Jesus’s Brothers

[TMC]

I would also point out that by this time positions on all sides have perhaps become so entrenched that NO document would be universally accepted as conclusively resolving this or many other disputes, regardless of whether they would have done so in a less contentious time.

True enough.

 

[knightfall]

Public Revelation i.e. everything in the Deposit of Faith began with Adam and ended with the death of St. John, the last Apostle.

I accept that.

Are you implying that the Biblical canon is NOT closed?

Not at all. I believe it is closed, because the Church which officially and authoritatively recognized the canon of scripture has defined it as closed (Council of Florence, then Trent?). I was just curious how you came to that definite statement using the Bible only. Thank you for your explanation.

Peace and God bless.

 

[Hodos]

The Greek word in the Bible referring to Jesus’ brothers translates closer to a close friend who is viewed as basically a brother. Not actual genetic brotherhood but a close bond of that nature

No it doesn’t. It means brother. It can be used in the sense of a close friend or brother in Christ, but the normative use of this term throughout both old and new testament is in fact familial brotherhood. The correct selection of the breadth of grammatical use should be dictated by the context of the passage from which the term is being applied.

 

[BartholomewB]

So why not all agree that there are different viewpoints and interpretations? (Which I think is at least part of what @BartholomewB is saying.)

Thank you, @TMC. That is exactly the message I was trying to convey. There are at least three or four different interpretations of “the brethren of the Lord” in circulation, all of them supported by a certain amount of documentary evidence. We need to sift through the evidence and examine it. All the evidence, without cherrypicking.

 

[BartholomewB]

I would also point out that by this time positions on all sides have perhaps become so entrenched that NO document would be universally accepted as conclusively resolving this or many other disputes,

A|ll the more reason to keep a cool head and examine each document as objectively and dispassionately as we can.

 

[C.Longinus]

My belief is that Joseph married a wife in his teens who was not mentioned in Scripture. After 12-16 years with said wife and four sons and two daughters, (he might’ve had some twins), said wife dies giving birth to last kid. And you know the rest…

 

[Margaret_Ann]

The Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady is a dogma of the Faith. Our Lord gave His Ever-Virgin Mother into the care of St. John - who was a virgin - at the foot of the Cross:

When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. [27] After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

If He had any step-siblings (forgive me, dear Lord!) then He broke the Law by giving Her into the care of St. John, who was one of the sons of Zebedee and not a relative. Under Jewish law, a son had to arrange for the nearest of kin to provide for his mother not a stranger - unless the son was an only child. Then he could give her into the care of someone he trusted.

Obviously, Our Lord was an only Child, since Our Lady was, is and always will be His Ever-Virgin Mother.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[babochka]

If He had any step-siblings (forgive me, dear Lord!) then He broke the Law by giving Her into the care of St. John, who was one of the sons of Zebedee and not a relative. Under Jewish law, a son had to arrange for the nearest of kin to provide for his mother not a stranger - unless the son was an only child. Then he could give her into the care of someone he trusted.

Obviously, Our Lord was an only Child, since Our Lady was, is and always will be His Ever-Virgin Mother.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I am surprised to hear you come out so strongly against the Eastern tradition, to the point of thinking you require forgiveness for even entertaining the tradition that is held by your own Ukrainian Church.

I am not saying that either idea is right or wrong. I think it is an interesting discussion and I’m open in either direction, as long as the dogma of the Perrpetual Virginity of Mary is upheld. I don’t understand why the idea of Jesus having had step brothers is so abhorrent to you.

I am also not entirely sure that we have such a clear picture of Jewish law that we could say definitively that Jesus would have broken the law in giving his mother into the care of St. John. Certainly, it would have been the custom that she be placed in the care of a relative, but I’m not convinced it rose to the level of a law. And even if there were no sons or stepson, surely there were other kinsmen who could have been chosen before St. John, according to the custom. But I am just speculating because I don’t know. None of us does and holding any position that is not in contradiction to a dogma of the church is acceptable and not in need of forgiveness.

