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

[ericc]

1.The Nicene Creed points to the Virgin Mary. It would be factually incorrect to continue to recite it if Mary were no longer a virgin. No it is not once upon a time I was a virgin kind of context.
2. The Early Church Councils cites the ever-virgin Mary in multiple places. If one accepts the authority of those Church Councils, then one ought to follow their pronouncements. Unless one were to cherry-pick of course.
3.Brand Pitre in his “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary” pointed out in Mark 6:4 Jesus response to Mark 6:3 claims of “adelphos” where he said:
“A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own cousins (Greek syngeneusin ), and in his own house.” (Mark 6:3–4). Interesting response to a claim of “adelphos” in verse 3 with a “syngeneusin” in verse 4 by Jesus. Jesus actually narrowed the wide definition in adelphos with a more concise syngeneusin/cousin.

The non-ever virgin is truly a late invention if one were to browse through Christian history. I have yet to see any solid evidence other than citing one’s own interpretation of what it ought to be. Reformation Fathers are not anti-virgin either.

 

[PeterT]

This question is often raised by Protestants because of the passage in the Gospel of Mark, saying “Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Aren’t His sisters our neighbors here?” (Mk 6:3)

However, in the original text of the Bible, this article point out, the Greek word usually translated as “brother,” , described other relationships, like cousins, nephews, etc. The same is true for the word “sister.”

This article also goes through the Gospels to point out other evidence that Mary did not have other children.

The oldest Christian tradition and an answer to this question — one that still believed by most Orthodox Churches and many Catholics too — is that the brothers referenced in the Gospel of Saint Mark were Jesus’ step-brothers, the sons of Joseph from his first marriage. The most ancient Christian tradition of Joseph (which not a lot is said in the Bible itself) was that he was a widower before he was betrothed to Mary.

These brothers of Jesus were not related to Mary at all, hence they had no obligation to take care of her after the death of Jesus. Hence, Jesus gave Mary to John.

The tradition that Joseph was NOT a widower evolved a lot later in the Church and only took hold in parts (but not all) of the Western Roman Church.

 

[ericc]

Philip, is translated as brother(adelphou) of Herod several times in the NT e.g. Luk 3:1,Mat 14:3,Mk 6:17-18. In reality , he is a half-brother/step brother. Obviously the authors/readers of the time knew that they are not full blood brothers. Yet the language seems to be limited by choice of words to describe full or partial relationship. 3 gospel writers choice of words for a non-full blood relation says a lot of what meanings can be assigned to the word “adelphou”.

 

[BartholomewB]

The tradition that Joseph was NOT a widower evolved at lot later in the Church and only took hold in parts (but not all) of the Western Roman Church.

Coincidentally this same question was being discussed yesterday on another thread. It was only in the pontificate of Pope Damasus I (366-384) that two novel theories were first put forward: Helvidius thought the “brethren of the Lord” were the offspring of Joseph and Mary, while Jerome proposed that they were their nephews, the sons of Joseph’s brother or of Mary’s sister. Until then, as far as anyone can tell from the surviving records, the sole explanation that had been universally accepted throughout the Church in the earliest centuries was, as you say, that they were Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage.

 

[Hodos]

Thank you for conceding the point that a faithful person can err. Again, provide an Aramaic translation that doesn’t have the telltale signs of a translation.

 

[Hodos]

It’s not a theoretical argument though, because we actually have concrete evidence that exactly this sort of 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.

Yes, and in every one of these incidents the author has already made clear the genealogy of the people being discussed, so that when the word adelphos is used, it is thoroughly understood which meaning is being applied. Demonstrate from the text of Matthew, Mark, or Luke that the author means something other than “brother” in the context where Jesus is addressing his mother, brothers, and sisters. Would you make the same argument that the word “mother” is being used in the same sense? Of course not, the author has already explained the situation in Matthew and Luke, and in Matthew, the author has already stated that Joseph was engaged to Mary BEFORE he know of Jesus conception, and did not know his wife until she had given birth to a son. So again, the author has already refuted the “caretaker” husband theory. There is no mention of additional children of Joseph in either of the birth narratives. Jesus calls them his brothers and sisters in the same context as calling his natural mother his mother, and in paradox to calling his audience his mother and brother and sister if they obey God. Again, the rule in hermeneutics is you assume the natural reading of the text unless there is textual evidence within the text to guide you to a different interpretation. No such evidence has been presented here.thing happened in the ancient world.

Again, believe in the perpetual virginity if you like, but declaring a de fide dogma of the Church with the penalty of being accursed where scripture doesn’t make this claim is pretty sketchy.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Well, clearly it doesn’t meet your doctrinal bias.

Here’s the stronger argument, I think: the actual conversation would have taken place in Aramaic. So, whether you want to argue that it was a translation into Greek of a text in Aramaic or a conversation in Aramaic, the fact remains: the source language was Aramaic and the target language is Koine Greek.

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.

