James "brother" of Jesus?

[elvisman]

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.

**Do you see how much stretching you have to do to come to the Protestant notion that Mary had other children? **I think these are the times that we enter into the realm of spiritual pride.

**When you look at Scripture, compare the symbolisms of the Old Testament as well as the New regarding Mary, coupled with the beliefs and traditions of the Church Fathers and STILL refuse to understand - THAT, my friend, is stubbornness. **

May God open your mind to the possibility that you have been shown the truth - over and over agin on this thread.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This passage agrees with me! Randy, they wrote what God wanted, not because of force of habit.

No. The Catechism teaches that although the Holy Spirit inspired them, they were free to choose the words and the expressions they wrote. They were true authors employing their own faculties and powers.

Therefore, they were able to use those phrases and expressions that they were accustomed to using. Since they thought of more distant relatives as “brothers” - because their first language, Aramaic, did not have a word for “cousin” - they were free to use that expression out of habit rather than being shoe-horned into checking everything against their Aramaic-Greek dictionary.

They could write “brothers” when they meant “cousins” if they wanted to!

Consequently, and this is where this discussion began, when the New Testament speaks of the “brothers” of Jesus, it does not mean literal uterine brothers.

Mary was a virgin her entire life.

And with that, we come full circle…

Just curious, what does the citation mean? dv 11?

DV is the abbreviation for Dei Verbum (Word of God) - an important Church document. Eleventh paragraph, of course.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Pax]

BrianH,

There is not a single passage of scripture that refers to anyone other than Jesus as the son or daughter of Mary the wife of Joseph. Can you explain this based on your beliefs and scripture?

 

[mark_a]

It is extremely important to Catholic and Orthodox teaching that Mary is a perpetual virgin.

Why is it so important to others that she was not?

By the way, I know a guy from Camaroon, still very tribal in some areas, who calls his cousins “brothers” and “sisters” and his nieces and nephews his “sons” and “daughters”.

 

[BrianH]

DV is the abbreviation for Dei Verbum (Word of God) - an important Church document. Eleventh paragraph, of course.

Second Vatican Council…so it would not be considered infallible? I thought it seemed modern. I know the Catechism is not infallible but I also know parts of it are.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Because the Catholic Church, having been given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and promulgate the Sacred teachings, has a responsibility to speak out when error is being taught. It has been part of that Sacred Apostolic Tradition, handed down to us for 2000 years, that the Virgin was perpetually so, and that Jesus was an only child.

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.

Purporting error does matter, SyCarl. The sacred writings were never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition from which they emerged. The living tradition is what guaranteed that they would be interpreted correctly. We have this teaching from the Apostles, and that is why we understand what few references that are made in the writings in this way.

 

[Michael_Howard]

Because the Catholic Church, having been given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and promulgate the Sacred teachings, has a responsibility to speak out when error is being taught. It has been part of that Sacred Apostolic Tradition, handed down to us for 2000 years, that the Virgin was perpetually so, and that Jesus was an only child.

Amen! And what I find amusing is 90% of the time it’s the Prots who seek us out trying to belittle our faith and then cry when they get bit back. Well here’s news for you, that’s what this forum is about, defending the fullness of truth found only in the Catholic Church, if that stings there are plenty of Protestant forums for you to hang around in and badmouth the Catholic Church:thumbsup:

 

[guanophore]

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.

You have it backwards, SyCarl. The 'normal" meaning is the doctrine that was handed down from the Apostles. It is finding reasons to make the current understanding of siblings fit that is preposterous. We are from a different millennia, and different culture, and it behooves us to receive the instructions of those who were closer to the events.

