Did Jesus have brothers?

[Duane1966]

1 Chronicles 23:22
New American Standard Bible
“Eleazar died and had no sons, but daughters only, so their brothers, the sons of Kish, took them as wives.”

King James Bible
“And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and their brethren the sons of Kish took them.”

American King James Version
“And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and their brothers the sons of Kish took them.”

Douay-Rheims Bible
“And Eleazar died, and had no sons but daughters: and the sons of Cis their brethren took them.”

Does brother(brethren) mean cousin in English? The form of the Hebrew word “ach” is translated adelphos in Greek and brother in English. Some English versions do use cousins or kinsmen for “ach,” but most use brother/brethren. What does this say about Greek that is not said about English?

From what I see on online study tools the roots of adelphos/adelphe is “from” and “the same womb,” but the word is used in a broader sense. The terms adelphos/adelphe are used the same way brother/sister are used in English today.

You highlighted the term brother, but we know the sons of Kish were their cousins. So obviously* adelphos,* while translated as brother all the time, does not mean brother in the sibling sense, all the time.

 

[susanlo]

You highlighted the term brother, but we know the sons of Kish were their cousins. So obviously* adelphos,* while translated as brother all the time, does not mean brother in the sibling sense, all the time.

The English translations I posted were translated from the original Hebrew. The English translators chose to use the English word brother for the Hebrew word “’ă-ḥê-hem.” The translators of the Septuagint chose to use the Greek word adelphos for the Hebrew word “’ă-ḥê-hem.” So if this means the Greek word adelphos means the same thing as cousin, then it should also mean that the English word brother means the same thing as cousin.

 

[Duane1966]

The English translations I posted were translated from the original Hebrew. The English translators chose to use the English word brother for the Hebrew word “’ă-ḥê-hem.” The translators of the Septuagint chose to use the Greek word adelphos for the Hebrew word “’ă-ḥê-hem.” So if this means the Greek word adelphos means the same thing as cousin, then it should also mean that the English word brother means the same thing as cousin.

Hi Susan, the problem is not the English, or the Greek, but the Hebrew, and the translators of the Septuagint, and later English translations. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for cousin. This is agreed right?

So when someone who was obviously a cousin in the Old Testament, in the Hebrew, would be written the word for brother. When they translated from the Hebrew into the Greek, when they saw the word brother, they used the Greek word for brother, even though the correct translation in this instance should have been cousin.

Some English translators, did the exact same thing.

Eleazar and Kish were siblings.

Eleazar only had daughters. By their marrying the sons of Kish, even though the translations say brothers, they have to be in actuality cousins of the daughters of Eleazar, correct?

Or are you saying that the sons of Kish are blood brothers of the daughters of Eleazar?

 

[susanlo]

Hi Susan, the problem is not the English, or the Greek, but the Hebrew, and the translators of the Septuagint, and later English translations. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for cousin. This is agreed right?

So when someone who was obviously a cousin in the Old Testament, in the Hebrew, would be written the word for brother. When they translated from the Hebrew into the Greek, when they saw the word brother, they used the Greek word for brother, even though the correct translation in this instance should have been cousin.

Some English translators, did the exact same thing.

Eleazar and Kish were siblings.

Eleazar only had daughters. By their marrying the sons of Kish, even though the translations say brothers, they have to be in actuality cousins of the daughters of Eleazar, correct?

Or are you saying that the sons of Kish are blood brothers of the daughters of Eleazar?

I am saying exactly what you wrote in the first 3 paragraphs. The reason why adelphos is used in the Septuagint for 1 Chronicles 23:22 is not because adelphos means cousin in Greek, but because the form of the Hebrew word “ach” is not specific for brother, cousin, uncle, etc. We see the same complication with English translations of this verse (and others like you mentioned in Genesis) as well. I don’t think that the Greek translator choosing adelphos for this verse is proof that adelphos means cousin in Greek anymore than it means that brother means cousin in English today.
I am not aware of the word adelphos being used in the New Testament for a relationship other than biological/step siblings or one in the same faith (i.e. brothers in Christ).

 

[Duane1966]

I am saying exactly what you wrote in the first 3 paragraphs. The reason why adelphos is used in the Septuagint for 1 Chronicles 23:22 is not because adelphos means cousin in Greek, but because the form of the Hebrew word “ach” is not specific for brother, cousin, uncle, etc. We see the same complication with English translations of this verse (and others like you mentioned in Genesis) as well. I don’t think that the Greek translator choosing adelphos for this verse is proof that adelphos means cousin in Greek anymore than it means that brother means cousin in English today.

