D
diggerdomer
Guest
No
Yes (though whether they interpret it truthfully is another question).
Cheers
- Status
Cheers
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No there’s no record in history. I don’t believe Jesus was an uncle, but we have no way of knowing. The person posting the original question asked it for some reason, and hypothetically there’s always a possibility that Jesus could have been an uncle. The most likely situation would be if Joseph was a widower and had children before he and Mary were betrothed.
But, this is all speculation, I don’t see what the point of the original question was, really.
Cheers
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
The point of the question was that Jesus who is God would have no blood nieces or nephews.
God doesn’t have blood relatives other than the Blessed Mother Mary.
Why?
Because if He did those blood relatives would be able to constitute not just a royal house but claim they were from a Godly royal house.
Which is why Mary is an only child and St. Joseph didn’t have any other children.
If you believe Jesus had blood relatives then I guess you’d be of the mentality that could believe in the DaVinci code!
The bad possibilities of blood relatives of Jesus is endless!
God doesn’t have blood relatives other than the Blessed Mother Mary.
Why?
Because if He did those blood relatives would be able to constitute not just a royal house but claim they were from a Godly royal house.
Which is why Mary is an only child and St. Joseph didn’t have any other children.
If you believe Jesus had blood relatives then I guess you’d be of the mentality that could believe in the DaVinci code!
The bad possibilities of blood relatives of Jesus is endless!
N
nevadagardener
Guest
The vast references of all sources indicate that Saint Mary Salome is the daughter of Saint Cleophas and Saint Mary of Cleophas, wife of Zebedee. She cannot also be another daughter of Saint Anne at the same time. The only wiggle room was one reference that indicated she might have been a half-sister by another father married to Saint Anne, but this sounded like conjecture, and I’d want to see it documented (nameless father). Why, as Saint Jerome and others wrote in the articles we’ve referenced, would anyone have more than one daughter named Mary? The sites far outnumber anything close to that, most tie Saint Mary of Cleophas and Saint Mary Salome together (mother and daughter). If anything, it is the messy language thing about “sisters” instead of sisters-in-law and nieces, between the Virgin Mary and the other Marys, much like the “brethren” thing. Saint Mary Salome is Jesus’s first cousin on Joseph’s side; her son John, the Disciple Jesus Loved, the youngest of them all, is his second cousin. Other than those I’ve given, there are no other “brethren”. So, no chance Jesus is an Uncle.
The article by the Catholic Legate, written by Mark Bonocore, entitled “Our Blessed Mother and the Saints, What the Bible Says about Mary’s Virginity” is the most expansive about how the “Joseph as Widower” theory came about, and very handily shoots it down, relying on the cousins versus brothers explanation of Saint Jerome. Apparently the early Church had trouble teaching the “brethren” concept between Jews and Gentiles. It is explained very well in this article. I think that link has already been provided. I think it is also one of the best articles explaining about the virginity of Joseph and Mary, quoting Scripture, as well as including Jesus and Saint Paul.
So, no chance of stepbrothers, either. Or other children of Mary and Joseph, after you read that article.
Now you can rest!
The article by the Catholic Legate, written by Mark Bonocore, entitled “Our Blessed Mother and the Saints, What the Bible Says about Mary’s Virginity” is the most expansive about how the “Joseph as Widower” theory came about, and very handily shoots it down, relying on the cousins versus brothers explanation of Saint Jerome. Apparently the early Church had trouble teaching the “brethren” concept between Jews and Gentiles. It is explained very well in this article. I think that link has already been provided. I think it is also one of the best articles explaining about the virginity of Joseph and Mary, quoting Scripture, as well as including Jesus and Saint Paul.
So, no chance of stepbrothers, either. Or other children of Mary and Joseph, after you read that article.
Now you can rest!
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Is the reference you cite available online?The vast references of all sources indicate that Saint Mary Salome is the daughter of Saint Cleophas and Saint Mary of Cleophas, wife of Zebedee. She cannot also be another daughter of Saint Anne at the same time. The only wiggle room was one reference that indicated she might have been a half-sister by another father married to Saint Anne, but this sounded like conjecture, and I’d want to see it documented (nameless father). Why, as Saint Jerome and others wrote in the articles we’ve referenced, would anyone have more than one daughter named Mary? The sites far outnumber anything close to that, most tie Saint Mary of Cleophas and Saint Mary Salome together (mother and daughter). If anything, it is the messy language thing about “sisters” instead of sisters-in-law and nieces, between the Virgin Mary and the other Marys, much like the “brethren” thing. Saint Mary Salome is Jesus’s first cousin on Joseph’s side; her son John, the Disciple Jesus Loved, the youngest of them all, is his second cousin. Other than those I’ve given, there are no other “brethren”. So, no chance Jesus is an Uncle.
The article by the Catholic Legate, written by Mark Bonocore, entitled “Our Blessed Mother and the Saints, What the Bible Says about Mary’s Virginity” is the most expansive about how the “Joseph as Widower” theory came about, and very handily shoots it down, relying on the cousins versus brothers explanation of Saint Jerome. Apparently the early Church had trouble teaching the “brethren” concept between Jews and Gentiles. It is explained very well in this article. I think that link has already been provided. I think it is also one of the best articles explaining about the virginity of Joseph and Mary, quoting Scripture, as well as including Jesus and Saint Paul.
So, no chance of stepbrothers, either. Or other children of Mary and Joseph, after you read that article.
Now you can rest!
It may be helpful for you, but it doesn’t sound as though it’s authoritative Church teaching, so whatever conclusions it reaches are not binding on the Catholic faith…right?
