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

[John_Martin]

Hodos, if you wish to “have your way” and soundly maintain that Matthew were written originally in Greek, you need to attack bigger guns than you have on this forum; you will need to convince the major Catholic Scriptural scholars of our day, and then also, the Bishops of the World to move for some kind of magisterial assertion of the same.
As it stands, we are firm with that one you call a heretic, or (at least) in error, the beloved Origen, as well we stand with St. Irenaeus, et al. Matthew was first in Aramaic then translated to Greek.
We have no “name” to mount a case were you to convince us to error with you and oppose our Church Fathers, and neither do you, as you stand. In fact, from what you are saying, I find it hard to see you are Catholic, so you would then not be obedient to a magisterial teaching or doctrine or canon were such issued, if it were true that you were heretically apart from the Catholic Church, seeking to propagate what it condemns.

 

[Cathoholic]

OK. It looks like I can post some more quotes for you folks so you too can copy and paste them for your files.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem is appealing here to unbelieving Hebrews . . .

St. Cyril of Jerusalem . . . “They were Hebrews who wrote that history; so were all the Apostles Hebrews: why then do ye disbelieve the Jews? Matthew who wrote the Gospel wrote it in the Hebrew tongue; and Paul the preacher was a Hebrew of the Hebrews; and the twelve Apostles were all of Hebrew race: then fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem were appointed in succession from among the Hebrews. What then is your reason for allowing your own accounts, and rejecting ours, though these also are written by Hebrews from among yourselves.” . . .

—St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures #14

St. Papias of Hierapolis—Consider the early Church historian Eusebius writing in the 300’s and quoting Bishop and Saint Papias of Hierapolis (Papias’ writings are no longer available except in quotes from other ancient Church Fathers and fragments). Papias wrote in the about 120 A.D.

St. Irenaeus called Papias “a hearer of John and a companion to Polycarp, a man of old time.” Polycarp himself incidentally, was ordained by the beloved disciple John. What did Papias himself think was the original language of St. Matthew’s Gospel? Let’s find out . . .

St. Papias of Hierapolis . . . “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one of them interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has already been stated . . . .
—St. Papias of Hierapolis; writing in approximately 120 A.D.!

(Ancient Historian Eusebius of Caesarea quoting St. Papias in Eusebius’ “Church History,” Book III, Chapter XXXIX “The Writings of Papias.” Eusebius himself died in 341 A.D.)

Listen now to St. Jerome.

St. Jerome . . . Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican,
composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. . . . .
— St. Jerome. “The Lives of Illustrious Men. Chapter 3.”
St. Jerome Died in 420 A.D.

There is NOT ONE ancient Church Father that asserts St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Greek! There are no ancient manuscripts that suggest this either.

 

[HopkinsReb]

In fact, from what you are saying, I find it hard to see you are Catholic

He’s Lutheran.

 

[prayerrider]

Absolutely. And thank you for posting all these quotes, Cathoholic. For me, this is the most convincing and irrefutable argument of all, grounded as it is both in logic and in high Christology and Trinitarian theology.
When someone obstinately insists that Mary must have had sexual intercourse, that proves nothing at all about Mary but it says a great deal about the carnality of the person doing the insisting, whosoever they may be.

 

[Cathoholic]

prayerrider . . .

Absolutely. And thank you for posting all these quotes, Cathoholic.

Hey! You are welcome.

It took a lot of time to find and save these quotes . . . . so by posting them here, you guys can EASILY get what was so labor-intensive for me.

The reason why we in our men’s group keep these quotes at hand is . . . . it is one more refutation of the phony “petros/petra” objection against the doctrine of the papacy (which the guys and I invariably get mixed up in with DENIERS of Scripture [who THINK they affirm Scripture], in our area).

The men in our group are very evangelical Catholics, great friends, and often find themselves dialoguing and defending our Catholic faith locally. It has made a huge difference too! (The guys are great men of God coupling their apologetics and careful dialogue, with prayer, Adoration, and some even have a men’s Rosary group on “early early” [really early] Saturday AM).

 

[John_Martin]

He’s Lutheran

Interesting; I was Lutheran, also. And at Seminary my last major exegetical work was on the Book of Matthew. Unwittingly, I ended up proving Apostolic Authority as the only legitimate way to participate in Matthew’s Gospel, in no wise dreaming that 25 years later I would finally realize that I had to become Catholic for that very reason.

 

[Cathoholic]

John_Martin . . . .