But when you say adelphos always means brother, we see from the Old Testament, that this is a false statement, as there are various verses in the OT where adelphos has been used for someone who is clearly a cousin. In those instances, adelphos clearly does not mean brother. Now you can say that the translators did a poor job with their use of the word adelphos, and that would be true. But that does not change the fact that OT translators were using the word brother in several instances that we would rarely, if ever use it today.

I am not aware of the word adelphos being used in the New Testament for a relationship other than biological/step siblings or one in the same faith (i.e. brothers in Christ).

We don’t know though. Based on the continuity between the Old and the New, the possibility does exist that in some verses the brothers of Jesus are in actuality kinsmen.

 

[epostle]

All Purpose One-liner Rebuttal

Jesus having biological brothers is an 18th century invention and ALL the early reformers taught her perpetual virginity.

 

[Good_Fella]

1 Chronicles 23:22
New American Standard Bible
“Eleazar died and had no sons, but daughters only, so their brothers, the sons of Kish, took them as wives.”

King James Bible
“And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and their brethren the sons of Kish took them.”

American King James Version
“And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and their brothers the sons of Kish took them.”

Douay-Rheims Bible
“And Eleazar died, and had no sons but daughters: and the sons of Cis their brethren took them.”

Does brother(brethren) mean cousin in English? The form of the Hebrew word “ach” is translated adelphos in Greek and brother in English. Some English versions do use cousins or kinsmen for “ach,” but most use brother/brethren. What does this say about Greek that is not said about English?

The Hebrew OT and Septuagint weren’t written in English. And in Jewish culture ach can refer to cousins. Adelphos is the Greek translation of ach, which doesn’t exclusively refer to siblings. My point is that many Protestants who vocally object to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary argue that if Mark or John meant cousins instead of uterine brothers, they would have written anepsios instead of adelphos, since there is a Greek word for cousin. 1 Chronicles shows that this is not necessarily the case. Adelphos (ach) can be used to mean cousins in Semitic idiomatic usage.

From what I see on online study tools the roots of adelphos/adelphe is “from” and “the same womb,” but the word is used in a broader sense. The terms adelphos/adelphe are used the same way brother/sister are used in English today.

“From” or “of” makes no difference.

:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

I am saying exactly what you wrote in the first 3 paragraphs. The reason why adelphos is used in the Septuagint for 1 Chronicles 23:22 is not because adelphos means cousin in Greek, but because the form of the Hebrew word “ach” is not specific for brother, cousin, uncle, etc. We see the same complication with English translations of this verse (and others like you mentioned in Genesis) as well.** I don’t think that the Greek translator choosing adelphos for this verse is proof that adelphos means cousin in Greek anymore than it means that brother means cousin in English today.**
I am not aware of the word adelphos being used in the New Testament for a relationship other than biological/step siblings or one in the same faith (i.e. brothers in Christ).

Nobody is saying that adelphos means cousin in Greek. The Greek word for cousin is anepsios. Adelphos is the Greek translation of ach, which in Hebrew/Aramaic can refer to cousins and other relatives. Why didn’t the Greek Jewish translators of the Hebrew OT incorporate the Greek word for cousin in 1 Chronicles? The answer is to retain the Semitic idiom for cousin. It’s that simple. Eleazar and Kish were brothers, so their daughters and sons respectively were cousins.

:juggle:

 

[thistle]

mikeeh;14356325**:

Yes. He had four step brothers and at least two step sisters from Joseph’s previous marriage.

I doubt the writers of the Gospels would name four random cousins, especially without naming John. But remember, they kept Mary’s virgin pregnancy a secret, so to everyone outside the family they would have been his half brothers and half sisters.

*Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?”
Matthew 13:55-56

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
Mark 6:3*

Sorry but you are wrong. What is your evidence for such a mistaken statement because your comments are baseless speculation only.

 

[Good_Fella]

Sorry but you are wrong. What is your evidence for such a mistaken statement because your comments are baseless speculation only.

It appears to be the predominant view in the Eastern Church among Catholics and Orthodox. Perhaps there was an early oral tradition of Joseph being a widower with children. The Nativity Gospel of James (c.A.D. 145) draws on it. This apochryphal text was read during church service in the Patriarchate of Alexandria until the late 4th century. So the PoJ must have greatly influenced Eastern Christianity in accepting this tradition concerning Joseph. I believe it’s a false tradition based on hearsay.

:heaven:

 

[PRmerger]

Whether he had brothers or not…arguable.

What’s incontrovertible is this: none of them came from the womb of Mary.

One can search the entirety of the Scriptures, from Genesis through Revelation, and one will never find any reference, whatsoever, to other (uterine) children of Mary.