Jesus had siblings?

[nevadagardener]

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?

…

First, while the language is a bit formal, this is usually the case in their time. John is simply recognizing Jesus, now, as the Messiah. John was known to be a disciple of John the Baptist, and like the other disciples, more than likely very well aware that John the Baptist was leading up to the announcement of who the Messiah was to be. “… One is coming after me, I am not fit to untie the strap of His sandal” … More than likely, he was present at the baptism in the Jordan, saw the doves descend, and the revelation of God. Did he have a chance to speak with his cousin after the event? Was this his first chance to do so, afterward? If so, this reads to me as, “So it is You, YOU are the Messiah!”.

Jesus was away from home, it would have been normal for them to want to know where he was staying so they could get together to plan what turns out to be the beginning of His ministry, the organizational meeting, as it were.

We really don’t know the manner in which Jesus reveals this to His cousins, it is not discussed at all in Scripture, leading up to this time, unless this is IT. Did they know while they were growing up, who He was? Not likely. In fact, their slow understanding, over time, as He has to make things clear to them, is often a part of the problem of His teachings. Jesus seems frustrated by them, at times. The cousins, at times, just have a hard time remembering that their cousin, Jesus, is Who He says He Is. These passages suggest they are understanding it, in this time, perhaps for the first time. It doesn’t mean, by any stretch, they they didn’t know Him as their cousin, or they didn’t know him at all. Just that they are now recognizing what is being revealed. Word was getting around. Jesus and John the Baptist had made it known, the Ministry had begun.

Zebedee was said to have been delighted that his sons, James and John, were Apostles, though he lost two good workers.

As to Andrew and Simon Peter, the disciples, remember, they are fishing partners with John and his brother, James, working with their father, Zebedee. You can imagine the conversations in the boat leading up to that moment. John is saying he was at the Jordan, (and if he wasn’t there that day, you can be sure he had heard about it, as he was already following John the Baptist), and this is what happened, and he recounts the story. (Jesus was alone at the Jordan, when he sought out John the Baptist, His second cousin, His precursor, for the baptism/revelation.) John’s partners believe him. They are thereafter described as disciples aka believers. When Jesus shows up, they had already made up their minds to follow him. These events just detail the first discussions.

Jesus, in His statements to Simon Peter, clearly show that He already knows who he is, “You are so and so.” Jesus/God, being all knowing, and knowing His fate, immediately nicknames him “Cephas/Peter/Rock”. It is the inference at that moment in time of his role.

Later on, as He makes him Head of His Church, He repeats the name. This is not coincidence. It is more a complete understanding by Jesus of the character of the person from the beginning, so strong an association that you nickname him according to the post he holds later, “Rock”, keeper of the Keys, First Pope. It is Peter’s understanding that Jesus is the Savior, Jesus’s understanding that only God has revealed it to him, and that " … on this Rock I will build my Church …" Pretty amazing, really.

Would you feel better if John said, “So, I saw you at the Jordan. You’re the Messiah, huh? It’s really YOU?” And then Andrew and Simon Peter said, “So, Jesus, John told us what happened (they have already recognized Him as the Messiah). You will teach us (Rabbi). We believe you and we will follow you. Where are you staying, so we can talk about this?” Andrew finds Simon Peter, and tells him Jesus/the Messiah is in town (we have found Him). The host serves beer and pretzels. Okay, okay. A little levity. They didn’t give the menu. Peter and Andrew might have brought fish. As someone else said, these Bible narratives are not intended to give every detail of their lives. These are some pretty rough strokes, MUCH left out. The writer almost assumes we, the readers, know all of these relationships already.

Knowing all that background, I’m completely comfortable with the events. But perhaps the slang version would help you. It really wasn’t clear to me, either, until I learned the relationships of the cousins, their business partners the fishermen, and that John was already a follower of John the Baptist. (Remember, again, this is a TIGHT GROUP–both Johns were second cousins of Jesus, one from Mary’s side, one from Joseph’s, and it would be improbable that the two hadn’t come in contact through Jesus’s family events prior to John becoming a disciple of John. More than likely that’s how they met). Word was getting around by then. Talk around the water cooler, or at someone’s birthday party, if you will.

And Peter, a married man, by that time. It’s hard to imagine he’d just up and abandon his family, without so much as a conversation with his wife. More than likely, the conversation ahead of time went something like this, “So, honey, we were talking on the boat at work today, and John said this: … I believe him.” And they packed their bags. Good thing they had some tradesmen in the group, at least they could fish, to support themselves. And, someone had to make camp while they were out evangelizing. We know this, again, because Peter’s wife was also martyred at the same time as Peter.

As to Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, it only backs up the three Catholic sources I quoted from. I could not have known it is “anti-Catholic”. The information I took supports the Catholic sources, each of which specifically details the relationships of these brothers to their parents and each other, and their sister, and her children, and their relationship to Joseph. It’s not just a case of similar family names. This is a distinctive family we’re talking about. Though I admit I did not read it in its entirety, nor check with the Church on all of the sources I have found. No intention to offend anyone.

