Jesus' Brothers

[Serafina17]

You know what I’m going to ask.

Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

I understand that the word ‘brothers’ can be used to mean cousins, or any relatives really. But it seems that the word ‘son’ and ‘mother’ is to be taken literally, so why then shouldn’t ‘brothers’? Can we switch meanings and get away with it?

I’ve never actually encountered an objection of this type, I’m just wondering what I’d respond if I were to.

It looks like those names (James, Simon, Judas) are names of His apostles… but who is Joseph?

 

[Wildgraywolf]

It seems to me that folks who use that verse to prove Jesus had brothers, by that same reasoning, Jesus’s father was Joseph the carpenter.

So, to use that verse to prove that Jesus had biological brothers is also to prove that he had a human father and isn’t the Son of God.

Christianity becomes pointless after that.

 

[JimG]

James & Joses and Simon and Jude. Simon and Jude and James were apostles. We know that there are two James’s who were apostles. One was the son of Zebedee and the other the son of Alphaeus. No one has ever supposed that Mary committed adultery with Alphaeus or Zebedee.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I understand that the word ‘brothers’ can be used to mean cousins, or any relatives really.

That is because - as you know - Aramaic did not have a simple term for cousins (or other extended family) - they were also called “brothers.”

But it seems that the word ‘son’ and ‘mother’ is to be taken literally, so why then shouldn’t ‘brothers’?

Because Aramaic DID have words for “son” and “mother” which mean exactly the same thing as these English terms.

Can we switch meanings and get away with it?

We’re not switching anything. The source language in ambiguous in some ways and specific in others. Where the source is ambiguous (such as the term “brothers”) we must allow for this ambiguity, but where the source is specific (such as “mother” and “son”) we must enforce that specificity.

 

[hellopeople]

It seems to me that folks who use that verse to prove Jesus had brothers, by that same reasoning, Jesus’s father was Joseph the carpenter.

So, to use that verse to prove that Jesus had biological brothers is also to prove that he had a human father and isn’t the Son of God.

Christianity becomes pointless after that.

I am sorry, but this is a horrible argument. Do you think that other people knew at that time that Jesus was the son of the holy spirit? Obviously people from Jesus’ home town are going to consider Joseph his father. That doesn’t mean that he IS his father, that is just how everyone saw it.

 

[hellopeople]

James & Joses and Simon and Jude. Simon and Jude and James were apostles. We know that there are two James’s who were apostles. One was the son of Zebedee and the other the son of Alphaeus. No one has ever supposed that Mary committed adultery with Alphaeus or Zebedee.

Have you ever supposed that it was a different James?

 

[hellopeople]

That is because - as you know - Aramaic did not have a simple term for cousins (or other extended family) - they were also called “brothers.”

Because Aramaic DID have words for “son” and “mother” which mean exactly the same thing as these English terms.

We’re not switching anything. The source language in ambiguous in some ways and specific in others. Where the source is ambiguous (such as the term “brothers”) we must allow for this ambiguity, but where the source is specific (such as “mother” and “son”) we must enforce that specificity.

This argument is pretty horrible as well. If Aramaic doesn’t have separate words for brothers and cousins, but Greek does, why wouldn’t they just use the correct word in Greek? You are arguing that Matthew decided to use a literal translation despite this literal translation changing the meaning of the quote completely? Why would anyone do that?

 

[DavidFilmer]

This argument is pretty horrible as well. If Aramaic doesn’t have separate words for brothers and cousins, but Greek does, why wouldn’t they just use the correct word in Greek?

Because Matthew’s Gospel was not originally written in Greek, but “in the language of the Hebrews” (as Josephus attests, and modern textual sciences supports). It is the ONLY Gospel which was known to have been originally written in Aramaic - the others were all originally written in Greek (some claim Mark was originally Aramaic, but the evidence is rather thin).

