S
SeanTom
Guest
The following is copied from one of my older files. I’m not sure where I got it from originally, but it is interesting. Please comment as appropriate.:
Consider what happened at the foot of the Cross. When Jesus was dying, He entrusted His mother to the Apostle John: “Jesus, seeing His mother there, and the disciple, too, whom He loved, standing by, said to His mother, Woman, this is thy son. Then He said to the disciple, this is thy mother. And from that hour the disciple took her into his own keeping” (Jn 19:26-27). The Gospels mention four “brethren”, James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for His mother if these four were also her sons.
Of the four “brethren” who are named in the “Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James’ mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the Cross: “Among them were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Mt 27:56)”. “Among them were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome” (Mk 15:40). Then look at what John says: “And meanwhile His (Jesus’) mother, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen had taken their stand beside the cross of Jesus” (Jn 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the Crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Cleophas. So far so good.
An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Mt 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Cleophas and Alphaeus. One solution is that she was widowed once, then remarried. More probably Alphaeus and Cleophas (Clopas in Greek) are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek in different ways, either as Alphaeus or Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.
So it is probable, anyway, that James is the son of this other Mary and Cleophas. If the testimony of the Hegisippus, a second century historian, is believed, Cleophas was the brother of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son. This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ cousins is open to legitimate question - they might even be relatives more distantly removed - and our inability to know certainly their status says nothing about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not anyway, the Virgin Mary’s children.
I found the above a bit hard to follow/comprehend, but after several readings, right or wrong, it began to make sense to me.
Peace
Consider what happened at the foot of the Cross. When Jesus was dying, He entrusted His mother to the Apostle John: “Jesus, seeing His mother there, and the disciple, too, whom He loved, standing by, said to His mother, Woman, this is thy son. Then He said to the disciple, this is thy mother. And from that hour the disciple took her into his own keeping” (Jn 19:26-27). The Gospels mention four “brethren”, James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for His mother if these four were also her sons.
Of the four “brethren” who are named in the “Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James’ mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the Cross: “Among them were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Mt 27:56)”. “Among them were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome” (Mk 15:40). Then look at what John says: “And meanwhile His (Jesus’) mother, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen had taken their stand beside the cross of Jesus” (Jn 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the Crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Cleophas. So far so good.
An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Mt 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Cleophas and Alphaeus. One solution is that she was widowed once, then remarried. More probably Alphaeus and Cleophas (Clopas in Greek) are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek in different ways, either as Alphaeus or Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.
So it is probable, anyway, that James is the son of this other Mary and Cleophas. If the testimony of the Hegisippus, a second century historian, is believed, Cleophas was the brother of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son. This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ cousins is open to legitimate question - they might even be relatives more distantly removed - and our inability to know certainly their status says nothing about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not anyway, the Virgin Mary’s children.
I found the above a bit hard to follow/comprehend, but after several readings, right or wrong, it began to make sense to me.
Peace