 

[TMC]

Yes, this is a common and interesting theory. I don’t think it is dispositive, however.

Some scholars have suggested that John was very young (even a child), and that Jesus’ intent was that Mary essentially adopt John so that she would care for him for the remainder of his youth, and he would be there for her in her older years. That would not be inconsistent with the existence of siblings, whether step- or otherwise. Among other reasons to think that may be the case is the fact that John was there at all. He was with the women, not hiding with the men, because of his young age.

Another interpretation is that John, as the only Apostle present, is a metaphor for the Church - and it therefore doesn’t matter if there were other siblings, because that was not Jesus’ point.

Still others have pointed out that Jesus affirmatively rejected traditional family ties and family obligations during his teaching, so that this gesture could be an extension of those teachings - that the community of His followers was to be a new family.

Finally, I agree with @babochka that we don’t understand all of the intricacies of first century Judaic society, and Jesus’ family’s place therein, to say with certainty that putting Mary in John’s care would be some kind of violation of the Law.

So, while an interesting take that is worth thinking through, the discourse at the Cross alone does not establish the make up of Jesus’ family.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

If it is true that Hegissipus said this, and I have my doubts since we are just going by a comment in a comment section on a youtube video so many centuries later, proves absolutely nothing

I don’t know if you read my other comments, but it is not simply by “going by a comment in the comment section on a YouTube video.” Again, it based on the Greek word for “adelphe” having only TWO meanings in the Greek, and non-uterine relative is NOT one of these meanings. This is what the comment addressed.

And as far as Hegissipus’ belief that Jesus’ “brothers” - specifically James & Judas - were uterine, this too is NOT based on a YouTube comment either. It is based on Eusebius’ Church History, who refers to Jude as “the brother of the Savior,” but then uses a particular relational description “humanly speaking” (or “according to the flesh” in some translations of Eusebius - Chapter 3.19), which is the same phrase Paul uses to describe Jesus being a descendant (or “Seed”) of King David “according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3). Just as Jesus was the biological (“according to the flesh”) descendant of David, likewise Eusebius is saying Jesus’ brothers were biological brothers by using the same phrase (“according to the flesh”).

Eusebius goes onto cite Hegesippus who refers to "Jude, who was said to be His [Jesus’] brother “according to the flesh” (Eusebius 3:20). Again, same usage as Jesus’ biological relationship with David. In fact, Hegesippus continues to say Jude’s were “descendants of David,” just as Jesus was “according to the flesh.” So, despite being a Catholic saint (which I was not aware he was one), it is clear Hegessipus believed Jude was Jesus’ biological brother (“according to the flesh”).

it doesn’t mean he continued in that belief. We do not know if being corrected, shown where he was wrong or had better information later, what he may have believed.

Even so, it doesn’t change the fact these are early examples from both Eusebius (4th century) & Hegessipus (2nd century) of early Christian writers who believed Jesus’ brothers were uterine, which is the point.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Are you implying that the Biblical canon is NOT closed?

Actually, it wasn’t offically “defined” until Trent. Florence didn’t technically “define” it, because books like Sirach were questioned even after Florence:

“[Sirach] is not in the canonical list of Melito of Sardes (c.280AD) or Origen (321.AD) of the Council of Laodicea (360AD). But it is in the list of the Apostolic Constitione (middle of 3rd century, of Gelasius (382AD) and the African Councils of Hippo 393) and Carthage (397AD). But doubts about its canonicity lasted into the Middle Ages, especially under the influence of St. Jerome, who preferred the Palestinian Canon, such doubts lasted even after the Council of Florence (1441) which included it in the list of sacred books without denying its canonicity. It’s canonicity was finally defined at the Council of Trent.”

