Did Jesus have siblings?

[inkaneer]

I would like to come back to the ontological or metaphysical sense of Mary’s virginity. This concept leaves out the problem of biological virginity as being irrelevant.
Any sexual act has been viewed so far by the Catholic doctrine as a more or less sinful act. So it did not suite the image of the Mother of God (Theotokos) to get impurified by such ‘unclean’ act. Yet, is a sexual act within marriage with an aim to procreate really sinful? No. If it were sinful, it would be better for us to have our children fertilized in vitro. If, such sexual act cannot make anybody unclean or unworthy, so Mary’s “virginity” can and should be seen more figuratively, symbolically as a spiritual state or condition of being ready and worthy of becoming the Mother of God, to understand this fully.

That is so wrong it is pathetic. When the Church speaks of Mary’s perpetual Virginity they are not speaking ontologically or metaphysically. The Church is speaking physically and biologically. It is very, very relevant. And let’s be abundantly clear here, the Church’s teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity was not because the Church viewed the sexual act as sinful. The teaching was based on truth. Mary did not have any other children. There are at least three alternative reasons why we find brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the scriptures. All of them are valid. First they could be children of Joseph by a prior marriage. Custom has it that Joseph was much older than Mary and could have had a prior wife who died, maybe in childbirth. It was not uncommon. Second they could be relatives of Jesus such as cousins or uncles and aunts. Third they could be of the same association such as from the same town or group. Jesus calls the Apostles Peter’s brothers but were all the apostles related to Peter? No, only one, Andrew, was hs sibling brother yet Jesus calls them Peter’s brothers.

 

[Martlut]

SO WHO WERE THESE “BROTHERS OF JESUS?”
A. While James and Joses are mentioned as Jesus’s brothers in Matthew 13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 that their mother was another Mary.
Matthew 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
This “other Mary” at the Cross, is revealed in John 19:25 to be the wife of Cleophas. Mary of Cleophas is therefore revealed as the mother of two of Jesus’s so-called “brothers”, James and Joses.
B. In John 19:25, the original Greek states. “But by he cross of Jesus were the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene.” The precise positioning of the ANDs in the original Greek makes it clear that Mary the Wife of Cleopas, is also referred to as the Virgin Mary’s sister. Since we know no-one has two daughters and calls them BOTH Mary, we know that sister here does not mean sister. The same would apply to “brother” with reference to Jesus.
C. In the introduction to the Book of Jude, Jude introduces himself as: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. If Jude/Judas were truly the brother of Jesus, why wouldn’t he say so? He identifies himself in his letter as brother of James, but significantly not as a brother of Jesus, only as a servant. To have identified himself as Jesus’s blood brother would have added enormous weight to his epistle, but Jude doesn’t so identify himself here. We know the reason, because James and Joseph have already been revealed to be sons of the other Mary in Matthew 27 and Mark 15. Judas then must also be a son of this other Mary. Mary wife of Cleophas. So another of Jesus’s so-called “brothers” is eliminated.
D. James “Brother of Jesus” is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1:19. . We know from Matthew 10:2-4 that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of Mary. So James, “brother of Jesus” cannot be a Son of Mary. He is actually James, Son of Alphaeus (thought to be another form of Cleophas)! James is a kinsman of Jesus, but not a sibling.
A few more points:
In Luke 2:41-51, the twelve-year-old Jesus goes missing on a trip to Jerusalem, and is only found three days later in the temple. Yet in all this time no mention at all is made of any other children, even though the entire family made the journey together. If all the people mentioned in Matthew were actually surviving children of Mary, she would have had at least seven children younger than Jesus to look after! In fact both Mary and Joseph race back to Jerusalem to find him, through country filled with bandits, something they could not have done if there had been babies and other young children in need of care!
The people of Nazareth refer to Jesus as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary”
Finally, if James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, were children of Mary, and if Jesus had even more brothers and sisters, why did Jesus commit His Mother to the care of St. John at His death?

Mk 6:3 says, “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?” We need to realize a few things here about these “brothers and sisters”: #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were “brother” or “sister”. An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew, is called his brother.
Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother!
Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the “brothers” of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the “brothers” of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.