Interesting; I was Lutheran, also. And at Seminary my last major exegetical work was on the Book of Matthew. Unwittingly, I ended up proving Apostolic Authority, in no wise dreaming that 25 years later I would finally realize that I had to become Catholic for that very reason.

Wow!

Thank you John_Martin for “coming in”!

(I am glad you are Catholic. Considering my Dad’s step to Catholicism (from Wisconsin Synod Lutheranism), I KNOW you have sacrificed much.)

Again. Many thanks and please pray for me and the rest of the CAF folks.

 

[prayerrider]

God bless you and your men’s group, Cathoholic. You are doing great work, and I pray for your continued growth in orthodox Catholicism!

 

[prayerrider]

Typo. Obviously Mary is the Mother of God, and conceived, bore, nursed and cared for the Incarnate God.

 

[Cathoholic]

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. . . . .
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.

Thank you Hodos for making this statement.

I want to hold YOU to your own standard here.

I will walk-back the evidence (but be forewarned. It will take a LOT of posts.) regarding the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Some of it will be oral Tradition (recall. Catholics are not sola Scriptura tradition followers).

Some of it, admittedly will be implicit (that is WHY doctrine develops to be more EXPLICIT).

I will attempt to begin tomorrow (maybe late tonight??) as I have to give a presentation tonight (on a topic in Scripture).

In the meantime Hodos. I expect you to do the same.

 

[John_Martin]

and please pray for me and the rest of the CAF folks

Will do,… always… - and for your Dad.

 

[rose321]

Furthermore, Ezekiel prophecises that no man shall pass through the gates in which the Lord will pass through (Ezekiel 44:2)

Respectfully one is very confused, opinion only and as His Great Prophet Isaiah taught us how to read Scripture…Line upon line, pretext upon pretext line upon line…

Chapter 43 Ezekiel >>> Titled The Divine Glory…Returns…to the Temple…notice the word …Returns?
Ezekiel chapter 44:2 Is speaking about when the Temple is completed, altar is built, etc God gives the… Law of Ordinance… for the Temple

Ezekiel Chapter 44… Titled Closed Gate ) Temple has more then one Gate?
" Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east: and it was shut. The Lord said to me: This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it: for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it, therefore it shall remain shut. Only the prince, because he is a prince, many sit in it to eat food before the Lord: he shall enter by way of vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way"

Confused is this speaking about a vagina facing east???
Measuring what cubits and dimensions it will be also???
Confused sorry…to what is written, does not flow with all that is taking place does it?

From Ezekiel Chapter 40.The Vision of the New Temple

Ezekiel, 41…Titled …The Temple
Ezekiel 42…Titled …The Holy Chambers of the Outer Wall
Ezekiel 43…Title…The Divine Glory…Returns…to the Temple
Ezekiel 44…Titled The Closed Gates…

Ezekiel Chapter 43:13.( comes before 44:2)…Titled …The Altar…Temple dimensions of the altar by cubits etc is described and our Heavenly Father names…his priest Zadok who draw near to me to minster to me…and given the law, what and how Zadok is to offer up to the Lord on his altar?..next…comes

Ezekiel 33:2…
…Then Our Heavenly Father tells the mortal man, He enters by the East Gate, the door is shut and no one enters through the East Gate, but Him and the prince who can eat within also?

Then Our Heavenly Father…brings the mortal man to the… North Gate…of the Temple God giving the mortal man the Ordinances of the Temple of the Lord and all its laws??

Chapter 44:2-14 continue reading… Who will enter His Temple and who will not be allowed to enter His Temple, correct?

All begins Ezekiel Chapter 40…The Vision of the New Temple…in the land of Israel, right?

The Ordinances and Laws of the Temple, Size dimensions, Altar, names the Priest Zadok, laws given who enters by which gate and who is allowed within His Temple and who is not allowed to enter His Temple also…

Gives His.Laws Ordinances are given etc?

Peace really confused sorry NOT to offend and I honor and love dearly our Blessed Mary… an NO I am not a protestant etc…

 

[RobynP]

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.

Ok. So you agree at least that Greek writers did sometimes use adelphos in the Hebrew sense even though they had the option of using more accurate words? So it’s not really a far fetched theory to say Matthew might have done likewise?

I think you make a fair point though that in all those instances in the Septuagint the surrounding context is clear that the people being called adelphos aren’t really blood siblings. But what if the same thing is true in regard to Jesus’ relatives?