Fr. William Most, EWTN

Deuterocanonical Books in Canon of Scripture

Also, these later ecumenical councils in the 15th & 16th centuries were not identical to the earlier non-ecumenical councils in the 4th & 5th centuries, which were “missing” some writings & portions of others. And, Jesus held the Jews accountable for knowing what the OT canon was by asking them “Have you not read?” & “It is written” & “the Scriptures say,” etc, indicating the OT canon was “closed” by His time:

Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

 

[MagdalenaRita]

So, despite being a Catholic saint (which I was not aware he was one), it is clear Hegessipus believed Jude was Jesus’ biological brother

He appealed principally to tradition as embodied in the teaching which had been handed down in the Churches through the succession of bishops…

He was clearly an orthodox Catholic
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07194a.htm

All we know for a fact is that at one point he believed that. He was loyal to the Church.

Even so, it doesn’t change the fact these are early examples from both Eusebius (4th century) & Hegessipus (2nd century) of early Christian writers who believed Jesus’ brothers were uterine, which is the point.

Just believing something does not make it truth.

It is still the Church, as given to us by Christ and led by the Holy Spirit that shows us what is Truth.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

“[Sirach] is not in the canonical list of Melito of Sardes (c.280AD) or Origen (321.AD) of the Council of Laodicea (360AD). But it is in the list of the Apostolic Constitione (middle of 3rd century, of Gelasius (382AD) and the African Councils of Hippo 393) and Carthage (397AD). But doubts about its canonicity lasted into the Middle Ages, especially under the influence of St. Jerome, who preferred the Palestinian Canon, such doubts lasted even after the Council of Florence (1441) which included it in the list of sacred books without denying its canonicity. It’s canonicity was finally defined at the Council of Trent.”

Fr. William Most, EWTN

I thought it might be good to quote the whole thing, since there is a lot more to the page:

The Rabbis meeting at Jamnia in 90 AD., after the ruin of Jerusalem and trying to decide how to go on, did not accept Sirach as canonical, even though it was originally written in Hebrew.

It is not in the canonical list of Melito of Sardes (c.280AD) or Origen (321.AD) of the Council of Laodicea (360AD). But it is in the list of the Apostolic Constitione (middle of 3rd century, of Gelasius (382AD) and the African Councils of Hippo 393) and Carthage (397AD). But doubts about its canonicity lasted into the Middle Ages, especially under the influence of St. Jerome, who preferred the Palestinian Canon, such doubts lasted even after the Council of Florence (1441) which included it in the list of sacred books without denying its canonicity. It’s canonicity was finally defined at the Council of Trent.

Yet is was used for devout reading, and was considered as inspired not only by those Fathers who adopted the longer Alexandrian Canon, but also by those who held only the shorter Palestinian. They include even St. Jerome (In Epist. ad Jul. PL 22.961 and On Is 3.13L 24.67, and against Pelagians 2.5, PL 23.541. It was also accepted as inspired by Clement of Alexandria, in Paidagogos 1.1 and Stromata 10.3; by Origen Peri archon 2.8; Against Celsus 6.7.12; On John 32.14; by St. Athanasius Paschal Letter 39,and Against Arians 2.79; by St. Cyril of Jerusalem 6.3; by St. Epiphanius, Against Heresies 3.1.76;and by St. Cyprian, Epistle 5.45.60; by Tertullian, Against Marcion 1.16, and by St. Augustine, Speculum de Scriptura sacra, PL 34.948ss.

 

[Cathoholic]

RaisedCatholic . . .

Seen it a while back. But he doesn’t really address the fact that Eusebius cites Hegessipus from the second century, who believed they were uterine, or that “sister” in the Greek only has two meanings (I read it in a comment in the comments section of the video posted by someone).

Cathoholic here. I wasn’t aware of that with Hegessipus. Would you mind posting the link for me and the salient quote?

Thanks in advance.

 

[C.Longinus]

If He had any step-siblings (forgive me, dear Lord!) then He broke the Law by giving Her into the care of St. John, who was one of the sons of Zebedee and not a relative.

Considering His stepbrothers weren’t exactly on board with Him when He was alive and John was Jesus’s cousin/nephew, :man_shrugging:t6:

Matthew 27:56
“ …among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”

Mark 15:40
“There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome …”

John 19:25
“So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

 

[C.Longinus]

Eusebius goes onto cite Hegesippus who refers to "Jude, who was said to be His [Jesus’] brother “according to the flesh” (Eusebius 3:20).

He also says:
Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the [Holy Ghost](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) before they came together, Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

So apparently Mary is the Virgin and James is a son of Joseph, not a son of Joseph and Mary. Your point?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

He was clearly an orthodox Catholic
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07194a.htm

Interesting. And according to this article from NewAdvent, he was also a canonized saint in the Catholic Church as well. I was wondering since EWTN does not have him listed as one. But NewAdvent does.

All we know for a fact is that at one point he believed that. He was loyal to the Church.

Yep. Yet, it still remains he is an example of a VERY early ECF (second century), as well as a canonized saint in the Catholic Church, who believed Jesus’ brothers were younger half-brothers, and there is no evidence from his writings, or from later writers that he ever changed his mind. Plus, it demonstrates the early church was not “universal” in this belief. It seems to have developed later.

Just believing something does not make it truth.

I couldn’t agree more! Which is why Protestants base this topic, as well as others, on Scripture, because that is not about “belief.” As you demonstrated, the writings of ECFs can, and often are, wrong (“Just believing something does not make it truth”), while the writings of the Bible cannot be wrong, & IS truth (John 17:17).

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So apparently Mary is the Virgin and James is a son of Joseph, not a son of Joseph and Mary. Your point?

A Protestant reading of that passage from Eusebius is saying James was known as the son of Joseph (just as the gospels record Jesus was “known” as the son of Joseph, even though God was His Father). Eusebius’ point is that while James could not have been Joseph’s and Mary’s son (“because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with Child by the Holy Ghost”), this does not mean they didn’t have James later after Jesus was born, as both Eusebius & St. Hegessipus points out.

At least this is a Protestant reading of their writings in the Church History.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Considering His stepbrothers weren’t exactly on board with Him when He was alive and John was Jesus’s cousin/nephew

From a Protestant view, couldn’t the same thing be said if they were younger half-brothers (“Considering they weren’t on board with Him, when He was alive & John was Jesus’ cousin”)?

I read an article awhile back arguing the same thing you wrote: that Salome, not Mary the mother of James the Less & Joseph, was John’s mother, which would make John the cousin of Jesus. If Jesus’ brothers were actually younger half-brothers, this would make sense why He entrusted Mary to John instead of them. Since they were “Not on board,” like you said, because they did not “honor Him” (Mark 3) & did not “believe in Him” (John 7), but John did, perhaps this is why Jesus chose John, His spiritual “brother” who did the will of God (Mark 3).

At least from a Protestant understanding of the text.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Plus, it demonstrates the early church was not “universal” in this belief. It seems to have developed later

That is definitely true but that is because everyone is not going to agree about anything. I am pretty sure there has never been a time in the history of Christianity when everyone agreed on everything. You can see here at CAF that Catholics do not agree but it goes back again to the need for the Church, the Catholic Church, that Christ gifted to us. If the Church settled it, it’s settled. The Holy Spirit led the faithful into Truth regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity.

It is a faulty argument when protestants try to find a Catholic somewhere in some time period that believed if even for a short time with them because in the end it is whether or not that person chose to reject what they thought something was and aligned their faith with the way the Holy Spirit leads the Church.

Which is why Protestants base this topic, as well as others, on Scripture, because that is not about “belief.”

Except that not all protestants historically have agreed and believe the same thing about the Blessed Mother and so unless they return to the Catholic church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, there isn’t somewhere to go to settle the matter and then it is about belief and is just one belief against another.

A Protestant Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

while the writings of the Bible cannot be wrong, & IS truth (John 17:17).

Absolutely, the writings of the Bible are not wrong. Completely agree. It is what man decides that the Bible means that can be wrong. When he refuses God’s leading in the Church.

http://www.worksbyfaith.org/the-brothers-and-sisters-of-jesus/