No, it’s not. You’ve had some difficulty grasping the “post hoc…” fallacy, and now you’re mischaracterizing the ‘argument from silence’ fallacy. If there were no evidence of Aramaic speech, then you’d have an argument. Sadly (for your case), you’re mistaken. We find Aramaic in Matthew’s Gospel:

• “whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin”
• And about three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? ” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Mark preserves additional Aramaic phrases, as well.

Therefore, this is not an ‘argument from silence’. Since we see the evangelists reporting Aramaic speech, we recognize that the conversations were in Aramaic.

But hey… nice try.

Again, provide an Aramaic translation that doesn’t have the telltale signs of a translation.

We don’t need a full translation. We have evidence of Aramaic being used in conversations in the extant Greek manuscripts.

 

[Hodos]

Well, clearly it doesn’t meet your doctrinal bias.

My “doctrinal bias” is derived from the text, not a speculatory alternate text.

We don’t need a full translation. We have evidence of Aramaic being used in conversations in the extant Greek manuscripts.

There is a world of difference between Matthew explaining to his Greek audience an Aramaic term that was physically spoken within the narrative he is actually presenting in his gospel, and assuming something contrary to what Matthew wrote in his gospel because we are speculating on what might have been said in another language translation that doesn’t exist.

 

[Gorgias]

My “doctrinal bias” is derived from the text, not a speculatory alternate text.

No… your doctrinal bias is derived from your personal interpretation of the text. Critical difference, there.

There is a world of difference between Matthew explaining to his Greek audience an Aramaic term that was physically spoken within the narrative he is actually presenting in his gospel, and assuming something contrary to what Matthew wrote in his gospel because we are speculating on what might have been said in another language translation that doesn’t exist.

Agreed. That’s why I said that the stronger argument is that the Greek version is a translation of an Aramaic conversation. I’m asserting the former point of your observation, not the latter.

So, since we know the conversation was in Aramaic, and we know that it doesn’t have these distinctions, and we know that the Evangelists don’t make the kind of distinction you’re claiming in their Gospels, then it follows that your conclusion is not necessarily reasonable.

 

[Hodos]

No… your doctrinal bias is derived from your personal interpretation of the text. Critical difference, there.

Considering we have the records of the debate that occurred in the early church, it isn’t my “personal interpretation” but demonstrates that the Church’s view on this doctrine that wasn’t communicated by the apostles was far from unanimous as Roman apologists try to assert. Critical difference there.

Agreed. That’s why I said that the stronger argument is that the Greek version is a translation of an Aramaic conversation. I’m asserting the former point of your observation, not the latter.

So, since we know the conversation was in Aramaic, and we know that it doesn’t have these distinctions, and we know that the Evangelists don’t make the kind of distinction you’re claiming in their Gospels, then it follows that your conclusion is not necessarily reasonable.

Except for the fact that the vast majority of NT scholars agree with me that Matthew was originally written in Greek due to the textual evidence, and the cues in the later Aramaic texts that did not reflect the Aramaic spoken in Judea in the First Century.

 

[Gorgias]

Considering we have the records of the debate that occurred in the early church, it isn’t my “personal interpretation” but demonstrates that the Church’s view on this doctrine that wasn’t communicated by the apostles was far from unanimous as Roman apologists try to assert.

Hang on a second. Two questions for you:

• First, what “records of the debate”? Let’s see some quotes, so that we’re all on the same page.
• Second, “early church”? So… when you demand evidence from Catholics, it has to be apostolic or Scriptural, but when you’re providing your evidence, it must only be “from the early church”? Double-standard much, eh?

Except for the fact that the vast majority of NT scholars agree with me that Matthew was originally written in Greek due to the textual evidence

Again, the argument does not hinge on the original language of the Gospel. You can put that argument away now, thank you very much.

, and the cues in the later Aramaic texts that did not reflect the Aramaic spoken in Judea in the First Century.

Ooh! Interesting claim! OK… citations / quotes, please?

 

[Hodos]

That would be Against Helvidius. You will notice that in his exposition, Jerome uses the same apologetic used today. Some things never change huh?

 

[Hodos]

Second, “early church”? So… when you demand evidence from Catholics , it has to be apostolic or Scriptural , but when you’re providing your evidence, it must only be “from the early church”? Double-standard much, eh?

LOL, I don’t demand Catholics to be scriptural. We are both aware that the apostolic witness of scripture is not the primary source of doctrine for the Catholic Church. That is entirely the issue we were discussing in the first place. I do however demand that claims that this doctrine isn’t an innovation from the apostolic teaching be backed up by what the apostles said themselves, ergo, we examine their writings.

 

[Gorgias]

LOL, I don’t demand Catholics to be scriptural.

You don’t? Hmm… Let’s see…

The teaching is not in the apostolic documents (at least you haven’t demonstrated it).

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

Yeah. You don’t demand “apostolic witness of scripture” as the requirement for evidence.

(Seriously… if you’re gonna make claims, you gotta know we’ll look back at what you just said a day or two ago… right?)

p.s., Scripture and Apostolic Teaching are, in fact, the two sources of the Deposit of the Faith, according to the Church. And, the Church asserts, the two are not in conflict. So, no… you’re mistaken when you say that “the apostolic witness of scripture is not the primary source of doctrine for the Catholic Church.”