What about the fact that Matthew actually names the Mother of James and Joseph, whom he earlier called “the brothers of the Lord” and she is not the mother of Jesus? Sure you could argue that “Mary, the mother of James and Joseph” in Matthew 27:56 is really Mary the mother of Jesus, but I’m unaware of any biblical scholar who does so. It’s not how any of the Gospel writers, including Matthew, refer to the Blessed Mother elsewhere. And it just makes no sense to call her the mother of James and Joseph when calling her the mother of Jesus is simpler and fits the immediate context better. Which is why most scholars argue that Mary the mother of James and Joseph is probably the same Mary the wife of Clopas that John lists alongside the Blessed Mother at the foot of the cross in his Gospel.

Then there’s also the fact that Paul in Galatians 1 says he went to Jerusalem and saw “none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.” But we know who the fathers of both of the apostles named James are, and neither one is named Joseph the carpenter.

So I would argue that we actually do have a genealogy of these men that are named “brothers” of Jesus, and it’s enough to see that they are not blood brothers of the Lord.

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.

Well, that’s exactly what is being argued here. Catholics believe there IS textual evidence that supports the idea that “brothers” is not being used in the strict, literal sense but in the Hebrew sense.

1. Evidence from other verses in Matthew and the rest of the NT that the father and mother of these men named “brothers of the Lord” were not Mary and Joseph.
2. The fact that Jesus before his death entrusts his mother to the beloved disciple, something he could not do if she had other sons.
3. The fact that Greek writers did sometimes use adelphos in the Hebrew sense.
4. The positive arguments from Scripture and Tradition in favor of the perpetual virginity.

All that I think adds up to a pretty strong case that “adelphos” is being used in a broader sense than the technical definition.

 

[Cathoholic]

There are layers of meaning to those verses rose321.

See CCC 113-117 and it talks about those layers.

 

[Gorgias]

Hodos, if you wish to “have your way” and soundly maintain that Matthew were written originally in Greek

It really doesn’t matter if it were first written down in Koine Greek; since it’s a record of Aramaic conversations, we already have what we need – there’s a translation of Aramaic to Greek, whether that’s from oral account to written or from written to written. We’re already where we need to be. @Hodos now must explain how an Aramaic account, translated into the Greek, must be written using the vocabulary he wishes to demand. Given that the evangelists never use that vocabulary, his argument is specious.

 

[Gorgias]

Thank you Hodos for making this statement.

I want to hold YOU to your own standard here.

In the meantime Hodos. I expect you to do the same.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Give that man a kewpie doll!

Ok. So you agree at least that Greek writers did sometimes use adelphos in the Hebrew sense even though they had the option of using more accurate words?

Hang on a second – adelphos, even in a “non-uterine sibling” sense, is already an accurate word. There are other, more precise words (none of which the evangelists use, in the way that @Hodos wants to claim that they’re being used), but nevertheless, adelphos already is accurate. (It just doesn’t line up with his theological sensibilities. )

 

[Hodos]

Ok. So you agree at least that Greek writers did sometimes use adelphos in the Hebrew sense even though they had the option of using more accurate words? So it’s not really a far fetched theory to say Matthew might have done likewise?

I have already discussed why that does not apply here. Read my initial explanations above.

 

[Hodos]

Hang on a second – adelphos, even in a “non-uterine sibling” sense, is already an accurate word . There are other, more precise words (none of which the evangelists use, in the way that @Hodos wants to claim that they’re being used), but nevertheless, adelphos already is accurate. (It just doesn’t line up with his theological sensibilities. )

My theological sensibilities don’t matter because I am not declaring a de fide doctrine based on a “its possible Matthew meant this even though all the evidence suggests otherwise” speculation. That is the entire point. You chose to declare as dogmatic, and hold people’s conscience bound to accepting it at the penalty of being held anathema, a specious interpretation not based on the text itself. You were the one who made the big deal out of this, not me. That is the point. Maybe take a lesson from the Council of Chalcedon who didn’t feel the need to declare doctrine about what the Holy Spirit did not explain, but refuted false teachings based on what the scriptures actually did say (that Jesus was made fully man - Hebrews 2).

 

[Cathoholic]

Objection : “Adelphos necessitates or strictly means ‘from the same womb.’ Adelphos therefore necessitates uterine brother!” unless proven otherwise.

Answer: This is just plain false and illustrates someone is not serious about studying the Bible in this area.

Even my Protestant Greek lexicon Vines (p. 154) states:

“Adelphos (adelfoz) denotes a brother or near kinsman ; in the plural, a community based on identity or origin or life” . . . .

(bold mine)

Let’s review nine commonly cited Scriptural examples often pointed out by Catholics to disprove this false assertion.

