Jesus had siblings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rien
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello inkaneer:

Let me refer you back to two of my posts on this thread, #28 on Page 2, and #175 on Page 12, which give you those details. Post #175 also gives numerous posts by others referencing these same relationships in Scripture and other places posted on this thread. As referenced in those posts, the source is the textbook, “The Holy Family - Jesus, Mary, and Joseph” written by The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Their website is www.catholicism.com. The book is still available there, and is full of information about The Holy Family, the Saints, early Church Fathers, and Doctors of the Church.

Although it is a bit confusing for us now, I love how each generation honors the next with a namesake of four family members: Mary Salome, daughter of Mary of Cleophas, or else her Aunt, The Virgin Mary; Saint James the Less, and his nephew, Saint James the Greater; and Saint Joseph, whose nephew is Saint Joseph Barsabas, aka Joses, aka Jose.

Once you know the relationships, you then understand that the four famous “brothers” referenced in Matthew are actually brothers to each other, the four sons of Cleophas and Mary of Cleophas, and are actually first cousins to Jesus, not His actual “brothers”. Unless you choose the loose translation of “brethren”, or “followers/believers”. Also search out the great post on this thread by Randy Carson, where he discusses this passage, (as well as other Scriptural quotes which give partial relationships, but which you can then tie back to the two families of cousins, once you know the relationships):

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)

Once you know the relationships, you can then sort out the partial relationships given for the two Marys present at the crucifixion with The Virgin Mary, and understand that they are actually her sister-in-law and her niece, not her “sisters”. Unless you go with the lack of language thing again, usage for “sisters” instead of the distinct relationships.

Once you understand that Mary Salome was married to Zebedee, you then understand the relationships of “James and John, sons of Zebedee”, hence second cousins of Jesus by marriage. Or that James and Joses (aka Joseph or Jose), are brothers also of Simon and Jude, and sons of Cleophas (aka Clopas or Alphaeus), and nephews of Saint Joseph, hence first cousins of Jesus by marriage. Interesting, yes?

Now that you know the relationships, it makes it kinda fun to read the Scriptures and tie the characters back to the cousins and/or apostles (not actual brothers) of Jesus, descended from the House of David. So, now that you know …

Enjoy! 😉
 
I tried to do a timeline based on what you wrote.

The holy family: Joseph was born in 30 BC, Mary in 14 BC, Jesus in 0.

To make this work, You would assume that Mary Clopas and Alpheus were born also around 40 BC and were older than Joseph. That would have made them quite elderly (70or so ) at the crucifixion. This is consistent with them being grandparents of Apostles.

Their 5 Children Jude, Joseph, Simon, james the less, and Mary Solome would have been born between 10BC and 20 BC making them contempories of Mary, Mother of Jesus.

The next generation: James the greater and John the evangelist would need to be born between 0 and 10AD in order to be adults (20-30) prior to Jesus’ crucifixion.

The problem with this is you have James the Lesser being 96 years old in 62AD. That would make him born in 34BC, consistent in age with his parents. for this to work, James the lesser would have had to be younger when he died.
 
Hi PaulC!

A few thoughts …

We know that from what someone posted on this thread that Saint Joseph and Saint Cleophas were two of six brothers. We don’t know their respective ages to each other, we don’t know Cleophas’s age. I know in my own family there is a difference of 22 years from the oldest to the youngest sibling (by the same parents!), so an age spread of practically a generation is not out of the realm of possibility. We also know that John the Evangelist was quite young in all of the depictions (the youngest son of the daughter of Cleophas, one of five children, and John is also the grandnephew of Mary and Joseph), and that we are dealing with two different families of cousins here, as well as a spread of roughly 15 years between Mary and Joseph.

I’m going to be off the grid for a few days, so won’t be of much use for awhile. However, if any of you guys can follow up the website I gave for my source, I’m wondering if any of the current Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary could follow up their sources? Wouldn’t that be a fascinating find?

Have a great Palm Sunday, everyone.
 
nevadagardener said:
Hi PaulC!

A few thoughts …

We know that from what someone posted on this thread that Saint Joseph and Saint Cleophas were two of six brothers. We don’t know their respective ages to each other, we don’t know Cleophas’s age. I know in my own family there is a difference of 22 years from the oldest to the youngest sibling (by the same parents!), so an age spread of practically a generation is not out of the realm of possibility. We also know that John the Evangelist was quite young in all of the depictions (the youngest son of the daughter of Cleophas, one of five children, and John is also the grandnephew of Mary and Joseph), and that we are dealing with two different families of cousins here, as well as a spread of roughly 15 years between Mary and Joseph.

I’m going to be off the grid for a few days, so won’t be of much use for awhile. However, if any of you guys can follow up the website I gave for my source, I’m wondering if any of the current Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary could follow up their sources? Wouldn’t that be a fascinating find?

