Eusebius on the brothers and cousins of Jesus

[Flying_Bison]

First off using Wikipedia as a source for information is poor.
It is not a true encyclopedia nor is it a reliable source of information.

That being said, suppose that the information about Eusebius in Wikipedia is valid, that he was a poor historian etc.

So what, the fact remains that even though the gospels, epistles, acts, etc. circulated from the 1st century (these are the proof texts of those that believe Mary had other children) there is no evidence or any mention by anyone that Jesus had siblings. There is however evidence from historians that symeon, James, Jude, etc., those brother mentioned in Mark were actually cousins of Jesus. Additionally, we find no protest to the belief that Jesus had no siblings from history or tradition, except from those reading the scripture in the late 3rd and 4th century.

So, we are left with a dilemma

That Catholic Church is correct and it appears to have history on its side and it too can appeal to Holy Scripture to back up its claim.

Or

others through their own interpretation of scripture hundreds of years later

(the same scriptures that earlier Christians had and they didn’t come to the same conclusions mind you and they were far closer to oral traditions of people who actually knew the Apostles and the culture in which the Gospels were written)

and not backed by any shred of historical mention of actual blood children of Mary are correct.

Common sense would point to the Catholic teaching.

I do not mean to offend any Protestant on this board with my commentary because many of them are TRULY striving to follow Christ but I am just trying to emphasize the strength and historical precedent of the Catholic belief.

 

[BrianH]

So what, the fact remains that even though the gospels, epistles, acts, etc. circulated from the 1st century (these are the proof texts of those that believe Mary had other children) there is no evidence or any mention by anyone that Jesus had siblings. There is however evidence from historians that symeon, James, Jude, etc., those brother mentioned in Mark were actually cousins of Jesus. Additionally, we find no protest to the belief that Jesus had no siblings from history or tradition, except from those reading the scripture in the late 3rd and 4th century.

.

So…how do I deal with this? Basic decorum dictates I assume you read my original post…
My quotes show that they differentiated between cousins and brothers.
Jude and James are called brothers.
Simeon is called a cousin and his Father’s name is given.

 

[inJESUS]

Chapter 19. Domitian commands the Descendants of David to be slain.
But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.

Brother of Jesus through whom? do Eusebius and hegesippus explain it?

 

[BrianH]

Chapter 19. Domitian commands the Descendants of David to be slain.
But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.

Brother of Jesus through whom? do Eusebius and hegesippus explain it?

No. They do not. Understanding we only have clips of Hegesippus. He might of in some other writings Eusebius did not have or quote.
Like I said, I have my thoughts but I want other views. The fact he DOES not explain it has significance to me though.

 

[inJESUS]

No. They do not. Understanding we only have clips of Hegesippus. He might of in some other writings Eusebius did not have or quote.
Like I said, I have my thoughts but I want other views. The fact he DOES not explain it has significance to me though.

well if the “brother of” is still not explained through whom, what is your thought on what they both meant?

 

[BrianH]

well if the “brother of” is still not explained through whom, what is your thought on what they both meant?

I was REALLY hoping to get other views because the minute I give mine people will just respond to that…in my experience.
I believe based upon the context and the fact he clearly states who is a cousin that we only have a couple of reasonable possibilities.

Joseph and a first wife ( a view supported by Origen and a few others)

or

Joseph and Mary

One of the main things I think it does argue heavily against are these later developing cousin views. The early church KNEW who they were. I do not believe it was a matter of conjecture early on.

I also think that because of the high esteem they held Mary in they COULD have been uncomfortable with stating it directly. I see absolutely no reason not to clarify and state they were the children of Joseph if that were the case. I can develop that more later.

Like I said, I prefer to keep the discussion on the historical facts and theology free as much as possible. I am trying to come to a reasonable historical conclusion using the tradition that existed post scripture since Protestants and Catholics disagree on how to interpret this.

 

[Eucharisted]

Maybe no one ever talked about Jesus’ brother in the flesh because it was so well known that no one ever needed to talk about it. That’s a thought I have.

 

[inJESUS]

Joseph and a first wife ( a view supported by Origen and a few others)

 

[BrianH]

ok so even these writers can be misunderstood as both options result in totally different things. So you can present your arguments to see if they are supported by their writings and maybe you can find a NT reference to any of these sons called Mary’s son beside Jesus?

 

[inJESUS]

So I have to decide if they are Joseph’s and Mary’s or Joseph and someone else.

ok

 

[inJESUS]

Here let me help you.

Do you believe that the Virgin Mary had another sister from the same parents who was also named Mary (John 19:25)? if these brothers were the children of St. Joseph’s brother Cleopas (as Hegessipus records), and if as St. Jerome contends Cleopas had reposed and St. Joseph had taken his brothers widow and children under his care (as was Jewish custom) then these children would of course be called brothers and sisters of our Lord, don’t you think?

 

[cathopologist]

Here let me help you.

Do you believe that the Virgin Mary had another sister from the same parents who was also named Mary (John 19:25)? if these brothers were the children of St. Joseph’s brother Cleopas (as Hegessipus records), and if as St. Jerome contends Cleopas had reposed and St. Joseph had taken his brothers widow and children under his care (as was Jewish custom) then these children would of course be called brothers and sisters of our Lord, don’t you think?

