Take my answer with a grain of salt since I don’t have the words in front of me now, but the original words used was basically “kin.” The word brother that we’re reading in English expanded to also mean cousins, uncles, etc. There was a word that specifically meant brother, but this was not the word used.
It occurs just once, in Col. 4:10, Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ. In Ronald Knox’s translation (link), “kinsman.”
In most areas of the earth today, those of your tribe, town or even country (if abroad) are still called brother or sister. Once again, the error of the “reformation” rears its ugly head.
I agree. It is more accurate to say that Matthew, which was originally written in Aramaic/Hebrew, does not have this word.
THis is an Hebraism that does not bear any impact upon what happens after.
This is a common interpretation among those who are lacking the Teachings of the Apostles that are not contained in the NT.
Only for those who have been overtaken by the heresy of Sola Scriptura. For those who have received the faith from the Apostles, it is known that the NT reflects the faith they taught, but is not the Source of it.
Yes. Just as the notion that Mary had other children besides Jesus is speculation. A speculation that is a departure from what we have received from the Apostles.
You may be unaware of the relationships here.
I think it would be odd. It would practically go without saying that John would be expected to take care of Our Lady if he and Jesus were brothers.
It would also require that one justify how it is that the Scriptures refer to James and John as the sons of another man (not Joseph)
Didn’t their mother also ask Jesus to sit them both at His left and right hand? So, Joseph’s ex-wife asks Jesus to set His own brothers at His left and right hand?
Get a better bible and better instruction in Greek!
Not even the radical, Church-hating reformers entertained such a non-biblcal idea. They cautioned against it early on, as bible alone was already producing confusion. It has only gotten worse. The utter and complete disaster of bible alone makes truth subject to opinion and dictionary definitions.
Your argument is a losing proposition. Luther calls you wrong. Calvin calls you wrong. Zwingli calls you wrong. You seem to be trying to reverse engineer truth and Christian history by arguing words and parsing sentences!
In the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) the word ἀνεψιὸς (cousin) appears just three times, once in Numbers and twice in Tobit. In Numbers 36:11 it translates the Hebrew ben dod, “uncle’s son”. I don’t know what the corresponding Hebrew term is in Tobit. The Hebrew original of Tobit is known only in fragments discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls, and there doesn’t seem to be an easy way to look at the fragments online.
I’ve seen that defined as ‘nephew’ / ‘niece’ – that is, properly speaking, the child of one’s sibling.Dan_Defender:
It occurs just once, in Col. 4:10, Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ. In Ronald Knox’s translation (link), “kinsman.”
HOLY BIBLE: Colossians 4
That would depend on your understanding of the meaning of the word in Greek for “until”, wouldn’t it?
And the Church makes several such arguments. First, it points out that ‘heos’ (translated as ‘until’) is used in other Scriptural contexts in ways that – while not providing an explicit description, just as there’s no explicit description in the Gospel text – demonstrate that ‘until’ only speaks to a situation “up to a certain point”, without pointing to what happens later.
How else would you explain a good, solid, observant Jewish family… who otherwise would be in serious disobedience to the Mosaic prescription to care for one’s mother who is a widow? I mean, very literally, you’re making the case that Mary’s sons left her in the cold to fend for herself!!!
This commentary comes from the Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible (available online):