 

[Hodos]

Again, if you are claiming something to be apostolic that developed over time, you need to demonstrate the line back to them. We have their writings. Demonstrate the doctrine from their writings. If you cannot, or if your interpretation contradicts their writings, then it is an innovation. If you are comfortable with that (clearly you are) that is fine. I just don’t understand the need to declare heresy over a doctrine that is an innovation. So again, you need to prove your case rather than assume it and try to read it back into the text.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, if you are claiming something to be apostolic that developed over time, you need to demonstrate the line back to them. We have their writings. Demonstrate the doctrine from their writings. If you cannot, or if your interpretation contradicts their writings, then it is an innovation.

So, at what point does something have to be written down in order to be “doctrine”, and after what point does something become “innovation”?

And, if Luther can change his mind in the 16th century over doctrinal matters, doesn’t that make Protestantism a wholesale “innovation”?

I’m having a hard time seeing how that applies to doctrines that we see mentioned in the 2nd century AD but not novel doctrines that appeared in the 16th…

If there’s a real basis for your requirements (that doesn’t also incidentally throw out all of Protestantism), then we can argue according to your requirements. If there is not such a basis, then why should we play according to the rules you’re attempting to lay down here?

 

[Cathoholic]

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.

This is the way the early Church thought too prayerrider.

Your thoughts are exactly the same as those expressed by St. Jerome . . .

From our local area men’s Catholic Bible study group . . . .

St. Jerome asked the heretical priest Helvidius this same question back in the 300’s A.D. when Helvidius first invented or propagated this idea among Christians that the Blessed Virgin Mary had multiple children.

ST. JEROME In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife.” The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could the just man dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent! We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards, . . . Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord?
— From St. Jerome. Against Helvidius , 383 A.D. Section VIII

(Bold mine)

.

The DENIAL of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a theological novelty. This DENIAL is an invention. This doctrinal DENIAL is a tradition of men that makes void word of God.

 

[Cathoholic]

Also St. Jerome in about 400 A.D. (to the heretic Helvidius) . . . .

ST. JEROME (18) But you do worse. You have set on fire the temple of the Lord’s body, you have defiled the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit from which you are determined to make a team of four brethren and a heap of sisters come forth. In a word, joining in the chorus of the Jews, you say, Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? The word all would not be used if there were not a crowd of them.
Pray tell me, who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy? Who thought the theory worth two-pence?

.

St. Thomas Aquinas many years later . . . .

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS . . . . Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ’s Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ’s perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the ONLY-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb ["Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.), wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God’s Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel’s revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards.

— St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica. Third Part. Article 3, Question 28.

 

[Cathoholic]

Just some information on Patristic evidence of Hebrew in the New Testament concerning St. Matthew’s Gospel (from our local Catholic men’s Bible study) . . .

(I’ll post a few quotes so you readers here can copy and paste to your files, saving you the “homework” that I already did.)

St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in a Hebrew language variant called Aramaic.

This is the language that Jesus and His Apostles would have spoken from day to day commonly. Let’s look at some ancient Church Fathers writings to get more insight into this issue.

St. Hippolytus of Rome, writing in the 200’s A.D., tells us St. Matthew died in the town of Parthia, but also tells us what the original language of St. Matthew’s gospel was. Let’s read on and find out. . . .

St. Hippolytus of Rome . . . . Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner. Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians, and was crucified, suspended on an olive tree, at Patrae, a town of Achaia; and there too he was buried. John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found. James, his brother, when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there. Philip preached in Phrygia, and was crucified in Hierapolis with his head downward in the time of Domitian, and was buried there. Bartholomew, again, preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave **the Gospel according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward, and was buried in Allanum, a town of the great Armenia. **
And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, a town of Parthia. . . .
— St. Hippolytus of Rome
St. Hippolytus of Rome Died in 235 A.D. Again very ancient writings!

Let’s listen to Origen writing on this topic in the 200’s A.D. . . .

Origen . . . . Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ,
was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, “The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.” And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.
— Origen. “The Unity and Harmony of Scripture; Second Book.”

Origen Died in 253 A.D. These are ancient writings.

(Sorry. I cannot post more right now. The website program wants a response first.)

 

[Buddyroe]

Mary the mother of Jesus was an undefiled woman that is to say pure, it was a fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.). Much has been proffered to counter this fact in order to make the theory fit preconceived theologies. In this case it was the anti Christian Jews (logically those from the first century onward) that claimed she was not undefiled based on the ambiguity of the word ‘virgin’ in Hebrew. Virgin in Hebrew could mean an undefiled woman or simply a young unmarried woman.

Before Jesus became a contentious Jewish issue what did they believe about Isaiah 7:14? One answer is revealed in LXX, the Septuagint. This is a Jewish translation of scriptures into Greek made in the 3rd century BC. The word for virgin in Greek (παρθενος) is unambiguous and can only mean an undefiled woman, the Jewish LXX translators understood the Isaiah prophesy to mean exactly what we believe today.