James and Other Siblings

[Todd_Easton]

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.

Could you be a little more specific about the prophecies you have in mind? Forgive my ignorance but I was not aware that the Messiah had to be anything other than a son of David, i.e., a descendant of David, of the house of David not necessarily the head of the house of David.

After all, God often favored the younger over the older, such as chosing Jacob over his older brother Esau, chosing David over his seven older brothers, chosing Solomon over his older brother Adonijah.

 

[BrownR]

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!

You are correct in that 1st century aramaic “brother” can technically have the same latitude in meaning that it does for us today in the English language, but the problem with the cousin theory at this point is that the inscription specifically states “son of Joseph”, this reduces the probability of James being a cousin quite dramatically. A James who was a son of a brother or sister of Joseph, also named Joseph? There is no record of this. Furthermore, the most popular use of “brother” was as a blood brother or very close nuclear family unit, possibly a step brother. When we stretch for the cousin explanation, a less likely use of the same word, aren’t we just as guilty of over reaching as the Protestants who stretch for the explanation of sola scriptura in the Greek form of “artios” in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to explain “sufficiency” which would be the 3rd or 4th least likely definition of the word? Yet, we do the same thing here with the explanation of “cousin”, something far more difficult to do if this inscription is in fact real. It makes much more probable sense to infer that James was a step brother or real brother. I wouldn’t think it would be a stretch to view him as a step brother, especially considering that we have two other early Christian works (Protoevangelium of James, and Gospel of Peter) that also speak of Joseph having other children by another wife. However, then we have to explain why Mary was taken care of by John and not one of the remaining family members. Perhaps something educated in early Jewish social structure could shed some light on this.

 

[BrownR]

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…

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.

Krumbein’s words:

“Patina sampled from the surface of the ossuary, far away from the inscription, was found to be identical to the microscopic traces of patina, which I found inside the ossuary inscription and sites sloping from the surface into the inscription grooves (and no indication of any kind was found of any adhesive on this patina). Therefore, we must conclude that the patina formed over the entire ossuary and the remains of patina in the inscription area were formed over the same period of time.”

“The conclusions noted in the reports by Goren, Ayalon and their colleagues, originate from a series of errors, biases, mistaken premises, use of inappropriate methodology, mistaken geochemistry, defective error control, reliance on unconfirmed data, disregard of information (such as the cleaning and preservation actions performed [on the ossuary], and the use of a comparative isotope methodology despite the fact that the [James ossuary] inscription fail to meet the cumulative prerequisite conditions for such tests and comparisons.” Each charge is documented in detail in Krumbein’s report.

“Contrary to Professor Goren’s opinion, marine microfossils, unobservable to the naked eye, are commonly found in the patina on stone artifacts from the Jerusalem region and were found by us on the ossuary also at places far away from the inscription. Not only do they not indicate a forgery, their presence in the patina reinforces the arguments supporting the authenticity of such items…Over 150 years of literature it was established that all kinds of microfossil remains are permanently blown by wind and storm into the atmosphere and deposited on exposed surfaces and even penetrate into caves.”

You are correct that he states at the end that it is within the realm of possibility that the inscription could have been forged, though certainly not recently. However, if you read his full report, it becomes evident that this is certainly not his professional opinion. He seems clear that there is distinctive evidence to corroborate the inscription as being authentic or at the very least, ancient. Then we have the paucity of expert paleographers willing to attest to the inscription being non authentic?

 

[BrownR]

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?

Well, the thing is, the step brother theory is just as technically compatible as the cousin theory and both have been taught by the RCC, albeit the cousin theory has been favored ever since St. Irenaeus pushed it in the 4th century. The RCC though hasn’t ever officially declared one way or the other, so there really wouldn’t be anything to be “wrong” about so to speak. That being said, I think the step brother theory raises additional questions about Mary as I’ve alluded to, but there may be a perfectly logical explanation that I’m simply not aware of because I’m utterly uneducated on Jewish custom for that time period.

 

[BrownR]

As an aside, sometimes I wonder if it was premature of the RCC to infallibly rule on the perpetual virginity of Mary and the assumption. Couldn’t it have remained as a popular tradition in the Church, as it was then, but not necessarily an infallible teaching? I mean, after all, does it really impair the message of Christ and his ministry? In light of today’s science and archeology I wonder if the early Church would still consider it a prudent decision. The inherent danger is that if anything is ever found to contradict these infallible teachings, it will be a devastating blow to the Church. I personally hope and believe that will not happen.