Just my understanding, everyone is free to think about these relationships and the events leading up to these events.

 

[nevadagardener]

Sources, sources, sources …

Of course, there is much more, but this next supports my claim that John, and apparently James as well, were followers of John the Baptist, first, and were primed to be looking for the Messiah.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. John the Evangelist
New Testament accounts

John was the son of Zebedee and Salome, and the brother of James the Greater. In the Gospels the two brothers are often called after their father “the sons of Zebedee” and received from Christ the honourable title of Boanerges, i.e. “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17). Originally they were fishermen and fished with their father in the Lake of Genesareth. According to the usual and entirely probable explanation they became, however, for a time disciples of John the Baptist, and were called by Christ from the circle of John’s followers, together with Peter and Andrew, to become His disciples (John 1:35-42). The first disciples returned with their new Master from the Jordan to Galilee and apparently both John and the others remained for some time with Jesus (cf. John ii, 12, 22; iv, 2, 8, 27 sqq.). Yet after the second return from Judea, John and his companions went back again to their trade of fishing until he and they were called by Christ to definitive discipleship (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20). In the lists of the Apostles John has the second place (Acts 1:13), the third (Mark 3:17), and the fourth (Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:14), yet always after James with the exception of a few passages (Luke 8:51; 9:28 in the Greek text; Acts 1:13).
…

From an interesting website, www.allaboutturkey.com/john.htm:

More on the discipleship of John and James following John the Baptist, and the fact that their father, Zebedee, the fisherman, was doing well, financially. Also the nicknames by Jesus, “Sons of Thunder”. More references for that, elsewhere. And a little extra, just because it answers other questions you might have.

Saint John the Divine as the son of Zebedee, and his mother’s name was Salome [Matthew 4:21, 27:56; Mark 15:40, 16:1]. They lived on the shores of the sea of Galilee. The brother of Saint John, probably considerably older, was Saint James. The mention of the “hired men” [Mark 1:20], and of Saint John’s “home” [John 19:27], implies that the condition of Salome and her children was not one of great poverty.

SS. John and James followed the Baptist when he preached repentance in the wilderness of Jordan. There can be little doubt that the two disciples, whom Saint John does not name (John 1:35), who looked on Jesus “as he walked,” when the Baptist exclaimed with prophetic perception, “Behold the Lamb of God!” were Andrew and John. They followed and asked the Lord where he dwelt. He bade them come and see, and they stayed with him all day. Of the subject of conversation that took place in this interview no record has come to us, but it was probably the starting-point of the entire devotion of heart and soul which lasted through the life of the Beloved Apostle.

John apparently followed his new Master to Galilee, and was with him at the marriage feast of Cana, journeyed with him to Capernaum, and thenceforth never left him, save when sent on the missionary expedition with another, invested with the power of healing. He, James, and Peter, came within the innermost circle of their Lord’s friends, and these three were suffered to remain with Christ when all the rest of the apostles were kept at a distance [Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, 26:37]. Peter, James, and John were with Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. The mother of James and John, knowing our Lord’s love for the brethren, made special request for them, that they might sit, one on his right hand, the other on his left, in his kingdom [Matthew 20:21]. There must have been much impetuosity in the character of the brothers, for they obtained the nickname of Boanerges, Sons of Thunder [Mark 3:17, see also Luke 9:54]. It is not necessary to dwell on the familiar history of the Last Supper and the Passion. To John was committed by our Lord the highest of privileges, the care of his mother [John 19:27]. John [the “disciple whom Jesus loved”] and Peter were the first to receive the news from the Magdalene of the Resurrection [John 20:2], and they hastened at once to the sepulchre, and there when Peter was restrained by awe, John impetuously “reached the tomb first.”

In the interval between the Resurrection and the Ascension, John and Peter were together on the Sea of Galilee [John 21:1], having returned to their old calling, and old familiar haunts.

When Christ appeared on the shore in the dusk of morning, John was the first to recognize him. The last words of the Gospel reveal the attachment which existed between the two apostles. It was not enough for Peter to know his own fate, he must learn also something of the future that awaited his friend. The Acts show us them still united, entering together as worshippers into the Temple [Acts 3:1], and protesting together against the threats of the Sanhedrin [Acts 4:13]. They were fellow-workers together in the first step of Church expansion. The apostle whose wrath had been kindled at the unbelief of the Samaritans, was the first to receive these Samaritans as brethren [Luke 9:54, Acts 8:14].
…

As to Peter and Andrew, and how well they would have known of Jesus beforehand, would likely have originally been because of their association, again, with the fishing partners. I would have to concede from the following writings that it would appear that Peter and Andrew did not yet have a personal relationship with Jesus, but they had knowledge of Him, were also said to be disciples of John the Baptist, and because of that, probably knew in advance of that day that He was the Messiah. There is evidence also in the following of the martyrdom of Peter’s wife. This according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which writes:

Bethsaida

St. Peter’s true and original name was Simon, sometimes occurring in the form Symeon. (Acts 15:14; 2 Peter 1:1). He was the son of Jona (Johannes) and was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth, the position of which cannot be established with certainty, although it is usually sought at the northern end of the lake. The Apostle Andrew was his brother, and the Apostle Philip came from the same town.