 

[bjblatchfo21]

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.

I am by no means a Catholic scholar. I have been folowing this discussion, for I have had similar conversations with friends. I find that Sir Knight has explained it quite clearly and I defend my faith in a similar way in regards to the Perpetual virginity of Mary. After long discussions with my friends and I am just beating a dead horse I tell them.

“If you believe in Sola Scripturu you don’t know whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. Since you refuse to depend upon the teachings of the early church, or the teachings of the early Protestant denominations, you’re perpetually left to wonder.”

 

[Prieldedi]

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?

Who said “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?” Is this person a family member? A neighbor? Or someone who had a vague idea of the Holy Family?

If this person speaks “the truth”, do you believe he’s telling the truth when he says that Joseph is the father of Jesus?

I’ve come across friends who’ve known me for years, friends who supposedly know my family very well, and have asked me about my brother Richard. If these friends really knew my family well they should know that Richard is my cousin, not my brother. This is a true story, I’m not making it up.

In this passage, the person asking those questions could be very well like my “friends”, who really don’t know me that well after all, or this person knew the Holy Family well and, as demonstrated by other posters, knew they were Jesus’ cousins but for lack of the word “cousin” in Aramaic they used “brothers”, and the translators just translated the text literally, knowing that they were not siblings.

This person never says that Mary is the mother of the four, he just says that they are Jesus’ brothers. Could they be the sons of Joseph by a previous marriage? Remember, they are never referred to in relation to either Mary or Joseph, just to Jesus. They could be very well be Joseph sons, as the Orthodox Church believes.

This person mentions Joseph as Jesus’ father and Mary as his mother. I ask again, do you believe he’s telling the truth about Jesus being Joseph’s son? We all know for sure he’s 50% wrong in what he says. In a court of law he would be considered a bad witness being wrong 50% of the time. The only thing he got right is that Mary is the mother of Jesus. He’s wrong about Joseph. Some of you are wrong about the brothers.

 

[Prieldedi]

SO WHO WERE THESE “BROTHERS OF JESUS?”
A. While James and Joses are mentioned as Jesus’s brothers in Matthew 13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 that their mother was another Mary.
Matthew 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
This “other Mary” at the Cross, is revealed in John 19:25 to be the wife of Cleophas. Mary of Cleophas is therefore revealed as the mother of two of Jesus’s so-called “brothers”, James and Joses.
B. In John 19:25, the original Greek states. “But by he cross of Jesus were the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene.” The precise positioning of the ANDs in the original Greek makes it clear that Mary the Wife of Cleopas, is also referred to as the Virgin Mary’s sister. Since we know no-one has two daughters and calls them BOTH Mary, we know that sister here does not mean sister. The same would apply to “brother” with reference to Jesus.
C. In the introduction to the Book of Jude, Jude introduces himself as: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. If Jude/Judas were truly the brother of Jesus, why wouldn’t he say so? He identifies himself in his letter as brother of James, but significantly not as a brother of Jesus, only as a servant. To have identified himself as Jesus’s blood brother would have added enormous weight to his epistle, but Jude doesn’t so identify himself here. We know the reason, because James and Joseph have already been revealed to be sons of the other Mary in Matthew 27 and Mark 15. Judas then must also be a son of this other Mary. Mary wife of Cleophas. So another of Jesus’s so-called “brothers” is eliminated.
D. James “Brother of Jesus” is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1:19. . We know from Matthew 10:2-4 that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of Mary. So James, “brother of Jesus” cannot be a Son of Mary. He is actually James, Son of Alphaeus (thought to be another form of Cleophas)! James is a kinsman of Jesus, but not a sibling.
A few more points:
In Luke 2:41-51, the twelve-year-old Jesus goes missing on a trip to Jerusalem, and is only found three days later in the temple. Yet in all this time no mention at all is made of any other children, even though the entire family made the journey together. If all the people mentioned in Matthew were actually surviving children of Mary, she would have had at least seven children younger than Jesus to look after! In fact both Mary and Joseph race back to Jerusalem to find him, through country filled with bandits, something they could not have done if there had been babies and other young children in need of care!
The people of Nazareth refer to Jesus as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary”
Finally, if James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, were children of Mary, and if Jesus had even more brothers and sisters, why did Jesus commit His Mother to the care of St. John at His death?