 

[Nullasalus]

You are correct that he states at the end that it is within the realm of possibility that the inscription could have been forged, though certainly not recently. However, if you read his full report, it becomes evident that this is certainly not his professional opinion. He seems clear that there is distinctive evidence to corroborate the inscription as being authentic or at the very least, ancient. Then we have the paucity of expert paleographers willing to attest to the inscription being non authentic?

Mind you, I’m just highlighting part of Krumbein’s testimony. This is out of my league, so I have to go with what the experts are reporting one way or the other.

Though, as you said, this looks complicated at a glance. If James was the son of Joseph, and John was trusted with Mary’s care, does that strengthen the step-brother family tree concept above all? I do not know.

At a glance though, I wouldn’t say the Church was too hasty in their declaration of Mary’s perpetual virginity and assumption - only because no evidence (Unless Cameron’s Jesus Tomb is taken as such) has come to light, archaeological or otherwise, which automatically questions that. The James Ossuary, if real, does call into question a tradition the Church had about Jesus’ family, not necessarily their relation to Mary - unless I’m missing something here.

 

[JimG]

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).

This is quite right. The point it, the same people whom the NT calls “brothers of the Lord” are the same people identified in the NT as having different parents than Jesus!

 

[BrownR]

Mind you, I’m just highlighting part of Krumbein’s testimony. This is out of my league, so I have to go with what the experts are reporting one way or the other.

Though, as you said, this looks complicated at a glance. If James was the son of Joseph, and John was trusted with Mary’s care, does that strengthen the step-brother family tree concept above all? I do not know.

At a glance though, I wouldn’t say the Church was too hasty in their declaration of Mary’s perpetual virginity and assumption - only because no evidence (Unless Cameron’s Jesus Tomb is taken as such) has come to light, archaeological or otherwise, which automatically questions that. The James Ossuary, if real, does call into question a tradition the Church had about Jesus’ family, not necessarily their relation to Mary - unless I’m missing something here.

I’m in complete agreement. I’m glad you mentioned the “Jesus Family Tomb” documentary scheduled to be aired on Discovery channel this week. I just found this email correspondence from Dr. Witherington’s blog and thought I’d add it since it’s related specifically to the James Ossuary. Cameron is claiming that the 10th missing ossuary from the Talpiot tomb was the James ossuary which would bolster their case tremendously. This does not seem to be the case though. Witherington had a correspondence with the archaeologist Joe Zias who originally excavated the tomb. Here’s the email responses from Zias:

Joe Zias To: Subject: Re: Jesus Tomb Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 6:02 AM

“Amos Kloner is right as I received and catalogued the objects, the 10th was plain and I put it out in the courtyard with all the rest of the plain ossuaries as was the standard procedure when one has little storage space available. Nothing was stolen nor missing and they were fully aware of this fact, just didn’t fit in with their agenda.” ShalomJoe

From: Joe Zias To: Ken Sponburg Subject: Re: Jesus Tomb Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 4:31 PM

“There was no photo of the 10th ossuary as there was no reason to photograph it, plain white ossuaries, basically once you have seen one you have seen them all. time is money and it would be a waste of time to waste resources on something which was put out in the courtyard. Remember these are large, and heavy not to forget that Kloner has the measurements. They knows this from me personally. The conspiracy idea fits in well with their agenda of hyping the film as well as his/their book.”
Joe

The latest Cameron Talpiot tomb special has garnered so much international attention (and professional criticism) that Ted Koppel will be hosting a one hour forum and discussion with experts following the broadcast to discuss the data or lack thereof in this case in an unbiased fashion. It should be interesting. I’ve seen some strong arguments against the Talpiot tomb being associated with Jesus, so I expect there to be some harsh criticism. Anyway, slightly off topic but related to the James ossuary nonetheless.

 

[Faith1960]

As an aside, sometimes I wonder if it was premature of the RCC to infallibly rule on the perpetual virginity of Mary and the assumption. Couldn’t it have remained as a popular tradition in the Church, as it was then, but not necessarily an infallible teaching? I mean, after all, does it really impair the message of Christ and his ministry? In light of today’s science and archeology I wonder if the early Church would still consider it a prudent decision. The inherent danger is that if anything is ever found to contradict these infallible teachings, it will be a devastating blow to the Church. I personally hope and believe that will not happen.