Capharnaum

Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38) at the beginning of Christ’s public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition that Peter’s wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (Church History III.31) from Clement, the ancient Christian literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own boat (Luke 5:3).

Peter meets Our Lord

Like so many of his Jewish contemporaries, he was attracted by the Baptist’s preaching of penance and was, with his brother Andrew, among John’s associates in Bethania on the eastern bank of the Jordan. When, after the High Council had sent envoys for the second time to the Baptist, the latter pointed to Jesus who was passing, saying, “Behold the Lamb of God”, Andrew and another disciple followed the Saviour to his residence and remained with Him one day.

Later, meeting his brother Simon, Andrew said “We have found the Messias”, and brought him to Jesus, who, looking upon him, said: “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter”. Already, at this first meeting, the Saviour foretold the change of Simon’s name to Cephas (Kephas; Aramaic Kipha, rock), which is translated Petros (Latin, Petrus) a proof that Christ had already special views with regard to Simon. Later, probably at the time of his definitive call to the Apostolate with the eleven other Apostles, Jesus actually gave Simon the name of Cephas (Petrus), after which he was usually called Peter, especially by Christ on the solemn occasion after Peter’s profession of faith (Matthew 16:18; cf. below). The Evangelists often combine the two names, while St. Paul uses the name Cephas.

Peter becomes a disciple

After the first meeting Peter with the other early disciples remained with Jesus for some time, accompanying Him to Galilee (Marriage at Cana), Judaea, and Jerusalem, and through Samaria back to Galilee (John 2-4). Here Peter resumed his occupation of fisherman for a short time, but soon received the definitive call of the Saviour to become one of His permanent disciples. Peter and Andrew were engaged at their calling when Jesus met and addressed them: “Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men”. On the same occasion the sons of Zebedee were called (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11; it is here assumed that Luke refers to the same occasion as the other Evangelists). Thenceforth Peter remained always in the immediate neighbourhood of Our Lord. After preaching the Sermon on the Mount and curing the son of the centurion in Capharnaum, Jesus came to Peter’s house and cured his wife’s mother, who was sick of a fever (Matthew 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31). A little later Christ chose His Twelve Apostles as His constant associates in preaching the kingdom of God.
…

Regarding social status or finances, and nicknames “Sons of Thunder”, we have this, from
mb-soft.com/believe/txh/jamess.htm:

St. James the Greater

Catholic Information

The son of Zebedee and Salome (Cf. Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1). Zahn asserts that Salome was the daughter of a priest. James is styled “the Greater” to distinguish him from the Apostle James “the Less”, who was probably shorter of stature. We know nothing of St. James’s early life. He was the brother of John, the beloved disciple, and probably the elder of the two.

His parents seem to have been people of means as appears from the following facts.

Zebedee was a fisherman of the Lake of Galilee, who probably lived in or near Bethsaida (John 1:44), perhaps in Capharnaum; and had some boatmen or hired men as his usual attendants (Mark 1:20).

Salome was one of the pious women who afterwards followed Christ and “ministered unto him of their substance” (cf. Matthew 27:55, sq.; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 8:2 sq.; 23:55-24:1).

St. John was personally known to the high-priest (John 18:16); and must have had wherewithal to provide for the Mother of Jesus (John 19:27).

It is probable, according to Acts 4:13, that John (and consequently his brother James) had not received the technical training of the rabbinical schools; in this sense they were unlearned and without any official position among the Jews. But, according to the social rank of their parents, they must have been men of ordinary education, in the common walks of Jewish life. They had frequent opportunity of coming in contact with Greek life and language, which were already widely spread along the shores of the Galilean Sea.

His life and apostolate

The Galilean origin of St. James in some degree explains the energy of temper and the vehemence of character which earned for him and St. John the name of Boanerges, “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17); the Galilean race was religious, hardy, industrious, brave, and the strongest defender of the Jewish nation.

When John the Baptist proclaimed the kingdom of the Messias, St. John became a disciple (John 1:35); he was directed to “the Lamb of God” and afterwards brought his brother James to the Messias; the obvious meaning of John 1:41, is that St. Andrew finds his brother (St. Peter) first and that afterwards St. John (who does not name himself, according to his habitual and characteristic reserve and silence about himself) finds his brother (St. James). The call of St. James to the discipleship of the Messias is reported in a parallel or identical narration by Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:19 sq.; and Luke 5:1-11. The two sons of Zebedee, as well as Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew with whom they were in partnership (Luke 5:10), were called by the Lord upon the Sea of Galilee, where all four with Zebedee and his hired servants were engaged in their ordinary occupation of fishing. The sons of Zebedee “forthwith left their nets and father, and followed him” (Matthew 4:22), and became “fishers of men”. St. James was afterwards with the other eleven called to the Apostleship (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13).

In all four lists the names of Peter and Andrew, James and John form the first group, a prominent and chosen group (cf. Mark 13:3); especially Peter, James, and John. These three Apostles alone were admitted to be present at the miracle of the raising of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), at the Transfiguration (Mark 9:1; Matthew 17:1; Luke 9:28), and the Agony in Gethsemani (Matthew 26:37; Mark 14:33). The fact that the name of James occurs always (except in Luke 8:51; 9:28; Acts 1:13 – Greek Text) before that of his brother seems to imply that James was the elder of the two. It is worthy of notice that James is never mentioned in the Gospel of St. John; this author observes a humble reserve not only with regard to himself, but also about the members of his family.

Several incidents scattered through the Synoptics suggest that James and John had that particular character indicated by the name “Boanerges,” sons of thunder, given to them by the Lord (Mark 3:17); they were burning and impetuous in their evangelical zeal and severe in temper. The two brothers showed their fiery temperament against “a certain man casting out devils” in the name of the Christ; John, answering, said: “We [James is probably meant] forbade him, because he followeth not with us” (Luke 9:49). When the Samaritans refused to receive Christ, James and John said: “Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?” (Luke 9:54; cf. 9:49).
…

So, PaulC, if you are to challenge my beliefs that Jesus was close to his cousins PRIOR to their becoming Apostles, I have to agree with you that nowhere in Scripture will you find documentation of it. His “friends apparent” include the brother/sister trio of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene, who stay with him to the End, also named as disciples. In what seemed a premature death, partially inferred by the sisters that Jesus doesn’t get there in time to cure Lazarus, Jesus too, is grieved, and raises Lazarus from the dead!

Lacking actual siblings, “only” children tend to gravitate toward cousins to replace those relationships. Again, the Scriptures really don’t discourse greatly about Jesus having close relationships with his cousins, but frankly, they really leave out much of Jesus’s private life. We are only privvy to certain observations, such as his Cousin Mary Salome, her husband Zebedee, and their children, his second cousins James and John.

(The next three paragraphs are from a private Protestant website, but I also adopt their view as my own.) … Their relationship sheds light on the incident in Matthew 20:21, where Mary Salome asked that her sons, James and John, be given the two most prominent positions in Christ’s Kingdom. The request seems quite audacious—but then we realize that the requester was Jesus’s cousin, making the request on behalf of His two second cousins.

Their closeness to Jesus as family members likely made them think such a request wouldn’t be seen as too forward—and also helps explain Jesus’ tactful but firm response.

This family relationship also helps us understand why James and John, along with Peter, were the three disciples Jesus seems to have been closest to, asking them to accompany Him at significant times and events (Matthew 17:1-9; 26:36-37; Mark 5:37). Jesus was evidently close to these two cousins in particular, and obviously enjoyed their companionship. It isn’t much of a stretch of our imagination to think they might have grown up together and been friends from childhood.

…

Others have stated their personal thoughts on this thread, and as long as we identify them as such, I guess I could take one stance, as well. Up until this moment on the thread, I have tried to stick to facts I could document. So, this time, I digress, owing to the fact that there’s just not much recorded on Jesus’s personal life. We know nothing of his relationships with His other cousins PRIOR to the start of His ministry, other than His looking up John the Baptist for His baptism. At some point I have read how His Mother was so very fond of James and John, which suggested a relationship. For those of you expressing a desire to learn more about the family members and Apostles, just maybe you have.

 

[twb1621]

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.

Pax Christi,
Rob

I clearly understood Rob but thank you for further explanation. I also must say I agree with what you said in this post and the very sentiments have been expressed by very highly respected Catholic teachers and scholars such as Father John Corapi and Father William Casey to name a couple. I believe we went off track a bit during the sixties and seventies especially in an attempt to be more acceptable or politically correct. More lenient in that regard, but have since found it was only fuel to the fire. Now that issues are being addressed and that leniency is being clarified and the misconceptions cleared, some find difficulty in committing as it always should have been. But it is good for everyone to realize God’s Word is Truth and does not waver, He does not stop loving us and we in turn must also commit to Him. It is evident there is a great influx of new and returning faithful to the Catholic Church including the conversion of many from the Muslim faith. This I believe is a sign of God’s greatness and those of us already in the Faith of Jesus through the body of His one true Church are well to recognize the power in that. Perhaps for those things you have experienced in the seminary, it would do greatly for you if you haven’t already done so to read the writings of those who came from other beliefs and went to the seminaries as well and see what it was that made them realize above all what the Truth actually was and is. We are all servents of our Lord and have a great deal to offer on His behalf. We only need to apply the gifts we have been given by the Holy Spirit. Your words in this post are appreciated. As far as Mary having but one child, Jesus, there is no question but it is good to stand firm in your love of God that it would not waiver had there been siblings. assuredly you will not be put to that test.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**I’m very much surprised, that this thread I had left, is still running, and still some think it “normal” to even think if Jesus had siblings.