Cheers
L
Leopard
Guest
Jesus did have 2 blood-related grandparents. We name them Sts. Ann and Joachim.
Also 4 blood-related great-grandparents, etc.
It is not known how many, but it is certain that he had cousins in various degrees. Unless all of his ancestors were only children who only had only children, which we know is not true.
I do not believe in the Da Vinci code.
N
nevadagardener
Guest
Our Blessed Mother & The Saints
What the Bible Says About Mary’s Virginity
by Mark Bonocore
St. Jerome’s argument that “brother” is merely a Jewish tribal reference happens to be based in a Scriptural observation that totally destroys the Epiphanian “James bar-Joseph” theory once and for all. And that observation is simply that James “the brother of the Lord” had a different mother than Jesus, and this different mother was still alive at the time of the Crucifixion!
This fact can be seen most clearly by comparing Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (passages which list the names of Jesus’ “brothers”) with Matt 27:56 and Mark 15:40 (where the mother of two of the listed “brothers,” James and Joseph [Jose], is mentioned with the “Joseph” vs. “Jose” variant between Matthew and Mark being preserved in both places). Thus, the ONLY way for James to have been the biological son of Joseph is if a) Joseph divorced his first wife or b) if Joseph practiced polygamy - neither of which are part of Tradition, and neither of which fit with the Scriptural character of Joseph.
Rather, the Greco-Syrian, “Epiphanian” tradition (also to be found in the Protoevangelium of James), which presents Joseph as a widower with grown children at the time of his marriage to the Blessed Virgin, is rooted in an easy-to-understand pastoral solution that was commonly disseminated by the bishops and fathers of the Eastern Church to defend the Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity and to explain the reference to “brothers” in Scripture. Given the cultural animosity between Gentile Christians and their Jewish enemies throughout the first several centuries of Church history, in which Jewish culture and the “Jewishness” of various themes in Scripture were significantly downplayed (Christianity was, after all, a “Gentile” religion ), it is not surprising that the earliest fathers would opt for a straightforward pastoral explanation which did not depend upon understanding the tribal dynamics of Jewish culture, and which their Gentile flocks could easily understand (i.e., “the brothers mentioned are Joseph’s kids”). St. Jerome, however, who had close associations with Jews (the very Jews who helped him translate the OT), and who was not only a first-hand witness of how Jews thought and lived, but who also approached the New Testament Scripture with a much more rational, Western mentality, and thus knew that the “Joseph the widower” scenario could not be reconciled with the origins of James, gave the Church its present understanding which is certainly NOT rooted in any alleged dualism on Jerome’s part, but in a better and more comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures; and one that is free from the anti-Jewish cultural bigotry that prevented the earliest Church fathers from grasping what the word “brothers” really meant.
What is more, the “Mary” who appears at the Cross/Tomb accounts in the Synoptics, and who is unquestionably the mother of Jesus’ “brothers” James and Joseph [Jose], is most likely the same Mary who appears in John 19:27, where she is called the “wife of Clopas” and is also apparently identified as “His mother’s sister.” Now, let us think about this. Two sisters, both named “Mary”? Not very likely. Yet, if we take the word “adelphe” here as a translation of the Jewish tribal term, and assume that Mary the wife of Clopas (and mother of James) and Mary the mother of Jesus are merely close relatives, yet not biological siblings, then it makes perfect sense that James would also be called Jesus’ “brother.” However, assuming that this woman in John 19 is indeed the same Mary from the Synoptics, and thus the mother of James, what we would then have to conclude is that this Mary was married to Joseph, had James (and Jose and presumably a whole slew of other kids by him), and then divorced Joseph and married Clopas, allowing Joseph to marry the Blessed Virgin. Or, we must conclude that Joseph was married to two women named Mary, both of them “sisters,” like Leah and Rachel. But, again, we have no Scriptural reference or tradition for any of this. And there is also the little matter of Scripture referring to James as “the younger James” (Mark 15:40), thus implying that he was younger (NOT older) than Jesus; and certainly younger than James Bar-Zebedee, who was evidently about the same age as Jesus.
Thus, all-in-all, Jerome’s solution is the best and the one most consistent with Scripture. While the “Epiphanian” witness of the early Greco-Syrian fathers is useful in that it illustrates their desire to protect the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity as a true and universal Tradition, it must be admitted that their explanation was merely a pastoral one, and not something that can be reconciled with the Sacred Text.
Here is solid Scriptural proof that Mary always remained a virgin, and that it was the intention of Joseph and Mary to live chastely with one another.
First of all, in Luke 1:26, we are told:
“In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee
called Nazareth, TO A VIRGIN BETROTHED TO A MAN named Joseph, of the
HOUSE OF DAVID, and the VIRGIN’S name was Mary.”
So, what does this tell us? Simply this: Mary is a virgin; and Mary is soon to be married to Joseph --a descended of David.
Sorry, there is MUCH MORE, so go to the link if I’ve got you interested, 'cuz it’s just too long to post: www.catholic-legate.com/articles/maryvirgin.html
What the Bible Says About Mary’s Virginity
by Mark Bonocore
St. Jerome’s argument that “brother” is merely a Jewish tribal reference happens to be based in a Scriptural observation that totally destroys the Epiphanian “James bar-Joseph” theory once and for all. And that observation is simply that James “the brother of the Lord” had a different mother than Jesus, and this different mother was still alive at the time of the Crucifixion!
This fact can be seen most clearly by comparing Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (passages which list the names of Jesus’ “brothers”) with Matt 27:56 and Mark 15:40 (where the mother of two of the listed “brothers,” James and Joseph [Jose], is mentioned with the “Joseph” vs. “Jose” variant between Matthew and Mark being preserved in both places). Thus, the ONLY way for James to have been the biological son of Joseph is if a) Joseph divorced his first wife or b) if Joseph practiced polygamy - neither of which are part of Tradition, and neither of which fit with the Scriptural character of Joseph.
