James "brother" of Jesus?

[guanophore]

Because John tells us in Chapter 7 that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him.

If that was true, then what are they doing in the upper room, waiting for the Holy Spirit that was promised?

Acts 1:14
14 All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

 

[SyCarl]

Not so fast, there, Sy!!

Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome.

Matt. 27:55-56
***There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. ***
Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

According to Jewish tradition, it is not proper to have 2 children of the same name. In fact MOST children are named after a relative who passed before them. WHY, then, would Scripture call Mary, wife of Clopas, Mary’s (Jesus’ mother) sister. Most scholars agree that she was probably a COUSIN or other relative. This would make the possibility of Jams being the COUSIN or other relative of Jesus much more possible.

**As for Jesus **handing his mother over to John’s care – it would be SCANDALOUS and a greatly disrespectful for him to do this, if he had other uterine brothers.
Jesus, being God, would have known that his so-called “brothers” would turn from their disbelief and ultimately follow him and would not have had reason to shame and disrespect them in this way.

In John 6:64, he KNEW who would turn away from him:
But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.

One, it is not universally accepted that Mary’s sister refers to Mary, the wife of Clopas. Mark just says there was a group of women which included the named ones. For example the Syriac, Ethiopian and Persian, which are all ancient versions show that there were two women, Mary’s sister and the wife of Clopas.
Two, James and Joses (Joseph) were also common names and it is entire plausible that there was more than one set of brothers by that name. This would be similar to the supposed family tomb of Jesus which was recently found.
Three, it would note account for Simon and Judas, who are also named as brothers or the reference to his sisters.
Four, it would not explain why Paul referred to the James he met in Galatians as the Lord’s brother.

 

[SyCarl]

So, again, if you’re not a Catholic, what’s it to you? It’s not required for YOU to believe.

Perhaps you should less worried about what Catholics think than you should about some of the weird things your fellow Protestants are in to --like dispensationalism and the Word Faith nonsense.

I mean, seriously, what’s it to you?

It does not particulartly matter to me, except that the original poster seemed, at least implicitly, to be crowing that he was establishing something contrary to what Protestants believe. As well I get sick and tired of hearing the same story that Protestants don’t have the full truth because we don’t necessarily believe things like this. Catholic get upset, and rightly so, when they are called the Whore of Babylon or when their beliefs are misunderstood or challenged. Similarly Protestants can object to being told we do not have the same fullness that Catholics have because we don’t have Sacred Tradition or the teaching authority of the Church. We believe that we do, and to reverse the question, why should it matter to you what we believe?

 

[SyCarl]

If that was true, then what are they doing in the upper room, waiting for the Holy Spirit that was promised?

Acts 1:14
14 All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

There were a lot of people who came to believe only after the resurrection. Jesus would also know that John would live to a ripe old age and be able to look after His mother. Many of his disciples and followers would not live that long.

 

[VociMike]

There were a lot of people who came to believe only after the resurrection. Jesus would also know that John would live to a ripe old age and be able to look after His mother. Many of his disciples and followers would not live that long.

I wish you could comprehend how preposterous your speculations are. Jesus ripped his own mother from the comfort of her remaining family, at a time of great suffering and loss, and even though they would become believers only days or weeks later (BTW, you have most definitely not shown that they weren’t already believers on the day of his death), because they weren’t believers at that moment. That explanation contains within itself everything that is wrong with sola Scriptura.

BTW, show me where the early Christians ever separated mothers from their unbelieving children. If Jesus did it then they would have followed his example, right? Show me where they ever did it. And show me where Christians today do it. Show me a Christian group today that separates mothers from their unbelieving children just like you claim Jesus did. Show me any evidence that Christians of any era did what you claim that Jesus did.

And has for your other speculation that it was because John lived to an old age, well hey, she could have gone to live with him after her biological children died, right? She didn’t have to be ripped from her family for all those years while they were alive!

 

[Randy_Carson]

It doesn’t really matter if there is or not because, except for Matthew and possibly Hebrews, the New Testament was written in Greek. As such the writers had the choice of using brothers or cousins and they were quided to the word brother by the Holy Spirit in their inspired writings.

It matters.

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use* adelphos* in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

catholic.com/library/brethren_of_the_lord.asp

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Let me start by saying I agree, James was not the “blood” brother of Jesus. The problem arises when we consider the fact that when Paul meets with James it is nine years after the resurrection, Saul didn’t convert until six years after the resurrection and then waited an additional three years. As Paul was not an original Apostle (he was still called an Apostle), it would be entirely possible for this James, brother or not, to have become an Apostle sometime after the resurrection, although, like Paul not one of the original twelve.

Acts mentions only TWO men named James, James son of Zebedee was killed, thus it was James son of Alphaeus who rose to lead the local Jerusalem church. This is who Paul is referring to in Gal 1:19. There is evidence for this, while there is no evidence some “third” James came along.