Have a great Palm Sunday, everyone.
Click to expand...
well, lets follow the logic just a bit further. If James the lesser was really born in 34BC, you would think Mary Cleopas woudl have to have been born no later than 50BC. Which would have made her 83 years old at the crucifixion. Not impossible, of course, but 83year olds weren’t very spry in 33AD and unlikely to be following the Savior around Palestine. Teh timeline works much better if James was 76 instead of 96 in 62 AD
 
Hello PaulC and Everyone:

Thanks for your interest. Over the week I had a chance to address your concerns to the folks at the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I received a response from Brother Andre Marie, whose full address is given below, who referenced back to the following Scriptural references (taken from an earlier response of a letter he had written):

… Mary never had other children. My response: There is no place in the Bible that says, “Mary never had other children.” Neither are there places that say that “Mary had other children.” Again, it is the Protestant (human) tradition that says she did (although not all Protestants believe this). There are passages in the Bible that you may interpret to mean that Mary had other children, but there are more sensible explanations of these passages that are consistent with all of Scripture, especially Luke 1:34 ff., where it is made obvious that Mary never intended to have normal marital relations. Also, interpreted by the authentic tradition of the Church — the “pillar and ground of the truth” — these passages clearly do not mean the Blessed Virgin had other children. St. Jerome, who, in the late fourth century, at the pope’s behest, translated the Bible into the Latin language, which was the commonly spoken western language at that time, wrote a treatise in defense of the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity against the novel teachings of a heretic named Helvidius.

As an example of such misappropriation, let us take the case of St. James the Less whom, no doubt, you allege was our Lord’s blood brother, since St. Paul calls him the “brother of the Lord” in Gal. 1:19. Three times the Holy Spirit inspired the evangelists to identify this Apostle as the son of Alpheus, not Joseph. (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; and Luke. 6:15) The mother of this James was also named Mary, and she is identified as one of the other women, besides the Blessed Virgin, standing beneath the cross of Christ. Here she is called the “sister” of the Blessed Virgin (John. 19:25). Unless we are to assume that two girls in the same family were given the same first name, the word “sister” here used must mean “relative,” “cousin,” or, perhaps, if she were married to the brother of St. Joseph, even “sister-in-law.” Therefore, James the Less, son of Alpheus (also called, in holy scripture, by his Greek name of Cleophas), was our Lord’s cousin. This is still a common practice among the Semitic people to call one’s cousin a brother or sister. Furthermore, if Jesus had other brothers from Mary, His mother, then why did the Savior, as He was dying on the cross, give her to the care of John? For James, Simon, Jude, and Joseph are all called the Lord’s “brethren” in the Gospel. I did a more detailed study on this that I could send you, if you are interested.

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Brother Andre Marie, M.I.C.M.
Saint Benedict Center
Post Office Box 627
Richmond, New Hampshire 03470

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Homepage, www.catholicism.org

This next is taken from the website www.smcenter.org, the Saint Michael Center for the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church remembers the feastday of Saint Mary of Cleophas on April 9, and the following is her description from the website:
  1. Saint Mary of Cleophas (First Century).
She was one of the “three Marys” who followed Our Lord and stood at the foot of the Cross on Calvary when He died. She was the wife of Saint Cleophas, the brother of Saint Joseph. She was the mother of Saint Simon, Saint James the Less and Saint Jude, Apostles, and of Saint Mary Salome, the mother of the Apostles Saint James the Greater and Saint John. Saint Mary of Cleophas was put on a boat with others by the Jews in the year 47, and pushed out to sea without sails or oars. She died in France. The island in France where she landed, after her miraculous journey from Jerusalem, is called les Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer (“the Holy Marys of the Sea”), named for Saint Mary of Cleophas, Saint Mary Magdalen and Saint Mary Salome.

Notice, the above fails to mention Saint Joseph Barsabas, their fourth son, not an apostle, commonly referred to as “Joseph or Joses, the brother of James”, in many passages. While not appointed one of the original Twelve by Jesus, we do know that he was considered opposite Matthias as the replacement apostle for Judas Iscariot by the 11 Apostles (see Acts of the Apostles). Apparently there was a prayerful casting of lots, and Matthias won the majority. Saint Joseph Barsabas and Matthias were both considered because they had been present from the beginning of Jesus’s ministry.

Additional websites do mention him, in addition to the scriptural references, as one of the four brothers, and Mary as the wife of Cleophas, with Cleophas being the brother of Saint Joseph (foster father of Jesus, wife of the Virgin). Check out the following, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, www.newadvent.org.

Mary of Cleophas

This title occurs only in John 19:25. A comparison of the lists of those who stood at the foot of the cross would seem to identify her with Mary, the mother of James the Less and Joseph (Mark 15:40; cf. Matthew 27:56). … In the narratives of the Resurrection she is named “Mary of James”; (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10) and “the other Mary” (Matthew 27:61; 28:1). The title of “Mary of James” is obscure. If it stood alone, we should feel inclined to render it “wife of (or sister of) James”, but the recurrence of the expression “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” compels us to render it in the same way when we only read “Mary of James”. … James is termed “of Alpheus”, i.e. presumably “son of Alpheus”. St. Jerome would identify this Alpheus with Cleophas who, according to Hegesippus, was brother to St. Joseph (Hist. eccl., III, xi). In this case Mary of Cleophas, or Alpheus, would be the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, and the term “sister”, adelphe, in John 19:25, would cover this.

See next post …
 
In reference to Paul C’s questioning the age of Saint James the Less, I cannot debate his arguments, since we don’t have historical reference points for any of the ages or spread of the years of the six brothers in Saint Joseph’s family to each other, of Saint Joseph to Cleophas, or the spread of their years. Nor the ages or spread of the five siblings of Cleophas and Mary. I had mentioned that in my own family that there is a spread of 22 years from the oldest to the youngest sibling, by the same parents. I have a family of nephews and nieces by my brother who are similar in ages to my youngest sister, who is seven years removed from the next closest sibling. Additionally, there are 15 more years between the ages of Joseph and Mary. If a similar thing could happen among their families, you can imagine a spread of say, 37 years or more, in round numbers, among those who could be deemed to be parents, then add in nieces or nephews. Given the unknown variant of spread of ages, having 70-year old grandparents around is not improbable.

