James and Other Siblings

[Faith1960]

There’s a very long thread on the subject of James Cameron’s upcoming documentary about Jesus and the burial tomb where his remains have supposedly been found. I saw several interviews on TV last night and have been researching things online and one of several upsetting things I keep running across is that some of the people who are disagreeing with James Cameron, which helps discredit his claims, are the same ones who keep mentioning Jesus’s siblings, including James. I think one scholar (sorry forget which one) said last night that scholars know Jesus had siblings (or brothers). On what does the Catholic Church base it’s teaching that Jesus was an only child and Mary was a perpetual virgin?

benwitherington.blogspot.com/

 

[metal1633]

There’s a very long thread on the subject of James Cameron’s upcoming documentary about Jesus and the burial tomb where his remains have supposedly been found. I saw several interviews on TV last night and have been researching things online and one of several upsetting things I keep running across is that some of the people who are disagreeing with James Cameron, which helps discredit his claims, are the same ones who keep mentioning Jesus’s siblings, including James. I think one scholar (sorry forget which one) said last night that scholars know Jesus had siblings (or brothers). On what does the Catholic Church base it’s teaching that Jesus was an only child and Mary was a perpetual virgin?

benwitherington.blogspot.com/

The Church bases its teaching on the facts.

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

 

[JimG]

James, the ‘brother of the Lord’ and first bishop of Jerusalem, was, if I recall correctly, the son of Alphaeus. There were two apostles named James. The other James, and his brother John, were sons of Zebedee.

It’s apparent that neither James was the son of Mary or Joseph.

 

[Faith1960]

The Church bases its teaching on the facts.

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

What I’m trying to learn is where the facts originate. According to several scholars I’ve heard or read over the past few months, Jesus had four siblings. James Tabor states that Jesus’ siblings were James, Jose, Shimon and Jude.

 

[water]

Who made this claim? Mostly those who are so much against Catholic - To attack Catholic is to attack Virgin Mary. To attack Virgin Mary is to downgrade her. To downgrade her is to say she is not a Virgin. Thus, she got other children.

When one has this kind of mind set, he/she can turn and twist the Bible the way he wants and says it is the Holy Spirit who guides him.

There are many articles out there to explain Jesus did not have any sibling. You can read one from:

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0090.html

 

[thistle]

There’s a very long thread on the subject of James Cameron’s upcoming documentary about Jesus and the burial tomb where his remains have supposedly been found. I saw several interviews on TV last night and have been researching things online and one of several upsetting things I keep running across is that some of the people who are disagreeing with James Cameron, which helps discredit his claims, are the same ones who keep mentioning Jesus’s siblings, including James. I think one scholar (sorry forget which one) said last night that scholars know Jesus had siblings (or brothers). On what does the Catholic Church base it’s teaching that Jesus was an only child and Mary was a perpetual virgin?

benwitherington.blogspot.com/

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112frs.asp
catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

 

[Todd_Easton]

What I’m trying to learn is where the facts originate. According to several scholars I’ve heard or read over the past few months, Jesus had four siblings. James Tabor states that Jesus’ siblings were James, Jose, Shimon and Jude.

This idea comes from Mark 6:3:

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?"
However, it does not take into account the more general meaning of the word brother back then.

An early Christian tradition, mentioned in the Protoevangelium of James, written about A.D. 120, is that Joseph was a widower with grown children when he married the Virgin Mary. Accordingly, the four siblings mentioned by name in Mark 6:3 were actually the step-brothers of Jesus but, to those who didn’t know about Jesus’ virginal conception and who thought that Joseph was Jesus’ biological father, they would have been considered the half-brothers of Jesus. Half-brothers were simply called brothers back then. For instance, the patriarch Joseph had one brother, Benjamin, and 10 half-brothers, yet his 10 half-brothers are routinely called his brothers. (Genesis 42:3; Acts 7:13)

Taking the four siblings mentioned by name in Mark 6:3 as Jesus’ half-brothers, children of Joseph’s first marriage, is in accord with the Scriptural use of the word brother and in accord with Catholic teaching that the Virgin May had only one child, Jesus Christ.

 

[RyanL]

A point to remember, specificially when dialoging with non-Catholic Christians, is that no Christian believes that these are actually Jesus’ brothers/sisters. AT MOST, they believe these are half-brothers; yet, they cannot produce any Biblical reason for insisting that these are half-brothers rather than step-brothers. Just something to tuck in your back pocket.

In any case, the geneology as given by the Bible would look something like this:

     ---Zebedee---------------------------------------------------------------
    +   >------begat------James and John------------------------------
     ---Salome-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                 

     ---Cleophas-(Alphaeus)-----------------------------------------------
    +   >------begat------James (the less), Jo'ses, and Jude-----
     ---Mary---(the other Mary, Mt 27:56,61, 28:1, Jn 19:25)--
                                 

     ---THE HOLY SPIRIT--------------------------------------------------
    +   >------begat------JESUS THE CHRIST-------------------------
     ---Mary----------------------------------------------------------------------

Source.
Now we have four ‘brothers’, JAMES, JO’SES, SIMON, and JUDE to account for as written in Mk 6:3…

Mk 15:40, “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of JAMES the less, and of JO’SES, and Salome.”