Mk 6:3 says, “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?” We need to realize a few things here about these “brothers and sisters”: #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were “brother” or “sister”. An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew, is called his brother.
Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother!
Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the “brothers” of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the “brothers” of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.

A couple of point to be considered too:
It was a Jewish custom not to name a son after the father. Check Jesus’ genealogy, you wont find a father naming a son with his own name.

One of the so called brothers of Jesus is named “Joseph”. Saint Joseph would have observed this custom, he would not have named Joseph one of his own sons.
At the wedding at Cana, which is a family event, just Mary and Jesus are invited. No mention of the “brothers” or “sisters” of Jesus. It’s odd that the sisters were not with their mother, you know, women tend to be together in these events, but they were not there. Why would John leave them out? Why would the family of the newlyweds invite Mary and Jesus but not the rest of the family?

 

[mullenpm]

Sir Knight,

I had to check twice to see the stated religion for Pawel_J when I read his post. How can he be truly a Catholic if he does not believe the Church teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin (Our Blessed Virgin Mary)?:knight2::knight1:

 

[driscll_books]

Yes, He did. I think that this is one of the situations where Catholic teaching managed to trip itself up. The church holds quite literally to the words in John’s gospel (Chapter 6) where Jesus talks about the bread and wine becoming His body and blood but in the same chapter opts for a less than literal translation regarding Christ’s siblings. That can be confusing to any Bible student. The giving over of Mary to John’s care can simply be because His siblings did not believe in Him; indeed, thought him daft. Those verses (John 19: 26, 27) beg for a literal translation, as well, given the fact that John’s response was to take her into his home.
Of course, as one replier mentioned, this has nothing to do with salvation by faith. However, these issues have caused divisions among the faithful.

 

[ralphy]

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.

Hello to you all. I basically have one question to the above statement. Who will you believe the teaching of the RCC or the teachings of God, the Bible.?

 

[PraiseB2God]

I haven’t read the whole thread, so excuse me if I’m repeating someone else’s points:

1. The Church does not rely on the Bible alone for its knowledge and authority.
2. Tradition does not have to be found in the Bible, but it can not go against the Bible.
3. Tradition has ALWAYS maintained Mary’s perpetual virginity. It’s a shame that the tradition of Joseph having been a widower and already having children when they married has been forgotten, because it would clear up people’s problems with the Bible mentioning Jesus’s brothers. The Protevangelion (the Book of James) gives an account of Mary’s perpetual virginity and why Jesus would have had siblings: because Joseph had been chosen among widowers to marry her and he already had children. She would still be their mother. Joseph is also said to have promised to preserve her virginity.

 

[redrosetea]

Hello to you all. I basically have one question to the above statement. Who will you believe the teaching of the RCC or the teachings of God, the Bible.?

I believe all 3 they are exactly the same

 

[ralphy]

I believe all 3 they are exactly the same

Actually, that statement I made in my quote indicated only two things, the RCC and God (the Bible). Why then do do these two differ if they are suppose to be the same.

 

[Poco]

driscll_books:

The church holds quite literally to the words in John’s gospel (Chapter 6) where Jesus talks about the bread and wine becoming His body and blood but in the same chapter opts for a less than literal translation regarding Christ’s siblings. That can be confusing to any Bible student.

Exactly. Probably why the Church was created with a hierarchy and uses Tradition, as well as Scripture. It helps clear up the confusion!

ralphy:

Hello to you all. I basically have one question to the above statement. Who will you believe the teaching of the RCC or the teachings of God, the Bible.?

What redrosetea said! It’s not an either/or question. One and the same.

 

[redrosetea]

Actually, that statement I made in my quote indicated only two things, the RCC and God (the Bible). Why then do do these two differ if they are suppose to be the same.

They don’t differ it is your interpretation that differs…You would not even have a Bible to read if it wasn’t for ST Jerome, a catholic

There was no Bible for the first 400 years of the church…there was tradition…In scripture ST Paul tells the faithful to hold fast to these traditions…and we always have done

 

[Poco]

Actually, that statement I made in my quote indicated only two things, the RCC and God (the Bible). Why then do do these two differ if they are suppose to be the same.