We all know that Jesus is God, and of course everyone is free to think about God’s relationships.

But there are a lot of things, one should be never even think of! Thinking in the farthest back of ones mind, is speaking aloud to God.

No person loved by God would even ever let this idea pass his mind, that Jesus had any other human relatives but the holiest of all Holies; Mother Mary. Not even to the Parents of Mary Jesus is related, as He was put into the womb of Holy Mary by the will of the Holy Spirit, to be born as Son of Man – though Jesus was, before Abraham was.

Atheists dare to mock about the Holy Spirit, because they refuse to know, that: “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Mat 12,32
**

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I was talking with a foirmer Catholic seminarian - he attended an orthodox seminary a few years back - before converting to pentacostalism. He told me that at the very least Jesus had half-brothers. He said Mary may not have been perpetually a virgin.

He referred me to Eusebius’s The History of The Church.

In Book 2 of the Penguin copy of Eusebius says - he pointed me here:

“The there was James who was known as the Brother of the Lord; for he too, was called Joseph’s son, and Joseph Christ’s father, though in fact the Virgin was his betrothed and before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Ghost”.

At the very least this sure sounds like James was a half-brother to Jesus through Joseph. The sentence leaves open the possiblity that James was conceived after Jesus which would contradict the perpetual virginity dogma. No where in Eusebius is there a hint of this dogma.

It seems at the very least Jesus had half siblings through a previous to Mary marriage of Joseph.

Is it de-fide that Jesus had no siblings, or has the church not formally stated this?

Although I, personally, think that Marian theology has been allowed to “go wild” on some points, in fact the Bible makes it clear that Jesus had no blood brothers or blood sisters as we use that term today – that is, from Mary’s womb. Only Jesus came from Mary’s womb. We can see that Jesus was “it” in John’s gospel, when Jesus hands Mary over to John’s care from the cross. See John 19:26-27. Doing that does not make sense unless Jesus was an only child.

But how about the famous adelphos and adelphes in the gospels? A close look at the gospels answers this question.

First, go to Matthew 27:56…

55 There were many women there, looking on from a distance, 33 who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him.
56 Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Matthew 27:55-56.

Note well that the women listed, and probably their children, too, were with Jesus in Galilee, and that the children of one of these women NOT Jesus’ mother (despite her name Mary) are named James and Joseph. Mark 15:40 makes it clear that Joseph was also called Joses.

Now, go to one of the verses talking about Jesus’ adelphos, or “brothers”…

55 Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:55.

There it is. The incident occurred in Galilee (where Nazareth is), which is where those NON-brothers of Jesus named James and Joses are supposed to be.

So, why does the text call them adelphos? Answer: It really is the case that the underlying Aramaic term refers to NON-brother relatives – cousins? step-brothers? – too. The Church has always been right on this. Leaving John 19:26-27 untrammled.

 

[joemccarron]

Although I, personally, think that Marian theology has been allowed to “go wild” on some points, in fact the Bible makes it clear that Jesus had no blood brothers or blood sisters as we use that term today – that is, from Mary’s womb. Only Jesus came from Mary’s womb. We can see that Jesus was “it” in John’s gospel, when Jesus hands Mary over to John’s care from the cross. See John 19:26-27. Doing that does not make sense unless Jesus was an only child.

But how about the famous adelphos and adelphes in the gospels? A close look at the gospels answers this question.

First, go to Matthew 27:56…

55 There were many women there, looking on from a distance, 33 who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him.
56 Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Matthew 27:55-56.

Note well that the women listed, and probably their children, too, were with Jesus in Galilee, and that the children of one of these women NOT Jesus’ mother (despite her name Mary) are named James and Joseph. Mark 15:40 makes it clear that Joseph was also called Joses.

Now, go to one of the verses talking about Jesus’ adelphos, or “brothers”…

55 Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:55.

There it is. The incident occurred in Galilee (where Nazareth is), which is where those NON-brothers of Jesus named James and Joses are supposed to be.

So, why does the text call them adelphos? Answer: It really is the case that the underlying Aramaic term refers to NON-brother relatives – cousins? step-brothers? – too. The Church has always been right on this. Leaving John 19:26-27 untrammled.