No Aramaic copies of Matthew’s Gospel have survived. We don’t know who first translated this Gospel into Greek. But, we can assume the translator attempted to do what all translators (should) do - a faithful, literal translation. If you were a translator, and came across a source word that USUALLY means (as in English) “brother” but MIGHT mean “cousin” or “distant relative,” which English word would you choose? Obviously the most common.

This is one of the many perils of translations.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I prefer the explanation of ‘the brothers and sisters of Jesus’ found in the *Protoevangelium of James, *a Catholic writing from the second century A.D., that says Joseph was an old widower who had grown-up children from his previous marriage when he and Mary married. These sons and daughters of Joseph and his previous wife would have been regarded as Jesus’ brothers and sisters, just as the twelve sons of Israel were regarded as brothers, though they had four different mothers between them. This explanation does justice to both the context of Bible passage, which seems to be Jesus’ immediate family, and the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[hellopeople]

Because Matthew’s Gospel was not originally written in Greek, but “in the language of the Hebrews” (as Josephus attests, and modern textual sciences supports). It is the ONLY Gospel which was known to have been originally written in Aramaic - the others were all originally written in Greek (some claim Mark was originally Aramaic, but the evidence is rather thin).

No Aramaic copies of Matthew’s Gospel have survived. We don’t know who first translated this Gospel into Greek. But, we can assume the translator attempted to do what all translators (should) do - a faithful, literal translation. If you were a translator, and came across a source word that USUALLY means (as in English) “brother” but MIGHT mean “cousin” or “distant relative,” which English word would you choose? Obviously the most common.

This is one of the many perils of translations.

I have never heard that Matthew was originally written in aramaic…and I am taking my last exam for a degree in religious studies (focusing on biblical studies) today.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I have never heard that Matthew was originally written in aramaic…and I am taking my last exam for a degree in religious studies (focusing on biblical studies) today.

You will find this supported in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I understand that the word ‘brothers’ can be used to mean cousins, or any relatives really. But it seems that the word ‘son’ and ‘mother’ is to be taken literally, so why then shouldn’t ‘brothers’? Can we switch meanings and get away with it?

This may not be a particularly popular thing to write, here…but I think the question doesn’t matter and has nothing whatsoever to do with the fundamentals of Christian dogma.

Personally, I don’t believe that Our Lady had any other children…but what if she did? So what? Would it have been a sin for her to have had marital relations with Joseph? I don’t think so–the implication would be that marital relations are somehow sinful. They are not. But what does that do to the whole Virgin Mary thing? Nothing at all, except it invites us to understand virginity not in terms of physical sex but in terms of an attitude to the passions, an attitude to the world in which she remained unstained by the world, by sin, by the passions. She remains truly Virgin.

I guess what I’m really saying is that if our notion of the Spotless Virginity of Mary means that physical, married intimacy with Joseph* would have* stained her had she engaged in them, then we have a very distorted view of sex and sexuality–and therefore, I would argue, a distorted view of purity, a distorted view of marriage, and a distorted view of Our Lady.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[JimG]

Have you ever supposed that it was a different James?

No, because the apostle James is referred to in the NT as “the brother of the Lord.” And yet we know that the Apostles James and John were brothers, and sons of Zebedee. The other apostle James (commonly thought to be the “brother of the Lord”) is stated in the NT to be the son of Alphaeus.

 

[hellopeople]

No, because the apostle James is referred to in the NT as “the brother of the Lord.” And yet we know that the Apostles James and John were brothers, and sons of Zebedee. The other apostle James (commonly thought to be the “brother of the Lord”) is stated in the NT to be the son of Alphaeus.

So one of the 12, in the gospels, is referred to as “James the brother of Jesus” or are you talking about the Pauline epistles?

1 Corinthians 15:4-7 (New International Version)

4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[a] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles

It is obvious from this that there was a James that was not one of the 12.

 

[Serafina17]

Personally, I don’t believe that Our Lady had any other children…but what if she did? So what? Would it have been a sin for her to have had marital relations with Joseph? I don’t think so–the implication would be that marital relations are somehow sinful. They are not. But what does that do to the whole Virgin Mary thing? Nothing at all, except it invites us to understand virginity not in terms of physical sex but in terms of an attitude to the passions, an attitude to the world in which she remained unstained by the world, by sin, by the passions. She remains truly Virgin.