Where do they differ?

 

[inkaneer]

Yes, He did. I think that this is one of the situations where Catholic teaching managed to trip itself up. The church holds quite literally to the words in John’s gospel (Chapter 6) where Jesus talks about the bread and wine becoming His body and blood but in the same chapter opts for a less than literal translation regarding Christ’s siblings. That can be confusing to any Bible student. The giving over of Mary to John’s care can simply be because His siblings did not believe in Him; indeed, thought him daft. Those verses (John 19: 26, 27) beg for a literal translation, as well, given the fact that John’s response was to take her into his home.
Of course, as one replier mentioned, this has nothing to do with salvation by faith. However, these issues have caused divisions among the faithful.

How can you in all honesty say that? We don’t hold that Jesus had any siblings because He didn’t and the Bible doesn’t say He did. You apparently accept a 20th century interpretation of the scriptures and that interpretation contains error. For instancein Scripture Paul calls the Apostle James the brother of the Lord. But since there are only two Apostles that are named James, one being the son of Jebedee and the other the son of Alpheaus how could either of them be Jesus’ brother? Did you even bother to investigate that? Several catholic posters to include myself, posted it and gave the scripture references to support it. Yet you prefer to hang on to your lies and make false accusations against the true church of Jesus Christ. You take one verse and you misinterpret it and you build a belief system on that misinterpretation. All the while you are blind to other verses which contradict your interpretation. You have no evidentiary proof to support your position. All you have is your false allegations.

In addition, there is a big elephant in the room that I believe, no one has mentioned thus far. That is the absence of anyone at anytime in history claiming the bragging rights that they were a sibling or a blood relative of Jesus Christ. If ever there was a name to be dropped by name droppers then Jesus of Nazareth is it. Even if you married someone who had a friend whose third cousin’s husband was a cousin of Jesus 20 zillion times removed you would have bragging rights. Yet throughout history there is an absolute vacuum, a silence that is complete. No one ever made such a claim. In the early church where various cities bragged they had the body of this Apostle or that Saint or that they received the Gospel from this or that Apostle there are two claims never made. No place claimed they had the body of Mary and no one claimed to be Jesus’ relative.

 

[redrosetea]

If Christ had siblings why is it they were never mentioned by any of the Early Church Fathers, who were instructed form the original 12 apostles?

 

[JEANNIEMAC]

It has been stated over and over by experts in the faith, that Jesus did not have siblings. You continue to repeat the same thing, because you do not want to believe otherwise. For one thing, it is unthinkable that Mary’s body, which held the human body of God Himself, would ever hold the body of a baby with the stain of original sin.
As has been stated, temple virgins were often married to older men who would act as their protector, while they remained virgin. In those days, women needed protection as they really had no rights.
Again, John was asked by Jesus to take care of His mother. If there were other sons, that would have been a huge insult to them.
Accept the truth. The thought occured to me that you could be a troll.
Trolls are those who go onto sites with which they disagree, to cause dissension.

 

[Barry_Gabriel]

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.

There is no word in Aramaic (nor other Semitic languages for that matter) for “cousin”. The term they would have used is “brother”. The Greek translation was accurate as far as the word goes, but unclear to contemporary readers as to its actual meaning (brother?, cousin?, friend?, kinsman?, fellow tribal member?, guy from the same village?). Our tradition, which has been around a bit longer than the Gospels, tells us Jesus was the only child of Mary.

 

[sedonaman]

No. The word “siblings” is not in the Bible.

 

[Ginkgo100]

Why does everyone assume that if Jesus had brothers, they must be Mary’s biological children conceived through marital relations with Joseph? St. Joseph was likely a widower and probably had children through his first marriage. Thus Jesus would have had step-brothers. This is another possible interpretation for the mentions of the “brothers” of Jesus.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is one of the Marian dogmas, and as such Catholics are bound to believe it. To deny it would be a sin, as an explicit rejection of Church authority, and therefore it is a salvation issue. However, I don’t believe there is any “official” interpretation of the “brothers” of Jesus, other than the requirement that Mary must have remained a perpetual virgin.