Very good post, and I agree completely, and I feel that this James Cameron documentary may do the same thing to the Church. The faithfulest of the faithful may not place any value on what the documentary shows but if what the scholars say makes sense, it will continue to be studied and future generations may start to shun the Church or Chirstianity in general.

 

[Evan]

As an aside, sometimes I wonder if it was premature of the RCC to infallibly rule on the perpetual virginity of Mary and the assumption. Couldn’t it have remained as a popular tradition in the Church, as it was then, but not necessarily an infallible teaching?

The infallible teachings are from God. So the blow would be if science ever proved God wrong. He would hang His head in shame. How embarrassing. I guess we’ll just have to see if God can hold this I am the way, the truth and the life teaching together till the 2nd coming!

 

[Nullasalus]

I’m in complete agreement. I’m glad you mentioned the “Jesus Family Tomb” documentary scheduled to be aired on Discovery channel this week. I just found this email correspondence from Dr. Witherington’s blog and thought I’d add it since it’s related specifically to the James Ossuary. Cameron is claiming that the 10th missing ossuary from the Talpiot tomb was the James ossuary which would bolster their case tremendously. This does not seem to be the case though.

A few more points I’ve seen.

The James ossuary was supposedly photographed and purchased in the 1970s, while the Talpiot tomb was unearthed in 1980. Even Jacobovici himself agreed that if this is true, the James ossuary could not have come from that tomb - he argued that the photo could have been taken in the 1980s, but using old paper. But that doesn’t seem to add up.

I was also reading over the prosecution’s statements in the forgery trial - I’ll have to find which one said it later, but another interpretation of the inscription came up: James, son of Joseph, who was the brother of Jesus. The argument went that even famed brothers went unnamed on ossuaries, but it was a practice to be more specific about the father of the ossuary’s namesake in given situations.

Ah well. Complicated stuff, which I suppose is why there’s professors who devote their lives to it.

 

[Valke2]

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

How is Mary not being a virgin a “downgrade”?

 

[Lazerlike42]

You are correct in that 1st century aramaic “brother” can technically have the same latitude in meaning that it does for us today in the English language, but the problem with the cousin theory at this point is that the inscription specifically states “son of Joseph”, this reduces the probability of James being a cousin quite dramatically. A James who was a son of a brother or sister of Joseph, also named Joseph? There is no record of this. Furthermore, the most popular use of “brother” was as a blood brother or very close nuclear family unit, possibly a step brother. When we stretch for the cousin explanation, a less likely use of the same word, aren’t we just as guilty of over reaching as the Protestants who stretch for the explanation of sola scriptura in the Greek form of “artios” in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to explain “sufficiency” which would be the 3rd or 4th least likely definition of the word? Yet, we do the same thing here with the explanation of “cousin”, something far more difficult to do if this inscription is in fact real. It makes much more probable sense to infer that James was a step brother or real brother. I wouldn’t think it would be a stretch to view him as a step brother, especially considering that we have two other early Christian works (Protoevangelium of James, and Gospel of Peter) that also speak of Joseph having other children by another wife. However, then we have to explain why Mary was taken care of by John and not one of the remaining family members. Perhaps something educated in early Jewish social structure could shed some light on this.

I think one thing that is being forgotten here is that the James’ in the Bible are listed as being the sons of particular men (and women) other than Joseph and Mary. Thus, if this ossuary is real, it would have to be a third James of whom we are not aware. This individual might be a son of Joseph, or might not be. However, Joseph was a fairly common name, so I don’t think it would be too shocking if there were two sons in the same family named Joseph, even if it’s not as likely.

What this ultimately comes down to is a lot of speculation versus an infallible decree. Absolutely nothing that could possibly be discovered with this ossuary could prove that Jesus had siblings - it can only make it seem more likely. That essentially puts it in the realm of whether or not we have faith in the infallibility of the Church. If we do, then a bunch of inconclusive, if interesting, facts on the one hand, and our Church - backed up by, as Luther would say, centuries of martyrs, holy people, and unexplainable miracles - and on the other, and we’d have to choose. For me, it’s not that big a choice.