Rather, the Greco-Syrian, “Epiphanian” tradition (also to be found in the Protoevangelium of James), which presents Joseph as a widower with grown children at the time of his marriage to the Blessed Virgin, is rooted in an easy-to-understand pastoral solution that was commonly disseminated by the bishops and fathers of the Eastern Church to defend the Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity and to explain the reference to “brothers” in Scripture. Given the cultural animosity between Gentile Christians and their Jewish enemies throughout the first several centuries of Church history, in which Jewish culture and the “Jewishness” of various themes in Scripture were significantly downplayed (Christianity was, after all, a “Gentile” religion ), it is not surprising that the earliest fathers would opt for a straightforward pastoral explanation which did not depend upon understanding the tribal dynamics of Jewish culture, and which their Gentile flocks could easily understand (i.e., “the brothers mentioned are Joseph’s kids”). St. Jerome, however, who had close associations with Jews (the very Jews who helped him translate the OT), and who was not only a first-hand witness of how Jews thought and lived, but who also approached the New Testament Scripture with a much more rational, Western mentality, and thus knew that the “Joseph the widower” scenario could not be reconciled with the origins of James, gave the Church its present understanding which is certainly NOT rooted in any alleged dualism on Jerome’s part, but in a better and more comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures; and one that is free from the anti-Jewish cultural bigotry that prevented the earliest Church fathers from grasping what the word “brothers” really meant.
What is more, the “Mary” who appears at the Cross/Tomb accounts in the Synoptics, and who is unquestionably the mother of Jesus’ “brothers” James and Joseph [Jose], is most likely the same Mary who appears in John 19:27, where she is called the “wife of Clopas” and is also apparently identified as “His mother’s sister.” Now, let us think about this. Two sisters, both named “Mary”? Not very likely. Yet, if we take the word “adelphe” here as a translation of the Jewish tribal term, and assume that Mary the wife of Clopas (and mother of James) and Mary the mother of Jesus are merely close relatives, yet not biological siblings, then it makes perfect sense that James would also be called Jesus’ “brother.” However, assuming that this woman in John 19 is indeed the same Mary from the Synoptics, and thus the mother of James, what we would then have to conclude is that this Mary was married to Joseph, had James (and Jose and presumably a whole slew of other kids by him), and then divorced Joseph and married Clopas, allowing Joseph to marry the Blessed Virgin. Or, we must conclude that Joseph was married to two women named Mary, both of them “sisters,” like Leah and Rachel. But, again, we have no Scriptural reference or tradition for any of this. And there is also the little matter of Scripture referring to James as “the younger James” (Mark 15:40), thus implying that he was younger (NOT older) than Jesus; and certainly younger than James Bar-Zebedee, who was evidently about the same age as Jesus.
Thus, all-in-all, Jerome’s solution is the best and the one most consistent with Scripture. While the “Epiphanian” witness of the early Greco-Syrian fathers is useful in that it illustrates their desire to protect the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity as a true and universal Tradition, it must be admitted that their explanation was merely a pastoral one, and not something that can be reconciled with the Sacred Text.
Here is solid Scriptural proof that Mary always remained a virgin, and that it was the intention of Joseph and Mary to live chastely with one another.
First of all, in Luke 1:26, we are told:
“In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee
called Nazareth, TO A VIRGIN BETROTHED TO A MAN named Joseph, of the
HOUSE OF DAVID, and the VIRGIN’S name was Mary.”
So, what does this tell us? Simply this: Mary is a virgin; and Mary is soon to be married to Joseph --a descended of David.
Sorry, there is MUCH MORE, so go to the link if I’ve got you interested, 'cuz it’s just too long to post: www.catholic-legate.com/articles/maryvirgin.html
N
nevadagardener
Guest
Our Blessed Mother & The Saints
What the Bible Says About Mary’s Virginity
by Mark Bonocore
St. Jerome’s argument that “brother” is merely a Jewish tribal reference happens to be based in a Scriptural observation that totally destroys the Epiphanian “James bar-Joseph” theory once and for all. And that observation is simply that James “the brother of the Lord” had a different mother than Jesus, and this different mother was still alive at the time of the Crucifixion!
This fact can be seen most clearly by comparing Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (passages which list the names of Jesus’ “brothers”) with Matt 27:56 and Mark 15:40 (where the mother of two of the listed “brothers,” James and Joseph [Jose], is mentioned with the “Joseph” vs. “Jose” variant between Matthew and Mark being preserved in both places). Thus, the ONLY way for James to have been the biological son of Joseph is if a) Joseph divorced his first wife or b) if Joseph practiced polygamy - neither of which are part of Tradition, and neither of which fit with the Scriptural character of Joseph.
Rather, the Greco-Syrian, “Epiphanian” tradition (also to be found in the Protoevangelium of James), which presents Joseph as a widower with grown children at the time of his marriage to the Blessed Virgin, is rooted in an easy-to-understand pastoral solution that was commonly disseminated by the bishops and fathers of the Eastern Church to defend the Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity and to explain the reference to “brothers” in Scripture. Given the cultural animosity between Gentile Christians and their Jewish enemies throughout the first several centuries of Church history, in which Jewish culture and the “Jewishness” of various themes in Scripture were significantly downplayed (Christianity was, after all, a “Gentile” religion ), it is not surprising that the earliest fathers would opt for a straightforward pastoral explanation which did not depend upon understanding the tribal dynamics of Jewish culture, and which their Gentile flocks could easily understand (i.e., “the brothers mentioned are Joseph’s kids”). St. Jerome, however, who had close associations with Jews (the very Jews who helped him translate the OT), and who was not only a first-hand witness of how Jews thought and lived, but who also approached the New Testament Scripture with a much more rational, Western mentality, and thus knew that the “Joseph the widower” scenario could not be reconciled with the origins of James, gave the Church its present understanding which is certainly NOT rooted in any alleged dualism on Jerome’s part, but in a better and more comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures; and one that is free from the anti-Jewish cultural bigotry that prevented the earliest Church fathers from grasping what the word “brothers” really meant.