I read this thread and have a few questions:

1. Doe the Greek word(s) used to describe brothers and sisters of Jesus also mean cousins or other kin? (I know the Hebrew Aramaic words do but I thought the Greek word meant only brother or sister and there was a different word for cousin)

If the answer to that question is no (the Greek word does not include cousins or other next of kin) then a Catholic might believe:

1. The Gospel writer made a mistake. Speculation: perhaps he was speaking with someone and trying to translate what that person was saying from Aramaic. And when he inquired about the relationship(s) his Aramaic source indicated that the word he was looking for did indeed mean “brother.” It would be easy to see how this sort of miscommunication could happen.

or

1. The brother was Joseph’s son from a prior marriage. I have heard of Joseph described as a virgin as well but I’m not sure we are bound to believe that as Catholics.

 

[vstead]

I hope im not going off thread. Im new to bible studies and have only just picked up the bible aged 38. Ive read in this particular thread that Jesus left Mary in the care of John, and that this is how we can gage that there could not have been any other ‘family’ to speak of . Am i right in thinking that this is due to the fact that had there been anyone else, Jesus would have entrusted Mary to them, as to jewish law?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I hope im not going off thread. Im new to bible studies and have only just picked up the bible aged 38. Ive read in this particular thread that Jesus left Mary in the care of John, and that this is how we can gage that there could not have been any other ‘family’ to speak of . Am i right in thinking that this is due to the fact that had there been anyone else, Jesus would have entrusted Mary to them, as to jewish law?

You are spot on. Well done.

 

[vstead]

You are spot on. Well done.

Thanks for the reply. I personally find the idea of our Lady having children the ‘normal’ way ridiculous after the amazing thing that she was chosen to do. But i find that this is a flimsy argument for debating it. Could there not have been a really simple reason why jesus entrusted his mother to someone other than a brother, a million reasons really. Im sure this is not the only thing that proves this case, so apologies for my lack of knowledge

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I read this thread and have a few questions:

1. Doe the Greek word(s) used to describe brothers and sisters of Jesus also mean cousins or other kin? (I know the Hebrew Aramaic words do but I thought the Greek word meant only brother or sister and there was a different word for cousin)

If the answer to that question is no (the Greek word does not include cousins or other next of kin) then a Catholic might believe:

1. The Gospel writer made a mistake. Speculation: perhaps he was speaking with someone and trying to translate what that person was saying from Aramaic. And when he inquired about the relationship(s) his Aramaic source indicated that the word he was looking for did indeed mean “brother.” It would be easy to see how this sort of miscommunication could happen.

or

1. The brother was Joseph’s son from a prior marriage. I have heard of Joseph described as a virgin as well but I’m not sure we are bound to believe that as Catholics.

I don’t think that the Greek adelphos had the same broad meaning as the underlying Aramaic word. However, I think that the final redactor may have thought to himself/herself, “They will understand that these ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ were not out of the same womb when I say at the end that they are children of another Mary.”

 

[danmagne]

The very reason for non-Catholic Christian LEADERS’’ (and lay people as well) using the term “brothers” was (and is) is to CONFUSE Catholics who don’t have firm faith and knowledge of the Scriptures into believeing that there are several flaws in the Catholic teachings.

This siblings issue was used as the first item in all “non-sectarian” Bible studies that I have attended (starting in year 1981 in Saudi Arabia) to confuse Catholics in the same manner as they later on would use the “Whore of Babylon” to refer to Rome (where Vatican is physically situated), when in fact in the Bible the “Whore of Babylon” clearly refers to Jerusalem.

Thank you.

 

[vstead]

Being new to bible studies would anyone like to give a brief outline of ‘the whore of babylon.’

 

[nevadagardener]

Hi Peter Dawson and Everyone,

For those of you who haven’t read all the way through the thread, the issue of these “brothers” of Jesus are revealed post by post throughout it, as we identify all of the characters supposedly “brethren”.

 "First, go to Matthew 27:56...

 55 There were many women there, looking on from a distance, 33 who had   
 followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. 
 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and   
 Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Matthew 27:55-56.

 Note well that the women listed, and probably their children, too, were with Jesus in   
 Galilee, and that the children of one of these women NOT Jesus' mother (despite her   
 name Mary) are named James and Joseph. Mark 15:40 makes it clear that Joseph  
 was also called Joses."

The identies of the characters in these Bible passages:

We know that “Mary, the Mother of James and Joseph”, is Mary of Cleophas, meaning “wife of” Cleophas, who is Saint Joseph’s brother, hence the brother- and sister-in-law of Our Lady. That would make Cleophas and Mary Jesus’s Aunt and Uncle on Joseph’s side, and James and Joseph His first cousins, along with Simon and Judas, listed in the following passage from Matthew … “James, Joseph, Simon and Judas”.

One would think in the Bible references that these two brothers, James and Joseph/Joses, traveled together, as they are often referenced together. Perhaps they were closer in age, we just don’t know.