Note that children of the same parents are only one option out of many.

Some New Testament Examples Where Adelphos Is Used And HOW It Is Used

1. Children of the same parents (Mt. 1:2, 14:3)
2. Male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23, 7:26, Heb. 7:5)
3. People of the same nationality (Acts 3:17, 3:22, Rom. 9:3)
4. Any man, a neighbor (Lk. 10:29, Mt. 5:22, Mt. 7:3)
5. Persons united by a common interest (Mt. 5:47)
6. Persons united by a common calling (Rev. 22:9)
7. All mankind (Mt. 25:40, Heb. 2:17)
8. The disciples (Mt. 28:10, Jn. 20:17)
9. Believers (Mt. 23:8, Acts 1:15, Rom. 1:13, 1st Thes. 1:4, Rev. 19:10)

So we see clearly that “adelphos” does NOT strictly mean “from the same womb”!

Adelphos CAN mean from the same womb, but it can and often does have a broader meaning.

You need more evidence to assert how it is being used.

But one thing is for sure, the word “adelphos” as used in the Bible, does NOT STRICTLY MEAN “from the same womb”.

The Scripture writers aren’t editing, but rather they are telling what was said and what occurred. Just like they did when Mary called Joseph, Jesus’ “father”, yet we know Joseph was NOT his “father” in a biologic sense even though Mary referred to Joseph as Jesus’ “father” (Luke 2:48 and St. Luke himself does the same thing in Luke 2:33).

The Archangel Gabriel referred to King David as Jesus’ “Father” as well (Luke 1:32) but we have to take David as Jesus’ Father in a Hebrew context and not an American, European, or even a Greek context.

From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher. Incidentally, this is a Protestant source.

Vines also have an almost identical list to this with a few exceptions. One thing to note in the area of what I see as “shenanigans” in Vines, is that Vines regrettably opinionates (without stating that they are merely opinionating) that Matthew 13:55 alludes to male children of the same mother and Gal. 1:19/1st Corinthians 9:5 as “male children of the same mother”; despite citing no evidence for these statements! So we see an unfortunate bias here by this Protestant source.

 

[Cathoholic]

Incidentally . . . .

“Adelphae” incidentally is merely the feminine usage of “adelphos” and just means “sister”.

But adelphos (adelphae) means brother (“sister”) in a Hebrew sense.

Some people (not here I don’t think) attempt to say “adelphos” NECESSITATES uterine sibling.

This just isn’t true.

The female form of adelphos ( adelphae ) is used in John 19:25, where the Holy Spirit inspires St. John to refer to “Mary” the wife of Clopas, as the SISTER (“adelphe” or female form of adelphos) of the Virgin “Mary”?

Are we to maintain that “Mary” had a uterine sister named “Mary”?

JOHN 19:25 25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother , and his mother’s sister (adelphae), Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

No of course not. “Brothers” and “sisters” in a Semitic sense has a wide range of usage.

That’s all you can say when you see the word “brother” or “sister” (even with “adelphos”) in the Bible unless you have more information one way OR the other, even if the Greek word is adelphos or adelphae is used.

If an objector tried to maintain the Greek adelphae (again just the female form of adelphos) ALWAYS denotes uterine sisters, I would have a problem with that circular argumentation here.

Illustration of circular argumentation concerning adelphe adapted to the argument above (or in the case of a male, the word adelphos would be the same rationale):

Objector: Well adelphae means uterine sister.

Answer: Why?

Objector: Because the Greek word adelphae denoted it and it always means uterine sister unless explicitly described otherwise.

Answer: How do you know Mary and Mary are uterine sisters?

Objector: Because the word adelphae is used.

Answer: How do you know the word adelphae always means uterine sisters?

Objector: Because Mary and Mary are uterine sisters.

Answer: How do you know Mary and Mary are uterine sisters?

Objector: Because the word adelphae is used. (And on and on this circular argument goes)

OR . . . .

Ipse dixit. . . .

Objector: Well adelphae always means uterine sister UNLESS stated otherwise.

Answer: Why?

Objector: Because the Greek word adelphae denoted it and it always means uterine sister unless explicitly described otherwise.

Answer: How do you know ALL people not “denoted” are or are not uterine siblings or not?

Objector: Because the word adelphae is used.

Answer: How do you know the word adelphae always means uterine sisters unless otherwise stated?

Objector: Because Mary and Mary are not uterine sisters.

Answer: So what? The question is, how do you know you can UNIVERSALIZE this theory of yours?

Objector: Because the word adelphae is used. (And on and on this circular argument goes)