Jesus' brothers and sisters

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheRealJuliane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheRealJuliane

Guest
Today’s gospel included the statements that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I am not sure that means literally, but I know some Protestants believe Jesus was not Joseph and Mary’s only child.

If Jesus did have earthly brothers and sisters, does it matter? Does it make him any less the son of God?

If he didn’t, why were other people referred to that way in Mark’s gospel?
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Today’s gospel included the statements that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I am not sure that means literally, but I know some Protestants believe Jesus was not Joseph and Mary’s only child.

If Jesus did have earthly brothers and sisters, does it matter? Does it make him any less the son of God?

If he didn’t, why were other people referred to that way in Mark’s gospel?
Click to expand...
Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary**
**
Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

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)
  1. 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.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Today’s gospel included the statements that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I am not sure that means literally, but I know some Protestants believe Jesus was not Joseph and Mary’s only child.

If Jesus did have earthly brothers and sisters, does it matter? Does it make him any less the son of God?

If he didn’t, why were other people referred to that way in Mark’s gospel?
Click to expand...
Articles on Perpetual Virginity

Mary: Ever Virgin
catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp

A Biblical Basis For Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?
singinginthereign.blogspot.com/2008/03/biblical-basis-for-marys-perpetual.html

**How to Explain the Perpetual Virginity of Mary **
By Jason Evert
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp

Was Jesus an Only Child?
By Father Mateo
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001fea2.asp

Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin?
By Christine Pinheiro
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp

"Brethren of the Lord"
catholic.com/library/brethren_of_the_lord.asp
 
Matthew 13:55 – James, Joseph, Simon and Judas

Many non-Catholics seek to deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary based upon the references to Jesus’ “brothers” as found in passages such as: "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)

Although this appears to be ample evidence to prove that Jesus had brothers and thus that Mary was not ever virgin, the key to explaining this verse is understanding the Greek word for “brethren” (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.

However, the word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.

Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 “brothers” in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called “brothers” (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).

The reason relatives were called brothers or sisters was because in Hebrew, there was no word for cousin, nephew, or uncle. So the person was referred to as simply a “brother.” Linguistically, this was far easier than calling the person the son of a mother’s sister. Since the New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was heavily influenced by the Semitic culture, many of the Hebrew idioms (like “brother” having multiple meanings) intrude into the Greek text. So, the fact that Jesus had adelphoi does not mean that Mary had other children.
 
Thank you very much for your help! I knew there was a good reason that Jesus must have been an only child. I wasn’t thinking of Mary’s perpetual virginity at the time, only that having actual “uterine” brothers and sisters wouldn’t reduce his divinity, but then I remembered Mary…😊

I’m going to look through those links, thanks again! 👍 I missed a lot of catechism growing up away from the Church! 😦
 
I am reminded that as I grew up I acquired a lot of aunts and uncles who were related to me neither by blood, not by marriage. Any adult friend of my parents became an aunt or uncle. It avoided the excessive formality of Mr or Mrs, and the impertinence of just using a first name for them.
 
I was getting ready to post a question regarding the same scripture & topic, so I hope the group doesn’t mind if I piggyback on the existing thread… It seems like every time there is a scripture reading that mentions brothers/sisters of Jesus, the question of whether he had any blood siblings comes up. And I can’t say I really blame people for the confusion: without having a good foundation in the Church’s Tradition (big T), I can easily see why the language used would cause people to think the Mary had other children.

This leads to my question: is there anything in tradition (either “Big T” or “Small t”) to explain why the Bible is written and/or translated like this? Was there truly no other way that the author could have described Jesus’ half-siblings (or cousins) in a way that didn’t leave people questioning (on-and-off for nearly 2000 years) whether Jesus had blood siblings? Alternately, why didn’t the people translating the Bible to vernacular languages use “relatives” or something along those lines if they knew that He did not have “brothers” or “sisters”?

God bless,
Dean
 
The problem of Jesus siblings is a modern problem born in the modern protestant churches (also the ones heirs of the Reformation). The reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) had no doubt doubt about perpetual virginity of of Mary. You’ll not find any reference in the Institutes of Calvin, Zwingli books, or Luther books about Jesus siblings.
In my experience, this problem arise only because some modern protestant churches MUST be against catholic teachings, also if the teachings are righteous.
 
dean24us said:
I was getting ready to post a question regarding the same scripture & topic, so I hope the group doesn’t mind if I piggyback on the existing thread… It seems like every time there is a scripture reading that mentions brothers/sisters of Jesus, the question of whether he had any blood siblings comes up. And I can’t say I really blame people for the confusion: without having a good foundation in the Church’s Tradition (big T), I can easily see why the language used would cause people to think the Mary had other children.