These people were at the crucifixion.

Jn 19:25, “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.”

Mt 10:2-3, “…‘JAMES’ the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (Alphaeus is an alternate translation of Cleophas (Clophas) and so he is the same person.)

Acts 1:13, “…JAMES, the son of Alphaeus, and SIMON Zelo’tes, and JUDE the brother of JAMES.”

[But according to the Bible there are two men named James - James and James the less. What about the other James?]

Mk 1:19, “…He saw JAMES, the son of Zebedee, and ‘JOHN’, his brother.”

Mk 3:17, “And JAMES the son of Zebedee, and ‘JOHN’ the brother of JAMES.”

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Roselander]

I have read that Aramaic had no word for cousin; thus cousins would have been called brothers or sisters, especially if the Holy Family had lived in a combined household with other relatives, as was common in those days. Also, if Jesus had had siblings, He would not have given Mary into the care of St. John at His death.

 

[Faith1960]

This idea comes from Mark 6:3:

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?"
However, it does not take into account the more general meaning of the word brother back then.

An early Christian tradition, mentioned in the Protoevangelium of James, written about A.D. 120, is that Joseph was a widower with grown children when he married the Virgin Mary. Accordingly, the four siblings mentioned by name in Mark 6:3 were actually the step-brothers of Jesus but, to those who didn’t know about Jesus’ virginal conception and who thought that Joseph was Jesus’ biological father, they would have been considered the half-brothers of Jesus. Half-brothers were simply called brothers back then. For instance, the patriarch Joseph had one brother, Benjamin, and 10 half-brothers, yet his 10 half-brothers are routinely called his brothers. (Genesis 42:3; Acts 7:13)

Taking the four siblings mentioned by name in Mark 6:3 as Jesus’ half-brothers, children of Joseph’s first marriage, is in accord with the Scriptural use of the word brother and in accord with Catholic teaching that the Virgin May had only one child, Jesus Christ.

Ah, okay, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

 

[Faith1960]

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112frs.asp
catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Thanks Thistle and Water for the links.

 

[Faith1960]

A point to remember, specificially when dialoging with non-Catholic Christians, is that no Christian believes that these are actually Jesus’ brothers/sisters. AT MOST, they believe these are half-brothers; yet, they cannot produce any Biblical reason for insisting that these are half-brothers rather than step-brothers. Just something to tuck in your back pocket.

In any case, the geneology as given by the Bible would look something like this:

     ---Zebedee---------------------------------------------------------------
    +   >------begat------James and John------------------------------
     ---Salome-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                 

     ---Cleophas-(Alphaeus)-----------------------------------------------
    +   >------begat------James (the less), Jo'ses, and Jude-----
     ---Mary---(the other Mary, Mt 27:56,61, 28:1, Jn 19:25)--
                                 

     ---THE HOLY SPIRIT--------------------------------------------------
    +   >------begat------JESUS THE CHRIST-------------------------
     ---Mary----------------------------------------------------------------------

God Bless,
RyanL

The last time I encountered the comment about Jesus having siblings was from Dr. James Tabor where he said something like scholars “know” this. Why would scholars make such claims? I mean, I’m no academic so I rely on those who are to teach the truth.

 

[tm30]

If Jesus had half-brothers from his father Joseph (the elderly Joseph theory), the oldest of they, and not He, would be the heir to King David’s throne. It would controvert Jewish tradition for Jesus to be the heir, and thus He would not be fulfilling Micah or Isaiah’s prophecy.

 

[BrownR]

What about the James Ossuary? The latest analysis indicated by Professor Wolfgang E. Krumbein in Germany is that he found traces of the original patina within the alleged “forged” addition to the inscription. More scholars are tending to agree on present analysis of the inscription that it may be genuine along with the ossuary. If this proves to be true, this would seem to seriously discredit the “cousin” theory. At best, the Church would be forced to go with the “step brother” theory, but wouldn’t this make Jesus’ act of giving Mary to John a bit less believable? If he had multitudes of step brothers and step sisters born of Joseph from a previous marriage, as alluded to in the Protoevangelium of James and Gospel of Peter, why would it make any sense for John to take exclusive care of her from that point on?

 

[Lazerlike42]

What about the James Ossuary? The latest analysis indicated by Professor Wolfgang E. Krumbein in Germany is that he found traces of the original patina within the alleged “forged” addition to the inscription. More scholars are tending to agree on present analysis of the inscription that it may be genuine along with the ossuary. If this proves to be true, this would seem to seriously discredit the “cousin” theory. At best, the Church would be forced to go with the “step brother” theory, but wouldn’t this make Jesus’ act of giving Mary to John a bit less believable? If he had multitudes of step brothers and step sisters born of Joseph from a previous marriage, as alluded to in the Protoevangelium of James and Gospel of Peter, why would it make any sense for John to take exclusive care of her from that point on?

