Did Jesus have siblings?

[hellopeople]

Mathew 13:55 states:

55"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Knowing that the church has stated that Mary was a perpetual virgin, where do these brothers come into place?

 

[Sir_Knight]

In Hebrew and Aramaic, “brother” could mean “brother”, “cousin”, “kinsmen” or even a “close friend”. Just look at Gen. 11:26-28 where Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) but Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (“adelphos”). He can’t be both. This shows that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin. In Luke 22:32 Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brothers.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brothers” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

If Jesus had biological brothers, it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend in John 19:26-27.

 

[bluelake]

In Hebrew and Aramaic, “brother” could mean “brother”, “cousin”, “kinsmen” or even a “close friend”. Just look at Gen. 11:26-28 where Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) but Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (“adelphos”). He can’t be both. This shows that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin. In Luke 22:32 Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brothers.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brothers” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

If Jesus had biological brothers, it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend in John 19:26-27.

sir,
I was just reading about this last night during my bible study.
I’m also aware of the ‘cousin’ interpretation. I have several bibles and they give conflicting interpretations.
I tend to believe Jesus did not have siblings. I also think this isn’t a salvation issue.
Jesus Christ is the son of God. He is God robed in flesh. Its difficult for me to accept that God the Father had siblings.
what do you think?

God bless,
bluelake

 

[kristanl]

I think you would like to read this article:
catholicsource.net/articles/perpetualvirginity.htm

Hopefully you enjoy it

Hope this helps!

 

[AnnSingh]

Sir Knight…you could not have said it any clearer…wonderfully said, God bless you!!!

Our Lady made the journey of the Passion with Christ for a reason, she saw the pain, the shame that Our Lord endured for us and she in all things that she does points us to her beloved Son Jesus Christ who is Our Saviour!!!

 

[hellopeople]

In Hebrew and Aramaic, “brother” could mean “brother”, “cousin”, “kinsmen” or even a “close friend”. Just look at Gen. 11:26-28 where Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) but Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (“adelphos”). He can’t be both. This shows that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin. In Luke 22:32 Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brothers.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brothers” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

If Jesus had biological brothers, it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend in John 19:26-27.

The gospels were written in Greek. I realize that Jesus was most likely speaking aramaic, but the exact words he used in aramaic are not that important. If the writer of Matthew wanted to say cousin or kinsmen, he would have used the greek word for it. He wouldn’t have translated something that Jesus said in a literal way so that it didn’t mean the same thing in Greek.

 

[hellopeople]

I think you would like to read this article:
catholicsource.net/articles/perpetualvirginity.htm

Hopefully you enjoy it

Hope this helps!

I don’t think this is a great argument to be honest. I don’t think that James, the brother of Jesus, is the same as “James the less.”

His reasoning is because James, the brother of Jesus, is called a disciple in Galatians. So, he must be one of the two James’ in the original 12. I disagree with this assumption. Paul used the term “apostle” quite loosely. He even called himself an apostle. So, he obviously didn’t just believe that there were only 12 apostles. So the assumption that James, the brother of Jesus, is the same person as “James the less” is based on false pretenses.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The gospels were written in Greek. I realize that Jesus was most likely speaking aramaic, but the exact words he used in aramaic are not that important. If the writer of Matthew wanted to say cousin or kinsmen, he would have used the greek word for it. He wouldn’t have translated something that Jesus said in a literal way so that it didn’t mean the same thing in Greek.

Acts 1:12-15 tells us that the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Even if Mary had triplets once a year from the time of Jesus’s birth to the time of His death, she still wouldn’t have been able to produce 120 brothers for Jesus.

Again, how do you explain Jesus referring to the other Apostles as Peter’s “brothers”?

In the scriptures, “brother” could mean “brother”, “cousin”, “kinsmen” or even a “close friend”.

 

[dellacroce]

If I may add:

Who would have been the father of Jesus’s “siblings”? In Jewish law, a woman who had had a child by one man was forbidden from having intimate relations with another man, unless she were widowed. Mary had a child, Jesus, whose father was the Holy Spirit. Did the Holy Spirit die and leave Mary a widow? Ridiculous! Equally ridiculous is the notion that Mary would violate a precept of Jewish law, by having more children with another man, and even more absurd is the idea that St. Joseph would have relations with Mary, knowing that it was prohibited. She was totally faithful to the Law, which was necessary for her to be “full of grace.”

Tradition also teaches that Mary was consecrated as a virgin in the Temple from a very early age. This traditional teaching is supported by Scripture, Luke 1:34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? * And Gabriel responds: 35…The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee.* Mary never imagined what would be the most obvious answer to her question: Since she was already married to Joseph, she would have relations with him. She knew this wasn’t going to happen, because she was a consecrated virgin. Otherwise she would have naturally supposed that the child to be born would be the product of her relations with Joseph. The fact that Mary, a married woman, had to ask the angel how she would get pregnant indicates that she had taken an oath of virginity. This oath of virginity was not broken by the Holy Spirit, but it would have been broken by Joseph. So we see that she kept her vow of virginity, which precluded her having more children with anyone else.

drbo.org/chapter/49001.htm

 

[Pawel_J]

The gospels were written in Greek. I realize that Jesus was most likely speaking aramaic, but the exact words he used in aramaic are not that important. If the writer of Matthew wanted to say cousin or kinsmen, he would have used the greek word for it. He wouldn’t have translated something that Jesus said in a literal way so that it didn’t mean the same thing in Greek.