What is more, the “Mary” who appears at the Cross/Tomb accounts in the Synoptics, and who is unquestionably the mother of Jesus’ “brothers” James and Joseph [Jose], is most likely the same Mary who appears in John 19:27, where she is called the “wife of Clopas” and is also apparently identified as “His mother’s sister.” Now, let us think about this. Two sisters, both named “Mary”? Not very likely. Yet, if we take the word “adelphe” here as a translation of the Jewish tribal term, and assume that Mary the wife of Clopas (and mother of James) and Mary the mother of Jesus are merely close relatives, yet not biological siblings, then it makes perfect sense that James would also be called Jesus’ “brother.” However, assuming that this woman in John 19 is indeed the same Mary from the Synoptics, and thus the mother of James, what we would then have to conclude is that this Mary was married to Joseph, had James (and Jose and presumably a whole slew of other kids by him), and then divorced Joseph and married Clopas, allowing Joseph to marry the Blessed Virgin. Or, we must conclude that Joseph was married to two women named Mary, both of them “sisters,” like Leah and Rachel. But, again, we have no Scriptural reference or tradition for any of this. And there is also the little matter of Scripture referring to James as “the younger James” (Mark 15:40), thus implying that he was younger (NOT older) than Jesus; and certainly younger than James Bar-Zebedee, who was evidently about the same age as Jesus.
Thus, all-in-all, Jerome’s solution is the best and the one most consistent with Scripture. While the “Epiphanian” witness of the early Greco-Syrian fathers is useful in that it illustrates their desire to protect the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity as a true and universal Tradition, it must be admitted that their explanation was merely a pastoral one, and not something that can be reconciled with the Sacred Text.
Here is solid Scriptural proof that Mary always remained a virgin, and that it was the intention of Joseph and Mary to live chastely with one another.
First of all, in Luke 1:26, we are told:
“In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee
called Nazareth, TO A VIRGIN BETROTHED TO A MAN named Joseph, of the
HOUSE OF DAVID, and the VIRGIN’S name was Mary.”
So, what does this tell us? Simply this: Mary is a virgin; and Mary is soon to be married to Joseph --a descended of David.
Sorry, there is MUCH MORE, so go to the link if I’ve got you interested, 'cuz it’s just too long to post: www.catholic-legate.com/articles/maryvirgin.html
What the Bible Says About Mary’s Virginity
by Mark Bonocore
St. Jerome’s argument that “brother” is merely a Jewish tribal reference happens to be based in a Scriptural observation that totally destroys the Epiphanian “James bar-Joseph” theory once and for all. And that observation is simply that James “the brother of the Lord” had a different mother than Jesus, and this different mother was still alive at the time of the Crucifixion!
This fact can be seen most clearly by comparing Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (passages which list the names of Jesus’ “brothers”) with Matt 27:56 and Mark 15:40 (where the mother of two of the listed “brothers,” James and Joseph [Jose], is mentioned with the “Joseph” vs. “Jose” variant between Matthew and Mark being preserved in both places). Thus, the ONLY way for James to have been the biological son of Joseph is if a) Joseph divorced his first wife or b) if Joseph practiced polygamy - neither of which are part of Tradition, and neither of which fit with the Scriptural character of Joseph.
Rather, the Greco-Syrian, “Epiphanian” tradition (also to be found in the Protoevangelium of James), which presents Joseph as a widower with grown children at the time of his marriage to the Blessed Virgin, is rooted in an easy-to-understand pastoral solution that was commonly disseminated by the bishops and fathers of the Eastern Church to defend the Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity and to explain the reference to “brothers” in Scripture. Given the cultural animosity between Gentile Christians and their Jewish enemies throughout the first several centuries of Church history, in which Jewish culture and the “Jewishness” of various themes in Scripture were significantly downplayed (Christianity was, after all, a “Gentile” religion ), it is not surprising that the earliest fathers would opt for a straightforward pastoral explanation which did not depend upon understanding the tribal dynamics of Jewish culture, and which their Gentile flocks could easily understand (i.e., “the brothers mentioned are Joseph’s kids”). St. Jerome, however, who had close associations with Jews (the very Jews who helped him translate the OT), and who was not only a first-hand witness of how Jews thought and lived, but who also approached the New Testament Scripture with a much more rational, Western mentality, and thus knew that the “Joseph the widower” scenario could not be reconciled with the origins of James, gave the Church its present understanding which is certainly NOT rooted in any alleged dualism on Jerome’s part, but in a better and more comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures; and one that is free from the anti-Jewish cultural bigotry that prevented the earliest Church fathers from grasping what the word “brothers” really meant.
What is more, the “Mary” who appears at the Cross/Tomb accounts in the Synoptics, and who is unquestionably the mother of Jesus’ “brothers” James and Joseph [Jose], is most likely the same Mary who appears in John 19:27, where she is called the “wife of Clopas” and is also apparently identified as “His mother’s sister.” Now, let us think about this. Two sisters, both named “Mary”? Not very likely. Yet, if we take the word “adelphe” here as a translation of the Jewish tribal term, and assume that Mary the wife of Clopas (and mother of James) and Mary the mother of Jesus are merely close relatives, yet not biological siblings, then it makes perfect sense that James would also be called Jesus’ “brother.” However, assuming that this woman in John 19 is indeed the same Mary from the Synoptics, and thus the mother of James, what we would then have to conclude is that this Mary was married to Joseph, had James (and Jose and presumably a whole slew of other kids by him), and then divorced Joseph and married Clopas, allowing Joseph to marry the Blessed Virgin. Or, we must conclude that Joseph was married to two women named Mary, both of them “sisters,” like Leah and Rachel. But, again, we have no Scriptural reference or tradition for any of this. And there is also the little matter of Scripture referring to James as “the younger James” (Mark 15:40), thus implying that he was younger (NOT older) than Jesus; and certainly younger than James Bar-Zebedee, who was evidently about the same age as Jesus.
Thus, all-in-all, Jerome’s solution is the best and the one most consistent with Scripture. While the “Epiphanian” witness of the early Greco-Syrian fathers is useful in that it illustrates their desire to protect the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity as a true and universal Tradition, it must be admitted that their explanation was merely a pastoral one, and not something that can be reconciled with the Sacred Text.
Here is solid Scriptural proof that Mary always remained a virgin, and that it was the intention of Joseph and Mary to live chastely with one another.
First of all, in Luke 1:26, we are told:
“In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee
called Nazareth, TO A VIRGIN BETROTHED TO A MAN named Joseph, of the
HOUSE OF DAVID, and the VIRGIN’S name was Mary.”
So, what does this tell us? Simply this: Mary is a virgin; and Mary is soon to be married to Joseph --a descended of David.
Sorry, there is MUCH MORE, so go to the link if I’ve got you interested, 'cuz it’s just too long to post: www.catholic-legate.com/articles/maryvirgin.html
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Thank you for sharing.Our Blessed Mother & The Saints
What the Bible Says About Mary’s Virginity
by Mark Bonocore
St. Jerome’s argument that “brother” is merely a Jewish tribal reference happens to be based in a Scriptural observation that totally destroys the Epiphanian “James bar-Joseph” theory once and for all. And that observation is simply that James “the brother of the Lord” had a different mother than Jesus, and this different mother was still alive at the time of the Crucifixion!
This fact can be seen most clearly by comparing Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (passages which list the names of Jesus’ “brothers”) with Matt 27:56 and Mark 15:40 (where the mother of two of the listed “brothers,” James and Joseph [Jose], is mentioned with the “Joseph” vs. “Jose” variant between Matthew and Mark being preserved in both places). Thus, the ONLY way for James to have been the biological son of Joseph is if a) Joseph divorced his first wife or b) if Joseph practiced polygamy - neither of which are part of Tradition, and neither of which fit with the Scriptural character of Joseph.
Rather, the Greco-Syrian, “Epiphanian” tradition (also to be found in the Protoevangelium of James), which presents Joseph as a widower with grown children at the time of his marriage to the Blessed Virgin, is rooted in an easy-to-understand pastoral solution that was commonly disseminated by the bishops and fathers of the Eastern Church to defend the Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity and to explain the reference to “brothers” in Scripture. Given the cultural animosity between Gentile Christians and their Jewish enemies throughout the first several centuries of Church history, in which Jewish culture and the “Jewishness” of various themes in Scripture were significantly downplayed (Christianity was, after all, a “Gentile” religion ), it is not surprising that the earliest fathers would opt for a straightforward pastoral explanation which did not depend upon understanding the tribal dynamics of Jewish culture, and which their Gentile flocks could easily understand (i.e., “the brothers mentioned are Joseph’s kids”). St. Jerome, however, who had close associations with Jews (the very Jews who helped him translate the OT), and who was not only a first-hand witness of how Jews thought and lived, but who also approached the New Testament Scripture with a much more rational, Western mentality, and thus knew that the “Joseph the widower” scenario could not be reconciled with the origins of James, gave the Church its present understanding which is certainly NOT rooted in any alleged dualism on Jerome’s part, but in a better and more comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures; and one that is free from the anti-Jewish cultural bigotry that prevented the earliest Church fathers from grasping what the word “brothers” really meant.
What is more, the “Mary” who appears at the Cross/Tomb accounts in the Synoptics, and who is unquestionably the mother of Jesus’ “brothers” James and Joseph [Jose], is most likely the same Mary who appears in John 19:27, where she is called the “wife of Clopas” and is also apparently identified as “His mother’s sister.” Now, let us think about this. Two sisters, both named “Mary”? Not very likely. Yet, if we take the word “adelphe” here as a translation of the Jewish tribal term, and assume that Mary the wife of Clopas (and mother of James) and Mary the mother of Jesus are merely close relatives, yet not biological siblings, then it makes perfect sense that James would also be called Jesus’ “brother.” However, assuming that this woman in John 19 is indeed the same Mary from the Synoptics, and thus the mother of James, what we would then have to conclude is that this Mary was married to Joseph, had James (and Jose and presumably a whole slew of other kids by him), and then divorced Joseph and married Clopas, allowing Joseph to marry the Blessed Virgin. Or, we must conclude that Joseph was married to two women named Mary, both of them “sisters,” like Leah and Rachel. But, again, we have no Scriptural reference or tradition for any of this. And there is also the little matter of Scripture referring to James as “the younger James” (Mark 15:40), thus implying that he was younger (NOT older) than Jesus; and certainly younger than James Bar-Zebedee, who was evidently about the same age as Jesus.
Thus, all-in-all, Jerome’s solution is the best and the one most consistent with Scripture. While the “Epiphanian” witness of the early Greco-Syrian fathers is useful in that it illustrates their desire to protect the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity as a true and universal Tradition, it must be admitted that their explanation was merely a pastoral one, and not something that can be reconciled with the Sacred Text.
Here is solid Scriptural proof that Mary always remained a virgin, and that it was the intention of Joseph and Mary to live chastely with one another.
First of all, in Luke 1:26, we are told:
“In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee
called Nazareth, TO A VIRGIN BETROTHED TO A MAN named Joseph, of the
HOUSE OF DAVID, and the VIRGIN’S name was Mary.”
So, what does this tell us? Simply this: Mary is a virgin; and Mary is soon to be married to Joseph --a descended of David.
Sorry, there is MUCH MORE, so go to the link if I’ve got you interested, 'cuz it’s just too long to post: www.catholic-legate.com/articles/maryvirgin.html
It didn’t convince me, though. As I expected, it’s one person’s theory that any of us are free to accept or not. Personally, I don’t find his theory persuasive.
Cheers
B
Bruno_Schulz
Guest
**Those who not only know the Holy Scripture and the Church’s teaching, but also LIVE their believe in God, simply know, that Jesus did (except to Holy Mother Mary) not have a single blood-related relative.
Who lives in divine believe, not only knows the Church-teaching about Mary’s perpetual virginity, but it’s natural to him, for a human who gave birth to God, couldn’t even think of having any other Child.
We know from Jesus Himself, that He was long before Abraham (match Joh 8,58) – so how could Jesus be blood-related to Holy Mary’s parents! Don’t secularize God.
We further know, that Jesus was brought into the womb of Holy Mary by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1,35 + Mt 1,20).
Any other talking or matching Holy Mary on usual worldly sexual relations, becomes dirty; indeed is sickening blasphemy to the vast majority of Catholics who adore Holy Mary and all real Christians. It proves little to none believe in God, for it secularizes everything divine onto the level of everyday human (sexual) relations.
Christians really ought to try to see things and to think in divine dimensions - which never is matchable to everyday human thoughts we are used to. Jesus taught us to do so.
**
Who lives in divine believe, not only knows the Church-teaching about Mary’s perpetual virginity, but it’s natural to him, for a human who gave birth to God, couldn’t even think of having any other Child.
We know from Jesus Himself, that He was long before Abraham (match Joh 8,58) – so how could Jesus be blood-related to Holy Mary’s parents! Don’t secularize God.
We further know, that Jesus was brought into the womb of Holy Mary by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1,35 + Mt 1,20).
Any other talking or matching Holy Mary on usual worldly sexual relations, becomes dirty; indeed is sickening blasphemy to the vast majority of Catholics who adore Holy Mary and all real Christians. It proves little to none believe in God, for it secularizes everything divine onto the level of everyday human (sexual) relations.
Christians really ought to try to see things and to think in divine dimensions - which never is matchable to everyday human thoughts we are used to. Jesus taught us to do so.
**
P
Pons
Guest
So what do you believe? James and co. were stepbrothers?
But as I’ve said, Paul also calls other people apostles though they’re not part of the 12. Barnabas and Silas, for instance. As we know the only time another member of the 12 was chosen was with Matthias. So how can we be sure the James Paul refers to was one of the 12?
a) If the third James is different from the son of Alphaeus, he is mentioned
b) Isn’t the third James described as some sort of priest in the Catholic Legate page? Perhaps that could have been a factor. After all Peter and the other 11 were workingmen. Once James was converted, he could have pioneered the liturgy. In fact, don’t our Eastern brothers have the Liturgy of St. James? While still not one of the 12 Chosen Men, his role would be that important for the leaders of the 12 to give him the chair of Jerusalem. Didn’t a Father say Peter, James and John appointed him for that reason? (Have to find a source).
c) Because the third James wasn’t an apostle in the sense of belonging to the 12. He didn’t satisfy the criteria of “12 Apostle-ship” unlike Matthias and another candidate Joseph Barsabbas. If he did, wouldn’t he be a candidate too? (There’s a thread on “More than 12 Apostles” in Apologetics.)
d) Perhaps he had no such obligation to her, not being his mother?
e) Individual mentions of Bartholomew disappear too. It doesn’t mean he never did any more work.
After reading the Catholic Legate link, I feel James the Lord’s brother definitely wasn’t a son of Joseph since Joseph wasn’t a Levite though James was. It’s most likely he was the son of Cleophas (or Clopas) and the “other Mary”. However, he may not be the same as James the son of Alphaeus. There is an episode where the relatives of Jesus look for him and then call him crazy (from a similar thread in Apologetics):
Mark 3:21: When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
Would a member of the 12 do that?
E
Epeenchin
Guest
Amen to that
6
6days
Guest
Thank you for the post, nevadagardener.Our Blessed Mother & The Saints
What the Bible Says About Mary’s Virginity
by Mark Bonocore
St. Jerome’s argument that “brother” is merely a Jewish tribal reference happens to be based in a Scriptural observation that totally destroys the Epiphanian “James bar-Joseph” theory once and for all. And that observation is simply that James “the brother of the Lord” had a different mother than Jesus, and this different mother was still alive at the time of the Crucifixion!
This fact can be seen most clearly by comparing Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (passages which list the names of Jesus’ “brothers”) with Matt 27:56 and Mark 15:40 (where the mother of two of the listed “brothers,” James and Joseph [Jose], is mentioned with the “Joseph” vs. “Jose” variant between Matthew and Mark being preserved in both places). Thus, the ONLY way for James to have been the biological son of Joseph is if a) Joseph divorced his first wife or b) if Joseph practiced polygamy - neither of which are part of Tradition, and neither of which fit with the Scriptural character of Joseph.