Some of the references, if you look them up, actually give James the Less as being younger than James the Greater, who is his nephew by Saint Mary Salome, his sister. That would mean that Saint Mary of Salome might be among the oldest of the five children of the issue of Cleophas and Mary, the brother of Saint Joseph, thus allowing younger children of that family and nephews or nieces to be similar ages. That being the case, the grandparents could have been a spry 70 or less. If John the Evangelist was 30 at the time of the crucifixion, and we know that James the Greater was his older brother, we might suppose he could have been 35. If James the Less was said to be younger than James the Greater, he might easily have been 32, thus making him 94 years old in 62 A.D. If we assume, wildly, that his mother, Mary Salome, might have been 15 at the time of his birth, she would have been 47, just as Mary, the Virgin, was 49, at the time of the crucifixion. That puts Cleophas and Mary of Cleophas at between 62 or 67, if Mary of Cleophas would have had children between ages 15 and 20. Again, we just don’t know birth order or spread in ages of siblings of either of the two families of cousins to really postulate. But it does hold water.

These things, especially with Divine intervention, are not unheard of. We know that Elizabeth, mother of Saint John the Baptist, was 70 when she conceived. The Virgin Mary, her first cousin, was only 14, and they were expecting their firstborn/onlyborn, John and Jesus, at the same time. A 56-year spread between first cousins. This happened to other famous Biblical families, as well, so I have no reason based on suppositions that any of these legends might not be true.

Nonetheless, I was hopeful to find something which would substantiate the legend that Saint James the Less was 96 years old at the time of his death in 62 A.D. The primary document I found was a Protestant writing, in which she documents her sources, if you go to the full references, as being age 94 in 62 A.D. It is not without controversy itself in some of its writings, so I hestitate to mention it, but her sources are some of the same we have referenced throughout this thread. I will quote from it next; after that, continue on with the next document regarding James the Less and his brothers, from other sources. It is a much fuller account from early documents, but does not give his age, as this source does.

A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE LIVES AND MARTYRDOM OF THE APOSTLES, EVANGELISTS, DISCIPLES, And EARLIEST FATHERS OF THE CHURCH, WHO SUFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. " One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism."—Eph. iv. 5. COMPILED FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE, AND ANCIENT CHURCH HISTORY, BY LOUISA CHARLOTTE FRAMPTON. LONDON: RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE. LONDON.

I found it by googling Martyrdom of Apostles, and it shows as a google book, should you wish to read the entire document:

We learn from Ecclesiastical History, that St. James the Less was elected first Bishop of Jerusalem, in which Bishopric he continued about thirty years, until his death; and such was the honour and respect in which he was held, that he was surnamed “the Just.”

St. James the Less suffered martyrdom at Jerusalem, when there arose a tumult among the Jews, Scribes, and Pharisees, who feared that from the teaching of St. James, the people would believe in Jesus as the Messiah. The Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed him on a wing of the Temple, and (as it would appear in scorn and derision) adjured him as a just man in whom they all believed, to declare to them " which was the door to Jesus ?" Whereupon he answered in a loud voice, " Why do ye ask me respecting Jesus the Son of Man ? He is now sitting in the Heavens on the right hand of great power; and is about to come again on the clouds of Heaven:" thus once more testifying to the inspired words of his own Epistle, “the coming of the Lord draweth nigh: behold, the Judge standeth before the door1;” as well as to the declaration of his blessed Lord and Master, " I am the door of the sheep; by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved’." As this just testimony moved many of the multitude to believe, and to cry " Hosanna to the Son of David," those same Scribes and Pharisees cried

1 James v. 8, 9. a John x. 7—19.

that they would stone James the Just, and casting him down from the Temple, they then stoned him, whilst he repeated the words of his Lord and Saviour, " 0 Lord God and Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do ;" and finally they struck him on the head with a fuller’s club3. This event took place A.d. 62, during the Procuratorship of Albinus, successor to Festus, when it is believed that St. James had reached the advanced age of ninety-four years.

3 Euscbius, Ecclcs. Hist.

But wait! There’s more …
 
Sorry to interrupt your series, but go ahead, post the rest…

Why are we assuming the male brethren (James [Jacob], Joseph, Judas and Simon) are all part of the Twelve Apostles? Sure there are common names, but those were probably commonly used, like Jesus [ultimately from Joshua] and Mary [Miriam] itself. Isn’t there internal evidence to the contrary? Jesus’ relatives called him crazy; would any Apostle do that once they were called? It seems James and his brethren only got in on the action after the resurrection; Jesus did appear to him.
 
The next is from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, www.exclassics.com/foxe/foxe4.htm, which goes into much detail about how three of the four brothers were martyred, as well as many others; and quite a lot of detail about James the Less, aka James the Just, also a bishop of Jerusalem prior to his brother Simon, the cousins of Jesus, who were each martyred while holding the post. It is quite lengthy, but I have taken the most part from it concerning the brothers and their demise:
Code: 
Dorotheus in his book named Synopsis testifieth, that Nicanor, one of the seven deacons, with two thousand others, which believed in Christ, suffered also the same day whereon Stephen did suffer.

The said Dorotheus witnesseth also that Simon, another of the deacons, bishop afterward of Bostrum in Arabia, was there burned. Parmenas also, another of the deacons, suffered.

Judas, brother of James, called also Thaddeus and Lebbeus, preached to the Edessenes, and to all Mesopotamia: he was slain under Augarus, king of the Edessenes, in Berito.

Simon called Cananeus, which was brother to Jude above mentioned, and to James the younger, which all were the sons of Mary Cleophas, and of Alpheus, was bishop of Jerusalem after James, and was crucified in a city of Egypt in the time of Trajanus the emperor, as Dorotheus recordeth, But Abdias writeth, that he with his brother Jude were both slain by a tumult of the people in Suanir, a city of Parsidis.

After that Festus had sent the apostle Paul to Rome after his appellation made at Cesarea, and that the Jews by the means thereof had left their hope of performing their malicious vow against him conceived, they fell upon James the brother of our Lord, who was bishop at Jerusalem, against whom they, being bent with like malice, brought him forth before them, and required him to deny before all the people the faith of Christ. But he, otherwise than they all looked for, freely and with a greater constancy before all the multitude confessed Jesus to be the Son of God, our Saviour, and our Lord. Whereupon, they not being able to abide the testimony of this man any longer, because he was thought to be the justest among them all, for the highness of Divine wisdom and godliness which in living he declared, they killed him, finding the more opportunity to accomplish their mischief, because the kingdom the same time was vacant. For Festus being dead in Jewry, the administration of that province was destitute of a ruler and a deputy. But after what manner James was killed the words of Clement do declare, which writeth that he was cast down from the pinnacle of the temple, and, being smittcn with the instrument of a fuller, was slain; but Egesippus, which lived in the time next after the apostles, described the cause diligently in his fifth commentary, after this manner as followeth.

James the brother of our Lord took in hand to govern the church after the apostles, being counted of all men from the time of our Lord to be a just and perfect man. Many and divers other Jameses there were beside him, but this was born holy from his mother's womb; he drunk no wine, nor any strong drink; neither did he eat any living creature; the razor never came up on his head; he was not anointed with oil, neither did he use bath; to him only was it lawful to enter into the holy place; neither was he clothed with woollen cloth, but with silk; and he only entered into the temple, falling upon his knees, asking remission for the people; so that his knees by oft kneeling lost the sense of feeling, being benumbed and hardened like the knees of a camel. He was (for worshipping God and craving forgiveness for the people) called just, and for the excellency of his just life named Oblias, which (if you do interpret it) is the safeguard and justice of the people, as the prophets declare of him: therefore whenas many of the heretics which were among the people asked him what manner of gift Jesus should be, he answered that he was the Saviour. Whereof some do believe him to be Jesus Christ; but the aforesaid heretics neither believe the resurrection, neither that any shall come which shall render unto every man according to his works, but as many as believe, they believed for James's cause. Whenas many therefore of the princes did believe, there was a tumult made of the scribes, Jews, and Pharisees, saying, It is dangerous, lest that all the people do look for this Jesus as for Christ. Therefore they gathered themselves together, and said to James, We beseech thee, restrain the people, for they believe in Jesus as though he were Christ; we pray thee, persuade them all which come unto the feast of the passover of Jesus; for we are all obedient unto thee, and all the people do testify of thee that thou art just, neither that thou dost accept the person of any man; therefore persuade the people that they be not deceived in Jesus, and all the people and we will obey thee: therefore stand upon the pillar of the temple, that thou mayst be seen from above, and that thy words may be perceived of all the people, for to this pass over all the tribes do come with all the country. And thus the forenamed scribes and Pharisees did set James upon the battlements of the church, and they cried unto him and said, Thou just man, whom all we ought to obey, because this people is led after Jesus, which is crucified, tell what is the gift of Jesus crucified. And he answered with a great voice, What do you ask me of Jesus the Son of man, seeing that he sitteth on the right hand of God in heaven, and shall come in the clouds of the sky? But when many were persuaded of this, they glorified God upon the witness of James, and said, Hosanna in the highest to the Son of David. Then the scribes and the Pharisees said among themselves, We have done evil that we have caused such a testimony of Jesus, but let us go up, and let us take him, that they, being compelled with fear, may deny that faith. And they cried out, saying, Oh, oh, this just man also is seduced. Therefore they went up to throw down the just man, and said among themselves, Let us stone this just man James; and they took him to smite him with stones, for he was not yet dead when he was cast down. But he turning, fell down upon his knees, saying, O Lord God, Father, I beseech thee to forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Please see last post …
 