Some Protestants and Eastern Orthodox sometimes try to make these four brothers the step-brothers of Jesus, and Salome Saint Joseph’s first wife, but these theories were thrown out by Saint Jerome and others, if you read all the way back through the thread and follow back all of the links. Now, it’s going to take a minute, because the thread has grown so large, but it is so worth it to have the understanding. A must read!

The next person listed in the passage from Matthew “and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”, oftentimes also named as the famous “third Mary” in other passages describing those present at the crucifixion (the other two being the above-named Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene) is Saint Mary Salome, sometimes just named “Salome”, but also known as the wife of Zebedee, also known as the sister of the four brothers in the passage above, the fifth child (though we don’t know any of their birth orders) of Saint Cleophas and Saint Mary of Cleophas. This sister, Mary Salome, and her husband, Zebedee, are Jesus’s relatives then, in that she would also be His first cousin, and their two children, Saint John, the Beloved Apostle, and Saint James the Greater, are His second cousins.

As we have discussed throughout this thread, five of the first and second cousins also become His Apostles: James the Less, Judas, and Simon, of the four brothers, first cousins; and John and James the Greater, second cousins. Joseph, the fourth brother, is later known as Saint Joseph of Barsabas, and is later considered as one of two candidates for the replacement by the remaining 11 Apostles for Judas the Traitor, but Matthias is chosen instead. That is some fascinating reading further back in the thread, if you missed it.

The relationship of the two Marys, to Our Lady, is sometimes confused also, in the lack of proper language for “sister-in-law” and “niece”. Some of the Bible verses call them her “sisters”, while in fact Mary of Cleophas is Our Lady’s sister-in-law, and Mary Salome is her niece. These two Marys are mother and daughter to each other, and are Jesus’s Aunt and Cousin.

 "Now, go to one of the verses talking about Jesus' adelphos, or "brothers"...

 55 Is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers 
 James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:55."

Many of these posts also describe most eloquently the use of the Greek usage “brother” versus “cousin”, and the traditional usage of “brethren” in the Jewish customs. So fascinating!

You will find it very interesting reading if you follow the thread all the way through, as well as follow back all of the links to the various articles posted. Your Faith becomes all the more RICH once you have the history contained in the posts and the background of the various characters! If you haven’t made it all the way through, you simply must take it a few stretches at a time. This is one of the best threads I have read, or been a part of, on the Catholic Answers Forum. Bless all who have added and made it so.

Love,

nevadagardener :twocents:

 

[Chrysostom324]

That quote from Hilary was really good. I never thought about it that way. If Jesus had brothers, then why did Jesus give his mother over to the Apostle John? Great question for Protestants. I would love to see an answer to this. I have copied and pasted it.

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

 

[vstead]

That quote from Hilary was really good. I never thought about it that way. If Jesus had brothers, then why did Jesus give his mother over to the Apostle John? Great question for Protestants. I would love to see an answer to this. I have copied and pasted it.

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Why is it so absolute that Jesus would not have handed Mary over to a disciple if there were other family members. Is it not possible that just on this occasion, unique as it was, there could have been many other reasons as to why John was chosen over the usual jewish tradition. For me, there are more obvious reasons as to why i believe Jesus had no blood relatives. Someone summed it up perfectly for me. ‘Would there really be a lineage to such holiness.’

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why is it so absolute that Jesus would not have handed Mary over to a disciple if there were other family members. Is it not possible that just on this occasion, unique as it was, there could have been many other reasons as to why John was chosen over the usual jewish tradition. For me, there are more obvious reasons as to why i believe Jesus had no blood relatives. Someone summed it up perfectly for me. ‘Would there really be a lineage to such holiness.’

Didn’t Jewish law describe the responsibilities of children to care for their parents? If Jesus had bypassed this, He would have insulted his older siblings by entrusting her to the care of a non-family member as one of His last acts before death…a scenario that seems highly unlikely.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Why is it so absolute that Jesus would not have handed Mary over to a disciple if there were other family members. Is it not possible that just on this occasion, unique as it was, there could have been many other reasons as to why John was chosen over the usual jewish tradition. For me, there are more obvious reasons as to why i believe Jesus had no blood relatives. Someone summed it up perfectly for me. ‘Would there really be a lineage to such holiness.’

Everything from the very beginning of the OT up until the end of Revelations, essentially the end of time, has been planned to focus, prophesize, predict, support, Jesus’ plan of salvation. This includes all of the covenants, all of the original mosaic law, Jewish tradition, everything.

Jesus was a devout Jew. If you really study the NT you will see Jesus’ adherences to Jewish tradition. He would never have violated the tradition of turning over the care of His Mother to a non-family memeber if there were any other family because St. Joseph, devout Jew, His earthly father and earthly head of the Holy Family would have turned the care of the Blessed VIRGIN, ever perpetual, the Mother of Our Lord and Savior, over to Jesus upon his (St. Joseph’s) death. This was an earthly responsibility Jesus accepted.