…
…
From here, the teaching that James is to be identified as an unbelieving brother of Jesus, who, after repenting (this being nowhere found in scriptures) became not only an apostle, but, one of the three pillars, must have been due to a great act of conversion on the part of James. However, scriptural proof of this can nowhere be found. It would have been much more appropriate for the apostles in having chosen one of the twelve as a replacement.

Exactly what I was hoping someone would bring up. The fact is there are only two apostles named James in Scripture, thus it was one of them, in fact it was James son of Aphaeus (and thus actually a cousin, not literal brother).

Correct. These two were James the Greater, who was the son of Zebedee and the brother of John; and James the Less, who was the son of Alphaeus and the brother of Matthew.

However, there is a third James in Scripture, James the Righteous; and this is the James who is called “the Lord’s brother” in Galatians 1:19. He was also the bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-18) and probably the author of the Epistle of James.

No, there is no evidence a “third” James exists. There were only two apostles ever named James, Acts mentions only two, one was killed, thus the son of Alphaeus was “James the righteous”.

Not so fast, there, Sy!!

Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome.

Matt. 27:55-56
There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him.
Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother [Mary], and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

According to Jewish tradition, it is not proper to have 2 children of the same name. In fact MOST children are named after a relative who passed before them. WHY, then, would Scripture call Mary, wife of Clopas, Mary’s (Jesus’ mother) sister. Most scholars agree that she was probably a COUSIN or other relative. This would make the possibility of Jams being the COUSIN or other relative of Jesus much more possible.

**As for Jesus **handing his mother over to John’s care – it would be SCANDALOUS and a greatly disrespectful for him to do this, if he had other uterine brothers.
Jesus, being God, would have known that his so-called “brothers” would turn from their disbelief and ultimately follow him and would not have had reason to shame and disrespect them in this way.

I was hoping someone would bring this up as well.
It is worth noting that whenever Protestants cite the usual “brother” passages they ignore the “women at the foot of the cross” passages which provide important information. First of all, we see “James and Joses (Joseph, same word in greek)” who are PREVIOUSLY mentioned as “brothers” yet at the foot of the cross it says it is ANOTHER Mary who is their mother. It is worth noting that ONLY Matt and Mark mention “brothers”…YET BOTH ALSO mention “Mary mother of James and Joses” at the foot of the cross.

 

[Randy_Carson]

However, Genesis clearly tells us the relationship of Lot to Abram, so we know the word brother here does not mean blood brother. This is not the case for the New Testament references.

Your argument backfires against you.

You’re right - the word “brother” does not mean “blood brother”.

It is precisely because of the clarity of Genesis that we can know with certainty that the Jews used the word “brother” for those who were in fact “cousins” or more distant relations.

You made an excellent connection for which we thank you. :tiphat:

 

[SyCarl]

I wish you could comprehend how preposterous your speculations are. Jesus ripped his own mother from the comfort of her remaining family, at a time of great suffering and loss, and even though they would become believers only days or weeks later (BTW, you have most definitely not shown that they weren’t already believers on the day of his death), because they weren’t believers at that moment. That explanation contains within itself everything that is wrong with sola Scriptura.

BTW, show me where the early Christians ever separated mothers from their unbelieving children. If Jesus did it then they would have followed his example, right? Show me where they ever did it. And show me where Christians today do it. Show me a Christian group today that separates mothers from their unbelieving children just like you claim Jesus did. Show me any evidence that Christians of any era did what you claim that Jesus did.

And has for your other speculation that it was because John lived to an old age, well hey, she could have gone to live with him after her biological children died, right? She didn’t have to be ripped from her family for all those years while they were alive!

I do not believe my position is any more preposterous than finding reasons to give brothers and sisters something other than their normal meaning to fit your doctrine.

As for separating a parents and child, I believe it was Pope Pius IX who ripped a child from his unbelieving parents because a servant had baptized him without the parents knowledge. I forget the child’s name at the moment. It would be similar to separating an unbelieving child from a believing mother, don’t you think?

 

[BrianH]

I wish you could comprehend how preposterous your speculations are. Jesus ripped

his own mother from the comfort of her remaining family, at a time of great suffering and loss, and even though they would become believers only days or weeks later

But Jesus DID take her away from her family according to your logic, unless you are contending that James, Joses, Simeon, and Jude were not her family?

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

 

[SyCarl]

Acts mentions only TWO men named James, James son of Zebedee was killed, thus it was James son of Alphaeus who rose to lead the local Jerusalem church. This is who Paul is referring to in Gal 1:19. There is evidence for this, while there is no evidence some “third” James came along.

Exactly what I was hoping someone would bring up. The fact is there are only two apostles named James in Scripture, thus it was one of them, in fact it was James son of Aphaeus (and thus actually a cousin, not literal brother).

No, there is no evidence a “third” James exists. There were only two apostles ever named James, Acts mentions only two, one was killed, thus the son of Alphaeus was “James the righteous”.