 

[SyCarl]

Amen! And what I find amusing is 90% of the time it’s the Prots who seek us out trying to belittle our faith and then cry when they get bit back. Well here’s news for you, that’s what this forum is about, defending the fullness of truth found only in the Catholic Church, if that stings there are plenty of Protestant forums for you to hang around in and badmouth the Catholic Church:thumbsup:

I hope I am not seen as badmouthing the Cathoilc Church. That has never been my intent. I find that vigorous discussion here helps me understand Catholics better as well as delving into my own beliefs. If anyone feels that I am being disrespectful, I apologize sincerely as it was never my intent to be so.

 

[Michael_Howard]

I hope I am not seen as badmouthing the Cathoilc Church. That has never been my intent. I find that vigorous discussion here helps me understand Catholics better as well as delving into my own beliefs. If anyone feels that I am being disrespectful, I apologize sincerely as it was never my intent to be so.

I truely appreciate this, a very humble comment, in light of what you have said I believe I came off a bit uncharitable which is not my intention. God bless.

 

[elvisman]

I hope I am not seen as badmouthing the Cathoilc Church. That has never been my intent. I find that vigorous discussion here helps me understand Catholics better as well as delving into my own beliefs. If anyone feels that I am being disrespectful, I apologize sincerely as it was never my intent to be so.

May I echo your sentiment?
I guess we all get a bit “hot-under-the-collar” from time to time - especially, yours truly.
God bless!

 

[Tom]

The original Old Testament books were in Hebrew, not Greek. If you are referring to the Septuagint, that was a translation into Greek. It was not the original language as it was in the New Testament. It is the writing in the original language that was inspired.

When the Septuagint was translated into Greek, why did they not translate Lot as Abrams nephew? they chose “Brother” even though there is a Greek word for nephew. They followed the original language, which uses the word for kinsman.

 

[NotWorthy]

When the Septuagint was translated into Greek, why did they not translate Lot as Abrams nephew? they chose “Brother” even though there is a Greek word for nephew. They followed the original language, which uses the word for kinsman.

They probably used the literalist translation, rather than the literal translation. I believe most of the KJV’s still list him as Lot’s brother.

I think Laban calls himself Jacob’s brother, even though he would be his uncle (and a far better trickster than Jacob - ask him for a Sheep, and he’ll give you a Cow!!!).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I was just thinking about what BrianH said regarding leaving the Blessed Virgin with “nephews” if there were no sons…well, from what I can tell, there is no evidence there were nephews:25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. -Jn 19
It is highly unlikely that Virgin Mary had a literal sister Mary (right here we see “sister” is not literal), thus Mary Clopas (mother of James and Joses) was at least a COUSIN…THUS James and Joses would NOT have been direct nephews, but at least distant relatives (a nephew requires MClopas to be BVM’s sister). This is a sufficient gap to say there were no literal brothers or nephews and thus She was entrusted to John.

Also, to bring up a point made earlier by Mike,26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” **From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. -Jn19
**A simple reading of this would suggest She lived out the rest of Her life in the care of John, not that this was temporary…not that She was “returned” to Her children or nephews when they became believers (not to mention there is no evidence who became believers). If someone wants to argue that She was returned you would have to take into account the fact we know Mary was with all the post Resurrection believers in the Apostles and women at the cross and brethren in Acts 1. This would be the perfect time to return Her. If in fact She was reunited that means John would have had to compose his Gospel within 50 days of the Resurrection (ie before Pentecost, Acts 2) or else he lied when he said “from that time on” because 40 days after the cross She did NOT stay with him.

But is there evidence this Gospel was written that early? I would imagine they would have mentioned it in the Bible somewhere if it existed.
It is clear St John was running around for a while in early Acts, so I would bet he didnt compose this Gospel until he was settled down later in life when he was more mature. (Luke clearly didnt write Acts until about 20 years after the Resurrection)

 

[guanophore]

I was just thinking about what BrianH said regarding leaving the Blessed Virgin with “nephews” if there were no sons…well, from what I can tell, there is no evidence there were nephews:25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. -Jn 19
It is highly unlikely that Virgin Mary had a literal sister Mary (right here we see “sister” is not literal), thus Mary Clopas (mother of James and Joses) was at least a COUSIN…THUS James and Joses would NOT have been direct nephews, but at least distant relatives (a nephew requires MClopas to be BVM’s sister). This is a sufficient gap to say there were no literal brothers or nephews and thus She was entrusted to John.

