Jesus' brothers and sisters, hebrew or latin?

[GR1G1O]

I am an apologist in the making. Listening to the great John Martignoni on Mary’s perpetual virginity, I learned a lot. One question came up though. When referencing Abram and Lot, being called “brothers” even though they were nephew and uncle, John mentioned there was no Hebrew world for “uncle” and “nephew”, that there was only one word to use for a relative. And then from there John went to the New Testament examples of Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters”. I assumed that the New Testament was also written in Hebrew and that the same rule applied, that when we read of Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” that there was no word to say “cousins” and such. But then I was told the New Testament was written in Latin. If this is correct, then did the Latin Bible say “brothers” and “sisters” even though there was a Latin word for “cousins”, “family members” , etc that could have been used? How can I take the Old Testament issue of no Hebrew world and relate it to the New Testament of Latin? Is it that Jesus spoke Hebrew and the Latin translation was when it became “brothers” and “sisters” even though it should have been brethren? (which some Bibles do have).

 

[BrianH]

The New Testament is written in Greek. It has a word for brother, cousin, and a few other relatives.

syggenēs
adelphos
anepsios

 

[Spencerian]

I am an apologist in the making. Listing to the great John Martignoni on Mary’s perpetual virginity, I learned a lot. One question came up though. When referencing Abram and Lot, being called “brothers” even though they were nephew and uncle, John mentioned there was no Hebrew world for “uncle” and “nephew”, that there was only one word to use for a relative. And then from there John went to the New Testament examples of Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters”. I assumed that the New Testament was also written in Hebrew and that the same rule applied, that when we read of Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” that there was no word to say “cousins” and such. But then I was told the New Testament was written in Latin. If this is correct, then did the Latin Bible say “brothers” and “sisters” even though there was a Latin word for “cousins”, “family members” , etc that could have been used? How can I take the Old Testament issue of no Hebrew world and relate it to the New Testament of Latin? Is it that Jesus spoke Hebrew and the Latin translation was when it became “brothers” and “sisters” even though it should have been brethren? (which some Bibles do have).

Hi, there.

This Catholic.com tract gives extensive detail and sourcing for the whole “brother and sister” issue in the New Testament translations.

 

[GR1G1O]

awesome, thanks. i have not mastered the search engine on here, i find it hard to find subjects that i know should be on here. thanks again!

 

[Truth_Seeker17]

The Gospel was written predominantly in Greek. In Matthew 13:55, one of the several verses referring to Jesus’ siblings, the Greek words used here are adelphoi and adelphai. The first word literally means ‘brother’; the second word literally means ‘sister’. They can mean no other word. There is a Greek word that can mean either ‘brothers/sisters’ OR ‘cousins’. However, none of the authors of the Gospel used that word. They used the words that literally mean ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’. Why? Because they meant what they said: Jesus really did have physical half-brothers and half-sisters.

Those arguing in favor of Mary’s ‘perpetual virginity’ hold that perhaps Joseph had those children with another wife (who had since died) in another marriage. However, there is absolutely no biblical evidence supporting this claim. Besides, if Joseph did have children before marrying Mary, then why does it not refer to them when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem to give birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:20-24)?

Therefore, the most reasonable conclusion to draw is that Mary DID have relations with her husband and gave birth to children other than Jesus. Such a fact would contribute to Mary’s holiness, not detract from it (cf Genesis 1:28; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5; 1 Timothy 5:14).

Of course, the vast majority of Catholics will disagree with my opinion, but I just wanted to give you the standard Protestant viewpoint on this matter.

God bless,
TS17

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

The Gospel was written predominantly in Greek. In Matthew 13:55, one of the several verses referring to Jesus’ siblings, the Greek words used here are adelphoi and adelphai. The first word literally means ‘brother’; the second word literally means ‘sister’. They can mean no other word. There is a Greek word that can mean either ‘brothers/sisters’ OR ‘cousins’. However, none of the authors of the Gospel used that word. They used the words that literally mean ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’. Why? Because they meant what they said: Jesus really did have physical half-brothers and half-sisters.