Rather, the Greco-Syrian, “Epiphanian” tradition (also to be found in the Protoevangelium of James), which presents Joseph as a widower with grown children at the time of his marriage to the Blessed Virgin, is rooted in an easy-to-understand pastoral solution that was commonly disseminated by the bishops and fathers of the Eastern Church to defend the Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity and to explain the reference to “brothers” in Scripture. Given the cultural animosity between Gentile Christians and their Jewish enemies throughout the first several centuries of Church history, in which Jewish culture and the “Jewishness” of various themes in Scripture were significantly downplayed (Christianity was, after all, a “Gentile” religion ), it is not surprising that the earliest fathers would opt for a straightforward pastoral explanation which did not depend upon understanding the tribal dynamics of Jewish culture, and which their Gentile flocks could easily understand (i.e., “the brothers mentioned are Joseph’s kids”). St. Jerome, however, who had close associations with Jews (the very Jews who helped him translate the OT), and who was not only a first-hand witness of how Jews thought and lived, but who also approached the New Testament Scripture with a much more rational, Western mentality, and thus knew that the “Joseph the widower” scenario could not be reconciled with the origins of James, gave the Church its present understanding which is certainly NOT rooted in any alleged dualism on Jerome’s part, but in a better and more comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures; and one that is free from the anti-Jewish cultural bigotry that prevented the earliest Church fathers from grasping what the word “brothers” really meant.
What is more, the “Mary” who appears at the Cross/Tomb accounts in the Synoptics, and who is unquestionably the mother of Jesus’ “brothers” James and Joseph [Jose], is most likely the same Mary who appears in John 19:27, where she is called the “wife of Clopas” and is also apparently identified as “His mother’s sister.” Now, let us think about this. Two sisters, both named “Mary”? Not very likely. Yet, if we take the word “adelphe” here as a translation of the Jewish tribal term, and assume that Mary the wife of Clopas (and mother of James) and Mary the mother of Jesus are merely close relatives, yet not biological siblings, then it makes perfect sense that James would also be called Jesus’ “brother.” However, assuming that this woman in John 19 is indeed the same Mary from the Synoptics, and thus the mother of James, what we would then have to conclude is that this Mary was married to Joseph, had James (and Jose and presumably a whole slew of other kids by him), and then divorced Joseph and married Clopas, allowing Joseph to marry the Blessed Virgin. Or, we must conclude that Joseph was married to two women named Mary, both of them “sisters,” like Leah and Rachel. But, again, we have no Scriptural reference or tradition for any of this. And there is also the little matter of Scripture referring to James as “the younger James” (Mark 15:40), thus implying that he was younger (NOT older) than Jesus; and certainly younger than James Bar-Zebedee, who was evidently about the same age as Jesus.
Thus, all-in-all, Jerome’s solution is the best and the one most consistent with Scripture. While the “Epiphanian” witness of the early Greco-Syrian fathers is useful in that it illustrates their desire to protect the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity as a true and universal Tradition, it must be admitted that their explanation was merely a pastoral one, and not something that can be reconciled with the Sacred Text.
Here is solid Scriptural proof that Mary always remained a virgin, and that it was the intention of Joseph and Mary to live chastely with one another.
First of all, in Luke 1:26, we are told:
“In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee
called Nazareth, TO A VIRGIN BETROTHED TO A MAN named Joseph, of the
HOUSE OF DAVID, and the VIRGIN’S name was Mary.”
So, what does this tell us? Simply this: Mary is a virgin; and Mary is soon to be married to Joseph --a descended of David.
Sorry, there is MUCH MORE, so go to the link if I’ve got you interested, 'cuz it’s just too long to post: www.catholic-legate.com/articles/maryvirgin.html
Mark Bonocore has an interesting way of presenting his speculations. We must all remain rational as we realize that they are just that, -speculations and nothing more.
P
Pons
Guest
Backed up by Scriptural evidence. If James and Joses are literal brothers of Jesus why are they called the sons of Mary wife of Cleophas?
E
Eddie_Mac
Guest
Those of us who believe that Mary remained a virgin are not holding our own ideas. We are holding the teaching of the church, the truth as given to us by God. Those such as yourself who hold ideas, beliefs, outside of church teaching are in error.
Laughing at God’s truth is not funny.
I am not convinced. Your arguments do not at all reflect respect for the Blessed Virgin, much less a true grasp of true faith in the Risen Christ and all that goes with the Body of Christ, His Church.
Respect is a human concept. I respect you for who you are, but I do not believe you because you are professing errors as truth. When I hear the word respect in the same sentence as God or the Blessed Virgin it raises flags for me. I hold my Savior and His Mother in a much higher regard than respect.
Eddie Mac
K
keyboardrob
Guest
I’ve read a number of the posts in this thread just to get a taste of where things were headed here. All the posts were fascinating! There were even those who applied some scholarship in their responses and for that I am grateful.
As a seminarian (got my M. Div. but was not ordained), I found that the matter of our Lord’s family or lack thereof is something that’s been debated for all the centuries since He walked the earth. This opinion hasn’t changed in nearly thirty years.
It matters not to me whether Jesus had blood brothers or sisters, cousins, etc., because having a family (even a child or children as some postulate thanks to “DaVinci Code”), doesn’t diminish the fact that Jesus Christ was Son of God and Son of Man. Fully human and fully divine. What matters to me is His death and resurrection, the things we are commanded do as His followers, and His Presence among us as Eucharistic Lord.