Remember that many of the objections to the Ossuary had to do with the text of the inscription, not the physical data. The text just didn’t make sense linguistically/alphabetically/whatever.

 

[BrownR]

Remember that many of the objections to the Ossuary had to do with the text of the inscription, not the physical data. The text just didn’t make sense linguistically/alphabetically/whatever.

Precisely, I’ve devoured all of these professional assertions by critical scholars. However, I’ve found almost just as many by even more qualified expert paleographers that purport the inscription to be perfect acceptable, albeit flawed, for first century aramaic. Even Israel’s leading paleographer when called to the witness stand in the current forgery trail, strongly defended the script as being genuine. Furthermore, if Krumbein is correct and microscopic patina is indeed present in the “forged” inscription, it would almost certainly seem to indicate it’s genuine status. He is much more educated and trained than the IAA team that originally analyzed it. Golan’s lawyers have also presented photos from the 70’s showing the same inscription. Why forge it prior to the 70’s and then sit on it for 30+ years for no one to see? He didn’t even know it was anything special until a French contact alerted him to it’s importance. If patina is in the “forgery”, and we assume that it was forged, then it was forged much earlier in history. For what reason? Hopefully with further analysis following the trial, we can deduce additional facts, but I think with the current state of professional opinion and scientific analysis, we have to allow the very strong possibility that the inscription is indeed genuine.

 

[Faith1960]

Precisely, I’ve devoured all of these professional assertions by critical scholars. However, I’ve found almost just as many by even more qualified expert paleographers that purport the inscription to be perfect acceptable, albeit flawed, for first century aramaic. Even Israel’s leading paleographer when called to the witness stand in the current forgery trail, strongly defended the script as being genuine. Furthermore, if Krumbein is correct and microscopic patina is indeed present in the “forged” inscription, it would almost certainly seem to indicate it’s genuine status. He is much more educated and trained than the IAA team that originally analyzed it. Golan’s lawyers have also presented photos from the 70’s showing the same inscription. Why forge it prior to the 70’s and then sit on it for 30+ years for no one to see? He didn’t even know it was anything special until a French contact alerted him to it’s importance. If patina is in the “forgery”, and we assume that it was forged, then it was forged much earlier in history. For what reason? Hopefully with further analysis following the trial, we can deduce additional facts, but I think with the current state of professional opinion and scientific analysis, we have to allow the very strong possibility that the inscription is indeed genuine.

What I’d like to know is IF and when science corroborates these discoveries and/or any future ones, discoveries that contradict what we’ve been taught, will the Church ever admit it or even consider the possibility they were wrong? Or will they insist that regardles of what science shows, science is wrong because it disagrees with what’s been taught for 2000 years?

 

[Ghosty]

Precisely, I’ve devoured all of these professional assertions by critical scholars. However, I’ve found almost just as many by even more qualified expert paleographers that purport the inscription to be perfect acceptable, albeit flawed, for first century aramaic. Even Israel’s leading paleographer when called to the witness stand in the current forgery trail, strongly defended the script as being genuine. Furthermore, if Krumbein is correct and microscopic patina is indeed present in the “forged” inscription, it would almost certainly seem to indicate it’s genuine status. He is much more educated and trained than the IAA team that originally analyzed it. Golan’s lawyers have also presented photos from the 70’s showing the same inscription. Why forge it prior to the 70’s and then sit on it for 30+ years for no one to see? He didn’t even know it was anything special until a French contact alerted him to it’s importance. If patina is in the “forgery”, and we assume that it was forged, then it was forged much earlier in history. For what reason? Hopefully with further analysis following the trial, we can deduce additional facts, but I think with the current state of professional opinion and scientific analysis, we have to allow the very strong possibility that the inscription is indeed genuine.

There would still be the fact that the term “brother” in Aramaic is used for cousins as well, just as it is in many modern languages such as Thai. Even if it IS the “brother” of Jesus Christ, and not some other Jesus (a common name: Joshua), it would just as likely be a cousin and not a brother as we understand the term.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nullasalus]

Also relevant to this discussion:

bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_Krumbeinreport.pdf

Krumbein’s report states that the inscription (due to microbe/etc deposits) must not be recent. On the other hand…

It cannot not be excluded, however, that any person has excavated the ossuary in the late 18th or early 19th Century, used it as a decorative element in a garden or terrace and has added the inscription at that time.

So Krumbein may be arguing that the defendants in the trial may not have forged the inscription, but at the same time it may be more difficult to ascertain whether the inscription dates back as far as originally claimed.

Though as stated by Ghosty, that still doesn’t necessarily lead to the implied conclusions.

 

[metal1633]

What I’m trying to learn is where the facts originate. According to several scholars I’ve heard or read over the past few months, Jesus had four siblings. James Tabor states that Jesus’ siblings were James, Jose, Shimon and Jude.

Not according to the bible. The bible states that Mary wife of Cleophas and sister of the Virgin Mary (Jn 19:25) is the mother of James and Joseph (Mk 15:47; Mt 27:56) who are called the “brothers of Jesus” (Mk 6:3).