew was probably doing the same thing.