I agree with your argumentation. Besides, in the 1st century it was rather unusual to have only one or even two children as it is a standard nowadays. I am sure Mary, the mother of Jesus, had more children after her firstborn son. James, in later days called James the Just, was Jesus’ younger brother. He was the leader of the Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death and Ascension. James was so respected exactly because he was himself the brother of the Lord. Altogether Jesus had four brothers and a few sisters. How many, we don’t know. The Bible doesn’t tell us. Women were not that important at that time, so they are rarely mentioned in scriptures.

 

[Pawel_J]

If I may add:

… and even more absurd is the idea that St. Joseph would have relations with Mary, knowing that it was prohibited. She was totally faithful to the Law, which was necessary for her to be “full of grace.”

??? It is your idea that is absurd. Why on earth should not Joseph have intimate relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus? She was his legitimate wife. Procreation was a part of Jewish law. In not not trying to have more children he would break the law and not the other way round.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I agree with your argumentation. Besides, in the 1st century it was rather unusual to have only one or even two children as it is a standard nowadays. I am sure Mary, the mother of Jesus, had more children after her firstborn son. James, in later days called James the Just, was Jesus’ younger brother. He was the leader of the Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death and Ascension. James was so respected exactly because he was himself the brother of the Lord. Altogether Jesus had four brothers and a few sisters. How many, we don’t know. The Bible doesn’t tell us. Women were not that important at that time, so they are rarely mentioned in scriptures.

You list your religion as “Roman Catholic” but by failing to believe official Church teaching that Mary was ever Virgin as taught in CCC499-500 … 499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.

… you are considered a heretic as defined by Church Canon 751 …Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
… and are AUTOMATICLY excommunicated from the Catholic Church as declared in Canon 1364 §1 … “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
… The phrase “latae sententiae” means a judgment or sentence which has already been brought, in other words, a sentence or judgment which does not need a future additional judgment from someone in authority; it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272) and does NOT require the future particular judgment of a case by competent authority.

 

[Sir_Knight]

??? It is your idea that is absurd. Why on earth should not Joseph have intimate relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus? She was his legitimate wife. Procreation was a part of Jewish law. In not not trying to have more children he would break the law and not the other way round.

As the saying goes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing because it can draw us to make faulty conclusions. Church common doctrine holds that Mary was a consecrated Temple Virgin with a vow of virginity. If we read Luke 1:31-34, we see that the angel tells Mary that she “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived.

She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times as recorded in the apocryphal text “The Nativity of Mary”, which was not included in scripture, but was considered by early believers to be accurate in its description of events and which is still held to be true by the Catholic faith. Temple virgins were commonly married off to either a widower or an older man, who would take care of them while allowing them to retain their virginity.

 

[redrosetea]

If he had them why weren’t they at the foot of the cross with Mary?

Why did Christ hand her over to the care of St John?

 

[hellopeople]

Does it bother anyone else that, to my knowledge at least, it is only Catholic scholars the don’t believe Jesus had siblings. Secular and Protestant scholars are all pretty much in agreement that Jesus had siblings, but the church disagrees because it goes against their tradition and assumptions even though it is clearly stated that Jesus has siblings.

 

[Sir_Knight]

If he had them why weren’t they at the foot of the cross with Mary?

Why did Christ hand her over to the care of St John?

Exactly what I said For Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend in John 19:26-27 when biological brothers existed would have been unthinkable.

 

[NHInsider]

Does it bother anyone else that, to my knowledge at least, it is only Catholic scholars the don’t believe Jesus had siblings. Secular and Protestant scholars are all pretty much in agreement that Jesus had siblings, but the church disagrees because it goes against their tradition and assumptions even though it is clearly stated that Jesus has siblings.

No, because those who have taken this position are, for the most part, doing so BECAUSE they oppose the Church’s teaching.

The “clear statement” that “Jesus had siblings” is by no means as clear as you claim, as has been pointed out.

The implications of an effort to make all of the “brothers of the Lord” who are named in the Gospels into birth-children of Mary and Joseph are entirely absurd (not the obviously broader use of the 120, but those mentioned in the verses typically pointed to by nay-sayers). I can go into this in more detail if you need, but if you do a search I’m pretty sure I’ve outlined it at least twice before in these forums.

The supporting evidence in Scripture of Mary’s lack of other children, ranging from the Bar Mitzvah account to the foot of the Cross, is overwhelming.

The long-standing teaching of the Church, and the complete absence of any claim by any person or location to having a blood-connection to Jesus (Dan Brown’s “scholarship” notwithstanding) all point to the veracity of the ancient teaching.