It also does not make any sense to name two girls in the same family “Mary”. But Mary the mother of James and Joses may have been the sister of Joseph, the husband of Mary (sister in law).

Also, to bring up a point made earlier by Mike,26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” **From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. -Jn19
**A simple reading of this would suggest She lived out the rest of Her life in the care of John, not that this was temporary…not that She was “returned” to Her children or nephews when they became believers (not to mention there is no evidence who became believers). If someone wants to argue that She was returned you would have to take into account the fact we know Mary was with all the post Resurrection believers in the Apostles and women at the cross and brethren in Acts 1. This would be the perfect time to return Her. If in fact She was reunited that means John would have had to compose his Gospel within 50 days of the Resurrection (ie before Pentecost, Acts 2) or else he lied when he said “from that time on” because 40 days after the cross She did NOT stay with him.

And the early Traditions tell us that Mary was living with John in Ephesus. I don’t doubt that all the Apostles were ashamed of themselves for abandoning her at the foot of the cross, and probably asked her forgiveness with tears. She forgave them, of course. They also most likely became very protective of her, having seen what happened to her Son, they did not want any harm to come to her, and probably kept her hidden as much as they could so as not to draw any deadly attention to her.

But is there evidence this Gospel was written that early? I would imagine they would have mentioned it in the Bible somewhere if it existed.
It is clear St John was running around for a while in early Acts, so I would bet he didnt compose this Gospel until he was settled down later in life when he was more mature. (Luke clearly didnt write Acts until about 20 years after the Resurrection)

I think Luke also spent much time with Mary, possibly in Ephesus even before he met Paul. I think that is why his gospel has the early infancy stories in so much detail that the others do not.

 

[BrianH]

=Catholic Dude;2361804]I was just thinking about what BrianH said regarding leaving the Blessed Virgin with “nephews” if there were no sons…well, from what I can tell, there is no evidence there were nephews:25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. -Jn 19
It is highly unlikely that Virgin Mary had a literal sister Mary (right here we see “sister” is not literal), thus Mary Clopas (mother of James and Joses) was at least a COUSIN…THUS James and Joses would NOT have been direct nephews, but at least distant relatives (a nephew requires MClopas to be BVM’s sister). This is a sufficient gap to say there were no literal brothers or nephews and thus She was entrusted to John.

A couple of questions:

1. Why did Mary travel with these men who were her distant relatives?
2. Why did the crowd decide to shout out the names of Christ’s distant relatives and omit the names of their older male relatives?

 

[guanophore]

A couple of questions:

1. Why did Mary travel with these men who were her distant relatives?
2. Why did the crowd decide to shout out the names of Christ’s distant relatives and omit the names of their older male relatives?

19 Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. 20 And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.”
Luke 8:19-20

At the time women did not travel alone. they always were accompanied by a male relative, or a guardian.

Nazareth was a small town, and most people knew one another. Mary travelled with her Son, and HIs Apostles most of the time. It is not clear why, on this occasion, she is “outside” instead of inside.

I am not sure what you mean about not mentioning “older” relatives. Do you think there were still older living relatives?
It is clear that the people of Nazareth took offense at Him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I was reading one of John Martignoni’s e-letters and he pointed out Gal 1:19 which I thought was pretty cool so I decided to post it here. Here is Gal 1:19,17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19**I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.**So does this mean the apostle James was literally the blood brother of Jesus?

Lets check some other Scripture and see, Mark 3:16These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder); 18Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas,** James son of Alphaeus**, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.Did you catch that? There were two apostles named James, but neither of them had a father named Joseph.