Since G_D gave the Jews their tradition, He cannot violate that tradition. G_D never changes, He is the same forever and always.

Eddie Mac

 

[nevadagardener]

Hi Joemccarron!

Just peeked in and saw your questions on Post #302, and decided it best to answer your questions by providing an account of Saint Cleophas, the actual Father of “The Brethren of Our Lord”.

This next is taken from the website www.smcenter.org, the Saint Michael Center for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and is a beautiful summary of his life:

1. Saint Cleophas (First Century). Saint Cleophas was one of the greatest brothers and husbands and fathers and grandfathers who has ever been in the history of the world. His brother was Saint Joseph, the virginal spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

His wife was Saint Mary of Cleophas, whose feast day is April 9.

Three of his sons, Saint Simon, Saint James the Less and Saint Jude–and two of his grandsons, Saint James the Greater and Saint John–were Apostles of Jesus. They are called in Holy Scripture, “the brethren of Our Lord.”

His daughter, Mary Salome, the mother of Saint James the Greater and Saint John, is also a saint. Her feast day is October 22.

Still another son, Joseph Barsabas, who is called in Holy Scripture, “the Just,” and who was one of the two nominated to take the place of the traitorous Judas Iscariot, is a saint and has a feast day on July 20.

Saint Cleophas was one of the two disciples Our Lord met on the road to Emmaus on the day of His Resurrection, as we are told in the Gospel of Saint Luke, Chapter 24. Our Lord stopped to have supper with these two disciples. At the end of the meal Jesus blessed bread and gave them His Sacred Body to eat. And Saint Luke tells us that “they knew Him in the breaking of bread.”

Saint Cleophas was murdered by the Jews in the very house in which he had been host to Our Lord on the first Easter Sunday.

 

[ghrt]

trade9shoes.com

 

[nevadagardener]

For those of you following the thread, you will remember that earlier someone questioned the age and abilities of the parents of Saint James the Less, (aka the Aunt and Uncle of Our Lord, aka the grandparents of the Apostle John), as to how well they could have gotten around at the Crucifixion, if they would have been possibly 83, for James to be 94 or 96, the oldest of the Apostles, according to legend, at his death. And, depending on the birth order of the five siblings, their parents could also have been in their mid-60’s. (And you really could track this back and conjecture it if you wanted to, because we know the year John died and his age at the time, we just don’t know the spread or birth order of the five siblings.)

The POINT I am trying to make though, is, how closely Jesus’s family followed Him and supported him. That not only were the first and second cousins (the “brethren of the Lord”) present at the resurrection, but so was the whole family, Aunt Mary of Cleophas, and Uncle Cleophas, as well, and they continued as key players in His Ministry thereafter.

Not only the four brothers, three of whom are Apostles, and their two nephews, also Apostles, (Saint James and Saint John, sons of Mary Salome, who is sister to the four brothers), and all present at the death and resurrection. (Remember Cleophas is Saint Joseph’s brother, who most likely took on a paternal role to Jesus after the death of Jesus’s foster father, and likely a supportive, brotherly role to Jesus’s mother, Mary.) And that because of their unwavering belief in Who He Revealed Himself to Be, that most paid with their lives.

According to the following Scriptural passages from the readings a few weeks ago, not only were they present, but Aunt Mary was one of three women attending to the preparation of the body of Our Lord in the tomb (in this account, “Mary, the mother of James”). Her husband, Cleophas (in this account spelled “Cleopas”), the same day, was on the road with another unnamed disciple, walking seven (7) miles to Emmaus, and met Jesus on the road, and walked back, the same day, to Jerusalem! Fourteen miles in one day is a pretty good clip for anybody! (So, redraw conclusions as to ages and birth orders, and general health of the times.)

Now, in the following account, they did not recognize Jesus (not until the breaking of the bread), and once again, as they traveled the road, He went through the Scriptures with them one by one, giving each account to fulfill the prophesies of the Savior, leading up to His Own End. One more time, when it must have been frustrating to Our Lord to explain to His Uncle, one of those closest to Him, what He was really about, so they would finally understand that He was the Savior. Pretty fascinating reading, once you know who the characters are! Read on:

This next is from the Catholic Online site, www.Catholic.org

Luke - Chapter 24

1 On the first day of the week, at the first sign of dawn, they went to the tomb with the spices they had prepared.
2 They found that the stone had been rolled away from the tomb,
3 but on entering they could not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
4 As they stood there puzzled about this, two men in brilliant clothes suddenly appeared at their side.
5 Terrified, the women bowed their heads to the ground. But the two said to them, ‘Why look among the dead for someone who is alive?
6 He is not here; he has risen. Remember what he told you when he was still in Galilee:
7 that the Son of man was destined to be handed over into the power of sinful men and be crucified, and rise again on the third day.’
8 And they remembered his words.

SEE NEXT POST …