Who was St. James as a person, and not just as an historical figure?

“Tradition has also continued the process of identification by making ‘Mary (the mother) of James’ the same as ‘Mary (the wife) of Clopas (Aramaic, Klofa

) in John 19:25. The difficultly arising from the identification of Alphaeus and Clopas is ordinarily answered by saying that they are equivalents of the same Aramaic name, or that they are simply two names belonging to the same person. In this case, James of Alphaeus would be James ‘the brother (i.e., relative) of Mary, the Mother of Jesus in John 19:25”. 4 - From HebrewCatholic.org

 

[BrianH]

Here let me help you.

Do you believe that the Virgin Mary had another sister from the same parents who was also named Mary (John 19:25)? if these brothers were the children of St. Joseph’s brother Cleopas (as Hegessipus records), and if as St. Jerome contends Cleopas had reposed and St. Joseph had taken his brothers widow and children under his care (as was Jewish custom) then these children would of course be called brothers and sisters of our Lord, don’t you think?

I do not believe that Mary had a sister named Mary. No.
I have read the debate on that and it seems to me it is talking about four people

but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother (1) and his mother’s sister (2), Mary the wife of Clopas (3), and Mary Magdalene (4).

I do not think they are the children of Cleopas. That is a later tradition that no one put forth until Jerome and not the case.

Step brother theory

This theory is found first in the apocryphal writings of James (the Protevangelium Jacobi, the Ascents of James, etc.), and then among the leading Greek fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria); it is embodied in the Greek, Syrian, and Coptic services, which assign different dates to the commemoration of James the son of Alphaeus (Oct. 9), and of James the Lord’s brother (Oct. 23). It may therefore be called the theory of the Eastern church. It was also held by some Latin fathers before Jerome (Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose), and has recently been ably advocated by Bishop Lightfoot (l. c.) followed by Dr. Plumptre (in the introduction to his Com. on the Ep. of James).

Cousin theory

(3) The Cousin-theory regards the brethren as more distant relatives, namely, children of Mary, the wife of Alphaeus and sister of the virgin Mary, and identifies James, the brother of the Lord, with James the son of Alphaeus and James the Little, thus making him (as well as also Simon and Jude) an apostle. The exceptive είμή, Gal. 1:19 (but I saw only James), does not prove this, but rather excludes James from the apostles proper (comp. είμή in Gal. 2:16; Luke 4:26,27).

This theory was first advanced by Jerome in 383, in a youthful polemic tract against Helvidius, without any traditional support[2], but with the professed dogmatic and ascetic aim to save the virginity of both Mary and Joseph, and to reduce their marriage relation to a merely nominal and barren connection. In his later writings, however, after the residence in Palestine, he treats the question with less confidence (see Lightfoot, p. 253). By his authority and the still greater weight of St. Augustin, who at first (394) wavered between the second and third theories, but afterwards adopted that of Jerome, it became the established theory of the Latin church and was embodied in the Western services, which acknowledges only two saints by the name of James. But it is the least tenable of all and must be abandoned, chiefly for the following reasons:

(a) It contradicts the natural meaning of the word “brothers,” when the New Testament has the proper word for cousin (άνεψιός, Col. 4:10, comp. also συγγενής, Luke 2:44; 21:16; Mark 6:4, etc.), and the obvious sense of the passage where the brothers and sisters of Jesus appear as members of the holy family.

(b) It assumes that two sisters had the same name, Mary, which is extremely improbable.

(c) It assumes the identity of Clopas and Alphaeus, which is equally doubtful; for the former is a Hebrew name, while the latter is an abbreviation of the Greek Κλεόπατρος.

(d) It is absolutely irreconcilable with the fact that the brethren of Jesus, James among them, were before the resurrection unbelievers, John 7:5, and consequently none of them could be an apostle, as this theory assumes of two or three.

home.comcast.net/~SMOF/SNBIBL16.htm
My thanks to Chris, although he is not around anymore, for the links to all of these!

 

[BrianH]

383 AD? Too late for me

 

[inJESUS]

so where does all this lead to?

 

[BrianH]

so where does all this lead to?

A discussion about who these people were. Its not theology. Its history. For me, theology comes after history. I do not build my history on theology. Since you asked…

 

[inJESUS]

A discussion about who these people were. Its not theology. Its history. For me, theology comes after history. I do not build my history on theology. Since you asked…

ok fine, but where did your readings lead to?

 

[Observer101]

ok fine, but where did your readings lead to?

It most certainly leads to debase your ‘programmed’ theology, due to BrianH’s simple and understandable reasoning/questioning by using God-given common sense.

 

[inJESUS]

It most certainly leads to debase your ‘programmed’ theology, due to BrianH’s simple and understandable reasoning/questioning by using God-given common sense.

Brian still did not debase anything since he did not even say what his conclusion is. Besides, as a Muslim, did your prophet teach anything about this issue to “debase” the Church belief?

 

[Observer101]

Brian still did not debase anything since he did not even say what his conclusion is. Besides, as a Muslim, did your prophet teach anything about this issue to “debase” the Church belief?

Again, I said, “it [BrainH’s reading] leads to debase your ‘programmed’ theology …”.

I did not say 'It did debase your…"