What bothers me is the fact that supposed “scholars” who should know better continue to bring this up. (It doesn’t take an advanced degree or the ability to read Greek to just count up all the supposed siblings named in the Gospels and then figure out how many of them have other NAMED parents. . . . and then presume that Mary and Joseph also had all those same names in the same order in the same time frame - plus the unnamed “sisters”? Strains credulity to say the least.)

 

[Sir_Knight]

Does it bother anyone else that, to my knowledge at least, it is only Catholic scholars the don’t believe Jesus had siblings. Secular and Protestant scholars are all pretty much in agreement that Jesus had siblings, but the church disagrees because it goes against their tradition and assumptions even though it is clearly stated that Jesus has siblings.

The bible was assembled by the Church Fathers in the late fourth century. They included what was consistent with their beliefs and excluded what was not consistent with their beliefs.

Written evidence of the belief that Mary remained ever virgin dates back to the early third century. (see Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 [A.D. 213] and Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 [A.D. 232]). Why would the Church Fathers exclude other things from the bible that was not consistent with their beliefs but include passages to support that Mary did not remain a virgin?

Because they understood the term “brothers” to mean “cousin”, “kinsmen” or even a “close friend” in addition to biological brother and they did not see it as a contradiction to their beliefs.

As far as holding on to tradition, doesn’t the bible command us to adhere to the traditions that are passed down to us?
[bibledrb]2 Thessalonians 2:14[/bibledrb]

Finally, with regard to “Secular and Protestant scholars are all pretty much in agreement that Jesus had siblings” … these “beliefs” did not exist prior to the Protestant reformation less than five hundred years ago.

Ask yourself this question – is it more likely that those who were taught by the Apostles and their immediate successors got this important point wrong and those reading it more than a dozen centuries later suddenly got it right or is the other way around more likely?

 

[hellopeople]

No, because those who have taken this position are, for the most part, doing so BECAUSE they oppose the Church’s teaching.

The “clear statement” that “Jesus had siblings” is by no means as clear as you claim, as has been pointed out.

The implications of an effort to make all of the “brothers of the Lord” who are named in the Gospels into birth-children of Mary and Joseph are entirely absurd (not the obviously broader use of the 120, but those mentioned in the verses typically pointed to by nay-sayers). I can go into this in more detail if you need, but if you do a search I’m pretty sure I’ve outlined it at least twice before in these forums.

The supporting evidence in Scripture of Mary’s lack of other children, ranging from the Bar Mitzvah account to the foot of the Cross, is overwhelming.

The long-standing teaching of the Church, and the complete absence of any claim by any person or location to having a blood-connection to Jesus (Dan Brown’s “scholarship” notwithstanding) all point to the veracity of the ancient teaching.

What bothers me is the fact that supposed “scholars” who should know better continue to bring this up. (It doesn’t take an advanced degree or the ability to read Greek to just count up all the supposed siblings named in the Gospels and then figure out how many of them have other NAMED parents. . . . and then presume that Mary and Joseph also had all those same names in the same order in the same time frame - plus the unnamed “sisters”? Strains credulity to say the least.)

Mathew 13:55 states:

55"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

It is pretty obvious that this person is talking about his actual family. Why would he bring up his father, mother, and then name his “brothers” but in fact mean friends?

 

[hellopeople]

The bible was assembled by the Church Fathers in the late fourth century. They included what was consistent with their beliefs and excluded what was not consistent with their beliefs.

Written evidence of the belief that Mary remained ever virgin dates back to the early third century. (see Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 [A.D. 213] and Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 [A.D. 232]). Why would the Church Fathers exclude other things from the bible that was not consistent with their beliefs but include passages to support that Mary did not remain a virgin?

Because they understood the term “brothers” to mean “cousin”, “kinsmen” or even a “close friend” in addition to biological brother and they did not see it as a contradiction to their beliefs.

As far as holding on to tradition, doesn’t the bible command us to adhere to the traditions that are passed down to us?
[bibledrb]2 Thessalonians 2:14[/bibledrb]

Finally, with regard to “Secular and Protestant scholars are all pretty much in agreement that Jesus had siblings” … these “beliefs” did not exist prior to the Protestant reformation less than five hundred years ago.

Ask yourself this question – is it more likely that those who were taught by the Apostles and their immediate successors got this important point wrong and those reading it more than a dozen centuries later suddenly got it right or is the other way around more likely?

Are you saying that the church fathers actively eliminated things from the gospels that they did not agree with? Or, are you saying that they would eliminate a whole book from the Bible, one as important as Matthew, because it said one thing they didn’t agree with? Neither one of these seems probable.

As for Origen stating that Jesus did not have siblings…do you know much about Origen or how he perceived the Bible? Origen was one of the biggest proponents of an allegorical reading of scripture in church history. If a text did not make sense to him, he would disregard the literal meaning of it and look to read it allegorically. So, just because Origen mentions that Jesus did not have brothers or sister does not concede that he didn’t think that that is what it literally meant in Matthew.