Yes, this topic will be fretted about until the consummation of time. As for me- and only me- I can truthfully say that if Jesus had blood relatives- fine. If He did not- that’s also ok by me. Family or lack thereof simply doesn’t diminish His Divinity in my eyes.
Well- stating this kind of opinion tells you why i was never ordained and constantly in trouble with seminary authorities- not to mention my Archbishop.
As a seminarian (got my M. Div. but was not ordained), I found that the matter of our Lord’s family or lack thereof is something that’s been debated for all the centuries since He walked the earth. This opinion hasn’t changed in nearly thirty years.
It matters not to me whether Jesus had blood brothers or sisters, cousins, etc., because having a family (even a child or children as some postulate thanks to “DaVinci Code”), doesn’t diminish the fact that Jesus Christ was Son of God and Son of Man. Fully human and fully divine. What matters to me is His death and resurrection, the things we are commanded do as His followers, and His Presence among us as Eucharistic Lord.
Yes, this topic will be fretted about until the consummation of time. As for me- and only me- I can truthfully say that if Jesus had blood relatives- fine. If He did not- that’s also ok by me. Family or lack thereof simply doesn’t diminish His Divinity in my eyes.
Well- stating this kind of opinion tells you why i was never ordained and constantly in trouble with seminary authorities- not to mention my Archbishop.
6
6days
Guest
Excellent,…Excellent post! Thank you so much for your response.I’ve read a number of the posts in this thread just to get a taste of where things were headed here. All the posts were fascinating! There were even those who applied some scholarship in their responses and for that I am grateful.
As a seminarian (got my M. Div. but was not ordained), I found that the matter of our Lord’s family or lack thereof is something that’s been debated for all the centuries since He walked the earth. This opinion hasn’t changed in nearly thirty years.
It matters not to me whether Jesus had blood brothers or sisters, cousins, etc., because having a family (even a child or children as some postulate thanks to “DaVinci Code”), doesn’t diminish the fact that Jesus Christ was Son of God and Son of Man. Fully human and fully divine. What matters to me is His death and resurrection, the things we are commanded do as His followers, and His Presence among us as Eucharistic Lord.
Yes, this topic will be fretted about until the consummation of time. As for me- and only me- I can truthfully say that if Jesus had blood relatives- fine. If He did not- that’s also ok by me. Family or lack thereof simply doesn’t diminish His Divinity in my eyes.
Well- stating this kind of opinion tells you why i was never ordained and constantly in trouble with seminary authorities- not to mention my Archbishop.
I am in total agreement that it is not whether Jesus’ mother remained a virgin after His birth. That should not even be a point of contention at all. The Scriptures were fulfilled that He was born of a virgin. After that, it is a moot point.
God showed us that He was above the petty concerns of humanity by reporting in the Bible that Jesus’ bloodline contained the likes of Rahab the prostitute, and Ruth the Moabitess. A Moabite was not permitted to even set foot in the Temple, but Jesus does not allow Himself to be lowered to our standards.
He gave up an awful lot of His universal kingdom as He reduced Himself to a helpless infant that was dependent upon mortals to change His diaper. Are we to think that having blood-related brothers and sisters might reduce His glory?? He did this for our sake, not to benefit Himself. And how do we respond? By bickering over details that have no weight in the final outcome. That is the thanks He gets from us. Sinful creatures that are sinfully trying to cover their sin. And the (sinful) debates continue.
It is simply unprovable with the info that we have been given, to put to rest the argument about the perpetual virginity.
Speculation solves nothing, and to fuss over the details will produce nothing more than a fuss. And then they will have their reward, in full.
In Him,
6days
P
Pons
Guest
Ehh, one may dismiss the matter of the perpetual virginity as irrelevant, but that’s how things played out, that’s what was passed down, and that must be defended as truth. This is not the same as, for example, abstaining from meat on Fridays other than Lent, which used to be done - that’s a non-essential discipline while this teaching is part of the deposit of faith and should be maintained as such. We didn’t decide it, God and the first Christians did. It only becomes a point of contention when people aren’t working within the paradigm of the Church. It is no sin to defend truth. Whether Jesus had stepbrothers *or *cousins is not even that significant - all that’s required to believe is that Mary remained a virgin, period. But naturally people can be exacting.
If God had worked out things so that Jesus would have actual siblings, or even a wife and children and the Church taught it, there would be no problem, because God did it that way. But the Church, through God’s grace, knows that’s not what happened.
Again, if James and Joses are literal brothers of Jesus - why are they called the sons of Mary wife of Cleophas? Does anyone believe Jesus’ mother remarried?
If God had worked out things so that Jesus would have actual siblings, or even a wife and children and the Church taught it, there would be no problem, because God did it that way. But the Church, through God’s grace, knows that’s not what happened.
Again, if James and Joses are literal brothers of Jesus - why are they called the sons of Mary wife of Cleophas? Does anyone believe Jesus’ mother remarried?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Why the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is Important
From catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp
OBJECTOR: I still don’t see why the Church requires Catholics to believe that Mary remained a virgin instead of allowing them to have their own opinions. Does it really matter if Mary had other children?
CATHOLIC: Actually, it does matter. Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church. Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God. In 388, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was “so great an example of material virtue” because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and “pure bride to her one husband” (2 Cor. 11:2).
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
B
Bruno_Schulz
Guest
**God, Heaven, Jesus word is not matter of earthly rationalism, but believe, which is given to us through Gods grace - if we are worthy to receive this grace.
God coming into our earth as Son of Man born through Holy Mary, is nothing to be called rational. Rationalism so can not help at all.
People who want to discover all about God through rationalism, do not know a thing about Christianity
Moreover so, Jesus word and the gospel is far away of any speculations**
- Status