That need not follow from what’s been said & quoted - because:​

• “brother” could denote more than one type of relationship
  &
• that being so, neither of the uses of the word positively excludes full uterine brotherhood between Jesus & one of the Jameses.

• for the other uses of the word “brother” in the gospels may - for all we know - be as general as the use of the word “brother” is said to be as a descriptor of the “brothers of Jesus”.

In plain English: if X is not really the brother of Jesus - why must X be the full-brother of John, or of Jude ? And how could we know ? The reasoning works both ways - if “brother” is perhaps being used strictly or generally in one case, then the possibility that it is being used equally strictly or generally in others, can’t be ruled out.

As it stands, the texts give no certainty - some of them seem to be most naturally understood as denoting full uterine brotherhood of Jesus, some seem to be more naturally understood as denoting a more distant relation, still others, as denoting a purely spiritual relation. And some, may or may not be compatible with the idea that Jesus was a brother of one of His disciples (an idea which was applied to Thomas, “the Twin”, who was sometimes Identified with Jude).

This uncertainty may account for the absence of the verse from the data base

Thus it is clear that the term “brother” is not necessarily a literal blood brother, but such a relation can, and in this case did, extend to cousins as it is clear from Gal 1:19.

I encourage you to sign up for his bi-weekly apologetics newsletter in your email, it’s free:
biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter

Funny thing is I didnt see this verse in the Catholic.com database.

 

[BrianH]

19 Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. 20 And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.”
Luke 8:19-20

At the time women did not travel alone. they always were accompanied by a male relative, or a guardian.

Nazareth was a small town, and most people knew one another. Mary travelled with her Son, and HIs Apostles most of the time. It is not clear why, on this occasion, she is “outside” instead of inside.

I am not sure what you mean about not mentioning “older” relatives. Do you think there were still older living relatives?
It is clear that the people of Nazareth took offense at Him.

The second question refers to Matthew and Mark where the crowd is recorded shouting the names of the four men WE believe are his brothers. If Catholic Dude’s hypothesis is correct, and I have yet to encounter a Catholic apologist that did not say they were step-brothers or direct cousins as Catholic Dude appears to be contending, why would the crowd yell out the names of second cousins and not the older male fathers of these men? I hope that clarifies the question.
Also, while on the topic, please clarify and support your contention they travelled together “most of the time” with Mary. John 2 seems to indicate she was already there, outside of the birth and death narratives, I am very curious about your contention.
Thanks
Brian

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That need not follow from what’s been said & quoted - because:​

• “brother” could denote more than one type of relationship
  &
• that being so, neither of the uses of the word positively excludes full uterine brotherhood between Jesus & one of the Jameses.

• for the other uses of the word “brother” in the gospels may - for all we know - be as general as the use of the word “brother” is said to be as a descriptor of the “brothers of Jesus”.

In plain English: if X is not really the brother of Jesus - why must X be the full-brother of John, or of Jude ? And how could we know ? The reasoning works both ways - if “brother” is perhaps being used strictly or generally in one case, then the possibility that it is being used equally strictly or generally in others, can’t be ruled out.

As it stands, the texts give no certainty - some of them seem to be most naturally understood as denoting full uterine brotherhood of Jesus, some seem to be more naturally understood as denoting a more distant relation, still others, as denoting a purely spiritual relation. And some, may or may not be compatible with the idea that Jesus was a brother of one of His disciples (an idea which was applied to Thomas, “the Twin”, who was sometimes Identified with Jude).

This uncertainty may account for the absence of the verse from the data base

Regarding your point about how do we know when “brother” is used to mean uterine brother…the ONLY solid basis you can work from is when two men are explicitly said to be of a given parent, eg “Mary mother of James and Joses” “James and John sons of Zebedee”, etc. Other than that you cant make a definitive case…even Peter and Andrew could be argued that they werent uterine brothers given that some lists of Apostles put Andrew fourth (after James and John) on the list (eg Mk 3:17-18; Mk 13:3; Acts 1:13).