This leads to my question: is there anything in tradition (either “Big T” or “Small t”) to explain why the Bible is written and/or translated like this? Was there truly no other way that the author could have described Jesus’ half-siblings (or cousins) in a way that didn’t leave people questioning (on-and-off for nearly 2000 years) whether Jesus had blood siblings? Alternately, why didn’t the people translating the Bible to vernacular languages use “relatives” or something along those lines if they knew that He did not have “brothers” or “sisters”?

God bless,
Dean
Click to expand...
Dean, I asked myself the same question - if the Aramaic is so clear, why can’t the translation be “fixed” to say “family” or “relatives” instead of “brothers and sisters?” Seems like a no-brainer to me, but then I’m no apologist or translator of ancient languages.
 
**I do not know how anyone can interpret Jesus had siblings, ? As a Former Lutheran I never believed he had any brothers or sisters. Its an odd theory or hypothosis. He called us all brothers and sisters in Christ, brethen, kin, cousin, etc. etc.

Lulu**
 
MaryLouItalia said:
The problem of Jesus siblings is a modern problem born in the modern protestant churches (also the ones heirs of the Reformation). The reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) had no doubt doubt about perpetual virginity of of Mary. You’ll not find any reference in the Institutes of Calvin, Zwingli books, or Luther books about Jesus siblings.
In my experience, this problem arise only because some modern protestant churches MUST be against catholic teachings, also if the teachings are righteous.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response! True enough regarding the “fathers” of the Protestant Reformation. What I was more referring to is that this has been a debate in sects of Christianity since the early Church fathers (Helvidius and Jerome, among others, debated this in The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary back in the 4th century) right through present day.

God bless,
Dean
 
Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen
Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

_ scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-V
Hope this helps : )

SHALOM
GOD BLESS
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Today’s gospel included the statements that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I am not sure that means literally, but I know some Protestants believe Jesus was not Joseph and Mary’s only child.

If Jesus did have earthly brothers and sisters, does it matter? Does it make him any less the son of God?

If he didn’t, why were other people referred to that way in Mark’s gospel?
Click to expand...
I come from a big Irish family - relationships are rather fluid, my fathers cousins I called aunts and uncles, my 2nd cousins were in fact 3rd cousins and I had aunts, uncles,and cousins I wasn’t even related to, Dutch uncles, if you will - so why not close relations in an extended family being called brother and sister

its an apologetic tempest in a tea pot
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Today’s gospel included the statements that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I am not sure that means literally, but I know some Protestants believe Jesus was not Joseph and Mary’s only child.

If Jesus did have earthly brothers and sisters, does it matter? Does it make him any less the son of God?

If he didn’t, why were other people referred to that way in Mark’s gospel?
Click to expand...
They were cousins.

My question to you. Where were Mary’s other sons when Jesus was on the cross? No self-respecting Jew at that time would have allowed his mother to stand alone before her son’s execution. He would have either been by her side, or would not have permitted her to be there.

Mothers were subject to their sons. Jesus was the eldest but the next eldest would have the right to protect his mother from this horrible scene. She would not have been there if there were other sons to protect her.

If she had other sons why did Jesus place her under the protection of John? She would have been under the protection of her sons.

P.S. Jesus knew what was going to happen to him. He would have sent her to his brothers and they would have taken her into their homes.
 
The New Testament accounts would look very different if Jesus indeed had brothers and sisters.

In Aramaic, 'brother is a generic word for cousin, step-brother, uncle etc.

This is the word that was translated into the Greek in the Gospels as ‘brother’.
 
HelenRose said:
They were cousins.

My question to you. Where were Mary’s other sons when Jesus was on the cross? No self-respecting Jew at that time would have allowed his mother to stand alone before her son’s execution. He would have either been by her side, or would not have permitted her to be there.

Mothers were subject to their sons. Jesus was the eldest but the next eldest would have the right to protect his mother from this horrible scene. She would not have been there if there were other sons to protect her.

If she had other sons why did Jesus place her under the protection of John? She would have been under the protection of her sons.

P.S. Jesus knew what was going to happen to him. He would have sent her to his brothers and they would have taken her into their homes.
Click to expand...
All very good points. I only wish the translations could be more specific but I guess the commentaries explain this point. Thank you very much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top