But when they had smitten him with stones, one of the priests of the children of Rechas, the son of Charobim, spake to them the testimony which is in Jeremiah the prophet: Leave off; what do ye? The just man prayeth for you. And one of those which were present took a fuller’s instrument, wherewith they did use to beat and purge cloth, and smote the just man on his head; and so he finished his martyrdom, and they buried him in the same place, and his pillar abideth still by the temple. He was a true testimony to the Jews and the Gentiles. And shortly after Vespasianus the emperor, destroying the land of Jewry, brought them into captivity. These things being thus written at large of Egesippus, do well agree to those which Clement did write of him. This James was so notable a man, that for his justice, he was had in honour of all men, insomuch that the wise men of the Jews, shortly after his martyrdom, did impute the cause of the besieging of Jerusalem, and other calamities which happened unto them, to no other cause, but unto the violence and injury done to this man. Also Josephus hath not left this out of his history, where he speaketh of him after this manner: These things so chanced unto the Jews for a vengeance, because of that just man James, which was the brother of Jesus, whom they called Christ; for the Jews killed him, although he was a righteous man.
Code: 
The same Josephus declareth his death in the same book and chapter, saying, Cæsar hearing of the death of Festus, sent Albinus the lieutenant into Jewry; but Ananus the younger being bishop, and of the sect of the Sadducees, trusting that he had obtained a convenient time, seeing that Festus was dead, and Albinus entered on his journey, he called a council, and calling many unto him, among whom was James, by name, the brother of Jesus which is called Christ, he stoned them, accusing them as breakers of the law.

Whereby it appeareth that many other besides James also at the same time were martyred and put to death among the Jews, for the faith of Christ.
This has certainly been enlightening, and will not be resolved on this thread, as it is not Church Dogma, and Church experts disagree on it. But it is something to think about. It gives me comfort and understanding of what Jesus was up against; in that in His close inner circle were aunts and uncles, cousins, and second cousins. A few of them must have known from the beginning, when Joseph and Mary learned of their roles to become The Holy Family, and may or may not have revealed it to their families, or else gradually, over time. It must have been incredulous to them, in the beginning.

Certainly Jesus’s Aunt Mary of Cleophas and Cousin Mary Salome were present to the End, even taking care of burial and embalming rituals, and most all present at the Resurrection. What He and they must have undergone, as each of them came to the understanding that the prophecy of the Savior was realized in their lifetimes, and among their own families, must have been beyond spiritual imagining and comprehension at times, and what amazement and appreciation, and defense to the death, when finally grasped. Read the lives of these family members, the Apostles, Saints, and Martyrs. All except John the Evangelist (who was tortured, and survived it, and died peacefully later), and the Blessed Virgin, paid with their lives.

Happy Easter to you all! 🙂

04/11/09
 
This nags me: regardless of whether they are stepbrothers or cousins or some other (though definitely not uterine brothers), why are we assuming the male brethren (James [Jacob], Joseph, Judas and Simon) are all part of the Twelve Apostles? Sure there are common names, but those were probably commonly used, like Jesus [ultimately from Joshua] and Mary [Miriam] itself. Isn’t there internal evidence to the contrary? Jesus’ relatives called him crazy; would any Apostle do that once they were called? It seems James and his brethren only got in on the action after the resurrection; Jesus did appear to him.

And to naysayers, this is a matter of trust. Whom do you trust, one or many? The present or history?
 
nevadagardener said:
]
Some of the references, if you look them up, actually give James the Less as being younger than James the Greater, who is his nephew by Saint Mary Salome, his sister. That would mean that Saint Mary of Salome might be among the oldest of the five children of the issue of Cleophas and Mary, the brother of Saint Joseph, thus allowing younger children of that family and nephews or nieces to be similar ages. That being the case, the grandparents could have been a spry 70 or less. If John the Evangelist was 30 at the time of the crucifixion, and we know that James the Greater was his older brother, we might suppose he could have been 35. If James the Less was said to be younger than James the Greater, he might easily have been 32, thus making him 94 years old in 62 A.D. If we assume, wildly, that his mother, Mary Salome, might have been 15 at the time of his birth, she would have been 47, just as Mary, the Virgin, was 49, at the time of the crucifixion. That puts Cleophas and Mary of Cleophas at between 62 or 67, if Mary of Cleophas would have had children between ages 15 and 20. Again, we just don’t know birth order or spread in ages of siblings of either of the two families of cousins to really postulate. But it does hold water.
Click to expand...

.

I’m not debating your relationships, although the Apostles seem a little more clannish than I previously recognized, with 5 being direct relatives of Jesus,. What I am pointing out to you is that if the relationships are real, then Saint James the Less must have been much less than 96 in 62 AD. That would make him 64 when Jesus was crucified not 32 as you identify in you timeline above. It might be believable that james the less was 64 at the cricifixion if not for the fact that his mother was in attendance at the crucifixion and would have been at least in her 80s if her son was 64. That seems too old to have been following Jesus around.

All of your story could work, if you simply abandon the claim that James was 96 in 62. If he was 66 or 76, it could all make sense.
 
nevadagardener said:
Hello inkaneer:

Let me refer you back to two of my posts on this thread, #28 on Page 2, and #175 on Page 12, which give you those details. Post #175 also gives numerous posts by others referencing these same relationships in Scripture and other places posted on this thread. As referenced in those posts, the source is the textbook, “The Holy Family - Jesus, Mary, and Joseph” written by The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Their website is www.catholicism.com. The book is still available there, and is full of information about The Holy Family, the Saints, early Church Fathers, and Doctors of the Church.

Although it is a bit confusing for us now, I love how each generation honors the next with a namesake of four family members: Mary Salome, daughter of Mary of Cleophas, or else her Aunt, The Virgin Mary; Saint James the Less, and his nephew, Saint James the Greater; and Saint Joseph, whose nephew is Saint Joseph Barsabas, aka Joses, aka Jose.

Once you know the relationships, you then understand that the four famous “brothers” referenced in Matthew are actually brothers to each other, the four sons of Cleophas and Mary of Cleophas, and are actually first cousins to Jesus, not His actual “brothers”. Unless you choose the loose translation of “brethren”, or “followers/believers”. Also search out the great post on this thread by Randy Carson, where he discusses this passage, (as well as other Scriptural quotes which give partial relationships, but which you can then tie back to the two families of cousins, once you know the relationships):

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)

Once you know the relationships, you can then sort out the partial relationships given for the two Marys present at the crucifixion with The Virgin Mary, and understand that they are actually her sister-in-law and her niece, not her “sisters”. Unless you go with the lack of language thing again, usage for “sisters” instead of the distinct relationships.

Once you understand that Mary Salome was married to Zebedee, you then understand the relationships of “James and John, sons of Zebedee”, hence second cousins of Jesus by marriage. Or that James and Joses (aka Joseph or Jose), are brothers also of Simon and Jude, and sons of Cleophas (aka Clopas or Alphaeus), and nephews of Saint Joseph, hence first cousins of Jesus by marriage. Interesting, yes?

Now that you know the relationships, it makes it kinda fun to read the Scriptures and tie the characters back to the cousins and/or apostles (not actual brothers) of Jesus, descended from the House of David. So, now that you know …

Enjoy! 😉
Click to expand...
The brothers or family? were not present at the cross. Jesus gave the care of his mother to John, why not a brother?
I don’t think there were brothers and sisters. However, does ot really matter.

jean

jean
 
Over the Easter weekend, there were quite a number of programs on the History Channel and National Geo. channel concerning who Jesus was and about his family. I didn’t get to watch them all, but I caught about three of them. None of the programs or scholars on them came to a unanimous conclusion about the nature of Jesus’s family or it’s make-up.

They were agreed on two points:

1.) In Our Lord’s time it was natural to have large families to insure that at least a two or three of the children reached maturity for the sake of keeping the family and tribal bloodlines going.

2.) That if Mary and Joseph had had other children it would not in any way diminish the virgin birth as taught by Holy Mother Church.

I agree with both points. The rest of the matters brought up, I feel, will be subject to endless debate. Oh!- a final thing- one of the Catholic Seminary professors asked a good question- would it be so bad if Jesus had blood brothers and sisters and if not then why doesn’t the Church get realistic and admit the possibility?

Rob
 
keyboardrob said:
Over the Easter weekend, there were quite a number of programs on the History Channel and National Geo. channel concerning who Jesus was and about his family. I didn’t get to watch them all, but I caught about three of them. None of the programs or scholars on them came to a unanimous conclusion about the nature of Jesus’s family or it’s make-up.

They were agreed on two points:

1.) In Our Lord’s time it was natural to have large families to insure that at least a two or three of the children reached maturity for the sake of keeping the family and tribal bloodlines going.

2.) That if Mary and Joseph had had other children it would not in any way diminish the virgin birth as taught by Holy Mother Church.

I agree with both points. The rest of the matters brought up, I feel, will be subject to endless debate. Oh!- a final thing- one of the Catholic Seminary professors asked a good question- would it be so bad if Jesus had blood brothers and sisters and if not then why doesn’t the Church get realistic and admit the possibility?

Rob
Click to expand...
Would it have made a difference? I am sure it would have had a major impact on the history of Christianity and I wouldn’t doubt any siblings would have in all likelihood came to a horrid death at some point considering all who have been martyred in the name of Christ throughout history. If we stop and think about it all sorts of possibilities could come to mind, but none that would show a just humanity. The best response I would offer to your professor is that the Apostles surely knew Jesus had no true siblings based on the gopsel as we refer to siblings and there would have been no need for Jesus to proclaim to John, “behold they mother" as it would have been the surviving siblings who would according to tradition been the care takers of Mary at that point, that in itself is Biblical. The Church Fathers certainly would have had the best inkling in the following times so close to the times of the Apostles and the Church Fathers recognized Jesus as Mary’s only Child. The Church through it’s Apostolic Succession and scripture, both OT and NT, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit as Jesus sent to Guide her, should be given the faith Jesus asks us to possess and certainly the respect due His Mother in recognition of Jesus as the Son of God. Finally, although there are no specific statements to it, there are many points to Christianity that have no specific statements. The truth is the Gospel was never meant to be an autobiography of Jesus and His family life as it was to be the supporting writings in proclaiming the “Good News” as He wished and instructed.
 
Hi Tom- and everyone else as well-

Tom, thanks for your kind response to my most recent post. You gave me food for thought and that’s what’s supposed to happen in a forum like this.

As for my seminary professor- he was (and I assume still is) like most of the faculty…full of himself and some fairly wild beliefs. Despite it all i wound up with an M.Div. and an M.A. (was in a double degree program.) I was never ordained. I refused the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but our Bishop still encourages me to think about it. Anyhow, if you want your faith severely challenged or destroyed, go to seminary. I left the seminary well educated and my beliefs unshaken. Being Melkite Catholic, I was well grounded from childhood on about Holy Mother Church and what she expects of us all.

The only point I wanted to make in my original post was that my faith wouldn’t be shaken is Jesus had true blood siblings. You are correct when you say that such siblings would have met horrible fates had they existed. However, I still take it as an article of faith that Our Lady had but one Son- Our Lord and Savior. I do recognize (being a student of classical languages including Aramaic- the tongue used by Christ and his family, etc.,) that there’s many ways to interpret terms related to extended and nuclear families. No matter what, scholars won’t ever settle on the meanings of such terminology.

Tom, trust me- many seminary professors both at my alma mater and in other seminaries need to review the magisterium and the catechism of Holy Mother Church. My contention is that we have a scarcity of clergy not because there aren’t folks called to explore priestly ministry, but because we need to return to our root, core set of beliefs as a people of God who are the one true church. When we once aain have clarity of belief and doctrine and such is taught in our seminaries, the lack of clergy and religious will end with time.

Hey- sorry for the sermon and sorry for going off topic a bit. I just wanted you all to know why i feel we must stick to our precious articles of faith.

Pax Christi,
Rob;)
 
I found many interesting sources, as to the distinction of James the Less versus James the Greater.

ST. JAMES THE LESS, APOSTLE.
Feast: May 3

St. James, to distinguish him from the other apostle of the same name, the son of Zebedee, was called the Less; which appellation is supposed to have taken its rise, either from his having been called later to the apostleship than the former, or from the lowness of his stature, or from his youth.

Several other sources indicate his “size of stature”, meaning he was physically smaller than James the Greater. The “lowness of stature” might be a reference to his comparison to James the Greater’s financial status, the son of Zebedee, not doing too badly in his fishing business. So, we really don’t know. LOTS of legends here.

PaulC: Thanks for your point. You make a good one. Sorry about the math error. What I was trying to show is how the possibility of either story could be true, that James the Less could be younger than James the Greater, if Mary Salome was among the eldest children of the family of four additional brothers. Conversely, if the other legend is true, that does make for some elderly grandparents; but in that case, if Mary of Cleophas, James the Less’s mother, is married to Cleophas as perhaps the youngest of the six brothers in the spread, say within a 20-year spread, and 15 or so when she gave birth to James, it is not out of the realm of possibility. Since there is no documentation as to James the Less’s birthday, we’ll never know which legend is true.

I was originally trying to find documentation for the writings that James the Less was the oldest of the Apostles, and came up with only one post to support the original post. What is clear is that we don’t know the ages, spread, or the birth orders, for certain, of the members of the two families of cousins, or Saint Joseph’s brothers. I agree that some interpretations of James “the Less” as “the Younger” makes it so it doesn’t then work with the other legends that he was the oldest of the Apostles. I’m not going to even guess further at the infirmities of grandparents getting around at the crucifixion. People did amazing things then, as now, such as Elizabeth conceiving at age 70.

What we have attempted to do, on this thread, was respond to the original post as to whether “Jesus had siblings?”.

To answer the question, we have to show whether He did, or did not. Many of us have posted sources as to why those given as “brethren” are actually not direct siblings. That, and how it would have been impossible, given the perpetual virginity of Mary and Joseph (in any case, Joseph’s virginity is not Church Dogma, but is certainly represented in these posts as to the position of Chuch Fathers and Tradition, esp. Western Church versus Eastern Orthodox, and Saint Jerome). It is so that you can clearly see that in numerous posts, both Scriptural and historical, that those four brothers whose names are questioned in Matthew are actually the first cousins of Jesus, while yet brothers to each other; and two other brothers are His second cousins, by a sister of the four brothers. This, and the other incomplete descriptions given elsewhere of the relationships.

I have always been a little tickled with the questions in Matthew, … “Are not ‘so-and-so’ His brothers?” Isn’t He the Carpenter’s son?" They did not understand that Jesus was not really Joseph’s son. And, given the interpretation of “brethren”, lacking language for “cousins”, isn’t it just a stretch for anyone to take as “gospel” that persons asking the question, “aren’t they the brothers” are seeking clarification as to whether indeed these four were actually brothers to Jesus? So, maybe they really didn’t know that these four were not Jesus’s actual brothers. Did they understand that the four were brothers to each other, and a different parent? And clearly, we just don’t know, they might be referring to His “followers”. It is, after all, a question. We don’t know the full context of the questions. Nor is it a definitive statement that they ARE IN FACT His brothers.

As to the “brethren” calling Jesus crazy, if you check out the context of the passages, they are inferring that He might get better reception in His ministry in a different region, to start out. Everyone knows the definition of an “Expert” is someone who is over 100 miles from home.

As to the Apostles, it is simply not coincidence, or similar names; the posts throughout the thread reference back the relationships from many different sources, as to who they actually are. My last post #284 gives it again, as to the martyrdom of the Apostles who were among the sons of Cleophas and Mary, his wife, which is why I posted it. That Jesus selected three of His four first cousins descended from His Uncle Cleophas, and Aunt Mary of Cleophas, to be his Apostles; that He selected two of His second cousins descended from His Uncle Zebedee and Aunt Mary Salome, a sister of the four brothers; and that one other brother of the four first cousins was later considered to be the replacement apostle for Judas Iscariot (but was not selected, as was Matthias, instead); well, that is the conclusion of the not-coincidental findings of the “names” or “characters” in the posts.

They were not Johnny-come-latelys; not only were some present from the beginning of His ministry, He actually grew up with them. The hour that Jesus selected his Apostles among the fishermen was simply the official commencement of His ministry with them. They were not random strangers. We know that Peter and Simon, brothers, were in partnership with His second cousins, the sons of Zebedee (in Zebedee’s fishing business), whom He would have known all of His life. You can imagine they probably hung out together, He knew them well. These were the characters of strength (“Sons of Thunder”, as He nicknamed James the Greater and John, their strong personalities were part of the legend of James the Greater’s name) with whom He would need to surround Himself, who could “go the distance”. (Entire families were involved in His ministry; remember, not only was Peter martyred, but so was his wife, at the same time.) And it answers the original question, as to whether Jesus had siblings, since the parents of all can be identified, and those that are Apostles, are identified as such, and related back to their parentage, in their martyrdom, as well. Did Jesus have siblings? The answer is “No”.

This interaction has certainly been fun. It has caused me to do some research, which, if we all learn something new, and start researching the lives of the characters involved, isn’t that a great benefit of these forums? 😉
 
Nevadagardener,

I take it as an article of faith that Mary had only one son.

However, a lot of what you are saying is very questionable so you need to dial back a little to what is provable. For instance, this statement:
They were not Johnny-come-latelys; not only were some present from the beginning of His ministry, He actually grew up with them. The hour that Jesus selected his Apostles among the fishermen was simply the official commencement of His ministry with them. They were not random strangers. We know that Peter and Simon, brothers, were in partnership with His second cousins, the sons of Zebedee (in Zebedee’s fishing business), whom He would have known all of His life. You can imagine they probably hung out together, He knew them well. These were the characters of strength (“Sons of Thunder”, as He nicknamed James the Greater and John, their strong personalities were part of the legend of James the Greater’s name) with whom He would need to surround Himself, who could “go the distance”. (Entire families were involved in His ministry; remember, not only was Peter martyred, but so was his wife, at the same time.) And it answers the original question, as to whether Jesus had siblings, since the parents of all can be identified, and those that are Apostles, are identified as such, and related back to their parentage, in their martyrdom, as well. Did Jesus have siblings? The answer is “No”.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t seem right, based on John 1: 35-42:
The next day John was there again with two of his disciples, and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, “Behold, the Lamb of God.” The two disciples heard what he said and followed Jesus. Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are you staying?” He said to them,“Come, and you will see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about four in the afternoon. Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus. He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed). Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

This certainly doesn’t sound like the exchange you would have with someone you grew up with and knew your whole life, does it?
 
keyboardrob said:
Over the Easter weekend, there were quite a number of programs on the History Channel and National Geo. channel concerning who Jesus was and about his family. I didn’t get to watch them all, but I caught about three of them. None of the programs or scholars on them came to a unanimous conclusion about the nature of Jesus’s family or it’s make-up.

They were agreed on two points:

1.) In Our Lord’s time it was natural to have large families to insure that at least a two or three of the children reached maturity for the sake of keeping the family and tribal bloodlines going.

2.) That if Mary and Joseph had had other children it would not in any way diminish the virgin birth as taught by Holy Mother Church.

I agree with both points. The rest of the matters brought up, I feel, will be subject to endless debate. Oh!- a final thing- one of the Catholic Seminary professors asked a good question- would it be so bad if Jesus had blood brothers and sisters and if not then why doesn’t the Church get realistic and admit the possibility?

Rob
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t trust either of those sources as far as I could throw them.

Heresy has been alive and well since before Martin Luther. It is having a particular heyday now.
 
“Foxes Book of Martyrs” is about as anti-Catholic a source as one can find.
 
Hi All,

Just so everyone knows, I do not now and never have considered History Channel or the Natl. Geo. channel authorities on much of anything as relates to matters of faith or even plain old horse sense when it comes to Biblical archeology, etc., I don’t mind that they are trying to make a few legit points here and there that would spur some true, non-sensationalized research into certain topics. One such area of research would be to test the legitimacy of those books & apostolic letters not included in the present day Biblical canon. That kind of research cannot be done with the cameras rolling and one eye cast towards how best to sell a TV show on a subject like “The Jesus Tomb”. Get the picture?

As for commonality of names- look at my own- “Robert”. I can go to the cemetery where our family lots are located and loved ones interred and find dozens, if not a couple of hundred “Robert” inscribed monuments. Now, if they used my actual surname instead of the name my Dad took when he and my Mom immigrated to this country, I’d stand out a bit more- that name being “Colavita”. I’m sometimes tempted to change back to the original surname, but have never done so. The point being, the names they find on all these tombs being used to “explore” Jesus’ family leave open the question of the reasearcher’s common sense when they make certain claims about the Holy Family given the commonality of the names involved.

Yes- heresy is alive and well. (Can’t remember who said that a couple of posts back.) BUT- so is anti-catholicism, at least here where I live. It may not be as overt as in the past, but in way it is more evil because of the subtlety, cunning, and underground nature it’s taken in recent years. It’s also odd that when I write the occasional letter to the editor for the local newspaper that defends an article of faith someone else has questioned, the letter is NEVER published. The same is true for other Catholics in the area- so I have heard. I live in large community where you’d expect a bit more consideration from the media, but it doesn’t seem to exist.

Personally, I WOULD like to know about Jesus’ extended family. I’m sure He had such from St. Joseph and probably our Lady’s side of his house. Of course, being conceived as He was they would not truly be blood relatives, but I’d enjoy knowing how they stood on Jesus’ teachings and what, if any, role they played in either spreading the Good News or hindering its’ progress.

Pax,
Rob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top