Those arguing in favor of Mary’s ‘perpetual virginity’ hold that perhaps Joseph had those children with another wife (who had since died) in another marriage. However, there is absolutely no biblical evidence supporting this claim. Besides, if Joseph did have children before marrying Mary, then why does it not refer to them when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem to give birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:20-24)?

Therefore, the most reasonable conclusion to draw is that Mary DID have relations with her husband and gave birth to children other than Jesus. Such a fact would contribute to Mary’s holiness, not detract from it (cf Genesis 1:28; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5; 1 Timothy 5:14).

Of course, the vast majority of Catholics will disagree with my opinion, but I just wanted to give you the standard Protestant viewpoint on this matter.

God bless,
TS17

One thing that will help here is to do some research into Koine greek and what was the SPOKEN language of the time. Also, avoid the hubris of placing your view of what the authors of the Bible would have done as TS17 did above.

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Also, read 1Cor 7 for Paul (and therefore the apostles’, and therefore Christ’s) view of celibacy.

FSC

 

[CWBetts]

The New Testament is written in Greek. It has a word for brother, cousin, and a few other relatives.

syggenēs
adelphos
anepsios

It was written in Greek, but it is worth noting that the only Gospel writer who spoke Greek as a native language was Luke, and what we are getting in a Greek translation for words originally spoken in Aramaic, which has no word for “cousin”, so Jesus’ “brothers” were actually some other close male relation.

 

[NHInsider]

Those arguing in favor of Mary’s ‘perpetual virginity’ hold that perhaps Joseph had those children with another wife (who had since died) in another marriage. However, there is absolutely no biblical evidence supporting this claim. Besides, if Joseph did have children before marrying Mary, then why does it not refer to them when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem to give birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:20-24)?

Therefore, the most reasonable conclusion to draw is that Mary DID have relations with her husband and gave birth to children other than Jesus. Such a fact would contribute to Mary’s holiness, not detract from it (cf Genesis 1:28; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5; 1 Timothy 5:14).

more reasonable to presume that when they went to Jerusalem for Jesus’ bar mitzvah they had 8 or 10 younger siblings in tow but that wasn’t mentioned either? That’s a long walk with all those babies and toddlers.

 

[tealblue]

Here is also a note. When jesus was on the cross he asked the aposlte John to care for his mother. If james the just was a literal son of Mary then James would have been the one Jesus asked to care for Mary when he died. Mary is never mentioned as having other children.

 

[abucs]

I think the fact that tradition, history and early Christian literature nowehere mentions Jesus as having brothers is very significant. There are no succession problems, no analysis on how Jesus’ divinity contrasts with James lack of divinity and no Jewish history of Jesus family - brothers and sisters etc when they were critiquing Christianity.

The idea that Jesus had brothers seems only to be invented in the last few centuries as an argument against Catholicism. It’s only support is a reading of Greek which ignores the underlying Aramaic culture.

The sentences from the above link that describe the translation of Hebrew to the Greek Septuagint 200 years before the NT, where Jewish translators routinely translated the inclusive Hebrew ‘brother’ to the exclusive Greek ‘brother’ undermines the recent anti Catholic arguement.

taken from the link …

"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.

If Jewish translators of the Old testament 200 years before the NT translated this way, it is to be expected Jews of the NT would do the same.

 

[zach_dunn]

The Gospel was written predominantly in Greek. In Matthew 13:55, one of the several verses referring to Jesus’ siblings, the Greek words used here are adelphoi and adelphai. The first word literally means ‘brother’; the second word literally means ‘sister’. They can mean no other word. There is a Greek word that can mean either ‘brothers/sisters’ OR ‘cousins’. However, none of the authors of the Gospel used that word. They used the words that literally mean ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’. Why? Because they meant what they said: Jesus really did have physical half-brothers and half-sisters.

Or perhaps Matthew, a Hebrew, was using a Hebrew idiom!