I was hoping someone would bring this up as well.
It is worth noting that whenever Protestants cite the usual “brother” passages they ignore the “women at the foot of the cross” passages which provide important information. First of all, we see “James and Joses (Joseph, same word in greek)” who are PREVIOUSLY mentioned as “brothers” yet at the foot of the cross it says it is ANOTHER Mary who is their mother. It is worth noting that ONLY Matt and Mark mention “brothers”…YET BOTH ALSO mention “Mary mother of James and Joses” at the foot of the cross.

Matthew and Mark mention them by name. Of course so does Paul in Galatians, James, the Lord’s brother. Luke also incldes the incident with Mary and Jesus’ brothers coming to get him while he is teaching. John mentions brother in Chapter 2 and 7 and they are in the upper room in Acts.

 

[BrianH]

Acts mentions only TWO men named James, James son of Zebedee was killed, thus it was James son of Alphaeus who rose to lead the local Jerusalem church. This is who Paul is referring to in Gal 1:19. There is evidence for this, while there is no evidence some “third” James came along.

He was there all along. Just not a believer, yet

Exactly what I was hoping someone would bring up. The fact is there are only two apostles named James in Scripture, thus it was one of them, in fact it was James son of Aphaeus (and thus actually a cousin, not literal brother).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because John tells us in Chapter 7 that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him.

But as Jews they would have had an obligation to care for their mother under the law.

By the way, is it customary in eastern culture for younger brothers to show disrespect to the eldest son? :nope:

Sorry. That dog don’t hunt. :tiphat:

 

[BrianH]

But as Jews they would have had an obligation to care for their mother under the law.

By the way, is it customary in eastern culture for younger brothers to show disrespect to the eldest son? :nope:

Sorry. That dog don’t hunt. :tiphat:

So you are contending that Jewish law has a complete stranger take care of the mother of a deceased man instead of her step-children OR nephews? Please reference such a custom.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Matthew and Mark mention them by name. Of course so does Paul in Galatians, James, the Lord’s brother. Luke also incldes the incident with Mary and Jesus’ brothers coming to get him while he is teaching. John mentions brother in Chapter 2 and 7 and they are in the upper room in Acts.

But you are brushing off the evidence that “brother” ( and also “sister”) does not always mean a literal blood brother relationship. In fact, the evidence in this case says they were not literal blood brothers, as there were ONLY two apostles ever called James in Scripture.

 

[Randy_Carson]

One, it is not universally accepted that Mary’s sister refers to Mary, the wife of Clopas. Mark just says there was a group of women which included the named ones. For example the Syriac, Ethiopian and Persian, which are all ancient versions show that there were two women, Mary’s sister and the wife of Clopas.
Two, James and Joses (Joseph) were also common names and it is entire plausible that there was more than one set of brothers by that name. This would be similar to the supposed family tomb of Jesus which was recently found.
Three, it would note account for Simon and Judas, who are also named as brothers or the reference to his sisters.
Four, it would not explain why Paul referred to the James he met in Galatians as the Lord’s brother.

Let’s examine the strength of your argument.

1. “It is not univerally accepted…”. Well, no, a few people doubt so it is not “unanimous” - but this view is held by the majority of Christians from the earliest days.
2. “It is entirely plausible…”. Will you let us Catholics off so easily when we argue for the Assumption of Mary if we simply say, “It is entirely plausible…”? I didn’t think you would.
3. I’ll account for Judas momentarily. However, after demonstrating that James, Joses and Judas are not uterine brothers of the Lord (as well as how and why the term “brothers” is used to mean relatives OTHER THAN uterine brothers, I think it is reasonable to conclude that your argument lacks credibility.

Due to the length of this post, I’ll continue in the next…

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)

2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)

4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

**9. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary. **

 

[Randy_Carson]

It does not particulartly matter to me, except that the original poster seemed, at least implicitly, to be crowing that he was establishing something contrary to what Protestants believe. As well I get sick and tired of hearing the same story that Protestants don’t have the full truth because we don’t necessarily believe things like this. Catholic get upset, and rightly so, when they are called the Whore of Babylon or when their beliefs are misunderstood or challenged. Similarly Protestants can object to being told we do not have the same fullness that Catholics have because we don’t have Sacred Tradition or the teaching authority of the Church. We believe that we do, and to reverse the question, why should it matter to you what we believe?

The Great Commission, remember?

 

[BrianH]

I love this! Catholic apologists use Christ giving his mother’s care to a stranger as proof he did not have brothers but completely ignore he did not give her care to her brother-in-law or her male nephews or step-children?

 

[Randy_Carson]

There were a lot of people who came to believe only after the resurrection. Jesus would also know that John would live to a ripe old age and be able to look after His mother. Many of his disciples and followers would not live that long.

So, how does this issue of longevity affect his younger brothers and sisters? Surely they would have outlived their Mother?

Funny, we hear about how the entire Romanov family was killed during the Russian revolution, but there is not a word in Scripture or history about how the family of Jesus, the Son of God, died. No tombs. No relics. No stories handed down.

The silence is weird, isn’t it?