 

[Valke2]

Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood siblings.

In each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for cousin, and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related half-brothers. It does seem that one has to ignore the common sense use of the word

A second argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary.

There is no Biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

The above comes from gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html

I know the “until” arguments – they’ve been set forth on these boards several times. But it does seem that one has to do some fancy footwork around the plain meaning of the text in order to support the conclusions of Mary’s prepetual virginity and Jesus being an only child.

I was surprised to read that other Christian demoninations (some) believe Jesus had siblings.

 

[Nullasalus]

I know the “until” arguments – they’ve been set forth on these boards several times. But it does seem that one has to do some fancy footwork around the plain meaning of the text in order to support the conclusions of Mary’s prepetual virginity and Jesus being an only child.

I was surprised to read that other Christian demoninations (some) believe Jesus had siblings.

The text argues that the bible gives no hint that Joseph may have had children from a previous marriage, but that doesn’t strike me as entirely true. Jesus gives Mary into John’s care, and Joseph as a whole is mentioned rarely. There’s enough left out of the bible, or curious parts left in, which cloud the issue.

From what I’ve recently read, many protestants believe the brothers were Jesus’ brothers by Mary, the orthodox by a previous marriage, and the Catholics, cousins. The same article bolsters it’s claim with a questionable use of ‘until’ as well, so… to each their own.

 

[BrownR]

A second argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary.

Honestly, the children of Joseph from another marriage is a much more cogent and logical explanation when all the evidence is laid out. This same theory is “validated” in the Protoevangelium of James and insinuated in the Gospel of Peter writings. Protoevangelium of James very clearly says that the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were children born to Joseph from a previous marriage. This explains why Joseph, being very old, was willing to take on a consecrated virgin as his bride. He apparently died before Jesus’ ministry had even begun. We also see Jesus “brothers” taunting him at times which would have been uncommon in Jewish culture for young siblings to taunt the older brother. It makes more sense to taunt the younger brother. A minor point, but a salient one nonetheless. The main problem you run into with a theory of “blood” brothers is in Jesus’ own actions at the cross where he gave Mary to John the apostle. This would clearly go against everything we know of Jewish culture at this time. It was the next oldest son’s duty to take care of the mother. However, this can possibly be explained with the step brother theory of children born to Joseph, but not to Mary. Certainly, the cousin theory works better because it distances any relatives by one or two generations but the step brother/sister theory works also. It might explain why Jesus would give her to John to take care of, because she had no other genetic offspring. Whether non-related offspring of her previous husband would have a duty to take care of her would be a question that a Jewish scholar would have to answer, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this was not an obligation.

Your theory of blood relatives not only fails to explain the actions of Jesus at the cross, but it also is in direct opposition to other Christian works written not long after the earliest gospels. A much harder pill to swallow, so to speak.

Also, Epiphaneus writes that James was martyred at the age of 96, in 62AD. This would make him older than Jesus, and increase the probability of him being an older step brother of Jesus.

 

[Valke2]

The text argues that the bible gives no hint that Joseph may have had children from a previous marriage, but that doesn’t strike me as entirely true. Jesus gives Mary into John’s care, and Joseph as a whole is mentioned rarely. There’s enough left out of the bible, or curious parts left in, which cloud the issue.

Ok, but that seems to support the statement that the bible gives no hint that Joseph may have had children from a previous marriage. Or am I missing someting?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Ok, but that seems to support the statement that the bible gives no hint that Joseph may have had children from a previous marriage. Or am I missing someting?

The Bible doesn’t say very much about Joseph at all, really. It’s more concerned with Jesus. The Bible never says a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t true. The Bible speaks about what it is focused on. If one issue, such as whether Joseph had other children, doesn’t matter much, why would it waste it’s time?

 

[Nullasalus]

Ok, but that seems to support the statement that the bible gives no hint that Joseph may have had children from a previous marriage. Or am I missing someting?

BrownR explains it better above. It depends on what you mean by ‘statement in the bible that hints’.

 

[BrownR]

I think it’s perfectly o.k. for the RCC to be wrong about some of these non “infallible” teachings, so we shouldn’t be afraid of exploring them. After all, it hasn’t been that long since the Galileo debacle, and the Church was very wrong about that. Thank God there was no push for an infallible geocentric theory!