No, it would not have been a sin to take part in intimacy with Joseph; no one is saying it is. It’s just that if the Catholic Church is wrong in teaching Mary’s perpetual virginity, then there goes our whole ‘infallibility’ doctrine. That is the point of Protestants arguing that Jesus had brothers. If they can prove just one doctrine wrong, that calls into question all our other beliefs.

 

[NHInsider]

So one of the 12, in the gospels, is referred to as “James the brother of Jesus” or are you talking about the Pauline epistles?

1 Corinthians 15:4-7 (New International Version)

4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[a] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles

It is obvious from this that there was a James that was not one of the 12.

No, it is not in the least obvious that James was not one of the 12 (unless it is also obvious that Peter was not one of the 12). What it says is that there were a couple of the apostles who were known to have had one-on-one meetings with the Resurrected Jesus, in addition to meeting Him as part of the group.

 

[JimG]

So one of the 12, in the gospels, is referred to as “James the brother of Jesus” or are you talking about the Pauline epistles?

1 Corinthians 15:4-7 (New International Version)

4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[a] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles

It is obvious from this that there was a James that was not one of the 12.

I’ve heard that conjecture, but don’t really accept it personally. It is a rather late conjecture compared to the constant tradition of James the brother of the Lord.

And I don’t think that the quoted passage means that it was a different James. It first recounts an appearance to Peter, then to the twelve together, then to 500 disciples, then to James separately, then to the twelve again. The James referred to is most likely the apostle, in my view.

orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_James_the_Just

 

[FCEGM]

On the supposed “brothers” of our Lord:

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/Articles/TheFourMarysInTheGospels.aspx

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/Articles/OhBrotherWhereArtThou.aspx

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

No, it would not have been a sin to take part in intimacy with Joseph; no one is saying it is. It’s just that if the Catholic Church is wrong in teaching Mary’s perpetual virginity, then there goes our whole ‘infallibility’ doctrine. That is the point of Protestants arguing that Jesus had brothers. If they can prove just one doctrine wrong, that calls into question all our other beliefs.

I don’t quite agree. Again, for me, it just calls for a more radical understanding of what virginity actually means.

The most logical argument against sexual intimacy between Mary and Joseph involves, for me, the idea of an espousal of Mary to God (along the lines of the traditional understanding of Mary as Daughter of God, Mother of God, Spouse of God). Why would Mary not remain true to her Spouse? This causes complications regarding what the marriage between Mary and Joseph actually meant if Mary was already the Bride of God, but somehow this argument makes more sense to me.

Still, if someone offered me some sort of concrete evidence that Mary had other children, it would have no bearing whatsoever on my faith or on my understanding of it. She remains Perpetually Virgin, completely unspotted by the world. I don’t see how that could possibly change.

I’ll give an example–scholarship increasingly suggests that the exodus out of Egypt did not actually happen. Or if it did, it did not happen along the lines of how we think it happened if we are to take the account in Exodus literally. However, the story of the Exodus remains a powerful narrative pointing to the Reality of God’s saving grace, his love, his forbearance. It also provides a particularly powerful self-understanding–we were slaves once, and we should treat others with the dignity which we lacked so that all forms of bondage can be overcome. This reveals a truth about humanity. If the Exodus were somehow proven never to have happened, it does not change anything about what the story is actually about, what it points to, what it symbolizes, what it crystallizes in terms of an understanding of the Divine or of the human.

Likewise, if Our Lady had 15 children, this does not alter the underlying living truth/reality to which Our Lady points and in which she participates.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[FRANKYG]

Mary could not have more cihildren, she was the spouseof the holy spirit, and if you understand Jewish culture, you know she was consecrated to the lord, as we all know as well, she is the ark of the covenant. it just does not make sense she would have relations with St Joseph.

Mt 27:55

55Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

John 19:25
25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene