Jesus siblings were step siblings?

[mamlukman]

It was most likely applied to his cousins, who were the children of Clopas and Mary, probably siblings with either Joseph or Mary (the Blessed Mother).

I did a quick Google search, and this article seems to layout the theory pretty well.

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a27.htm

A good article. I just happen to be reading “Did Jesus Exist?” by Bart Ehrman (2012). Bart calls himself “an agnostic with atheistic leanings” but I have always found his books to be clear, fair, and illuminating.

In any case, on pp. 146-48 he addresses the question of Jesus’s “brothers” and the Catholic point of view. He points out that in 1 Corinthians Paul talks about the “brothers of the Lord” as separate from himself or Peter–so most likely “brothers” of Jesus in the literal sense, even if that sense is “relative.” In Galatians Paul talks about Peter, then about “James, the brother of the Lord,” again showing that “brother” is not used here in the sense that “we are all brothers in Christ” or something like that.

But Bart claims that the Catholic view of “brothers” dates back to the 4th c. doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, not just being a virgin at the time of Jesus’s conception. Ehrman relates that view to the idea that sex was somehow “sinful,” and since Mary couldn’t sin, she couldn’t have sex. But he goes on to say that there’s no textual backing for this interpretation, or even a backing in tradition.

Ehrman goes on to say that the first interpretation of the Catholic church was that the “brothers” of Jesus were Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage–Jesus’s step-brothers. Thus Joseph is shown as an “old” man in paintings of the Holy Family while Mary is always a young woman.

Then Ehrman says that this view began to be displaced by a view espoused by Jerome: that Joseph as well as Mary practiced celibacy (Ehrman thinks that since Jerome was an ascetic, he figured Joseph would have been, too). So Jerome makes the “brothers” into cousins. Ehrman objects that Greek has two separate words: one for “brother” and one for “cousin,” and the New Testament always uses the word for “brother” not “cousin.”

Any thoughts?

 

[BartholomewB]

A good article. I just happen to be reading “Did Jesus Exist?” by Bart Ehrman (2012). Bart calls himself “an agnostic with atheistic leanings” but I have always found his books to be clear, fair, and illuminating.

In any case, on pp. 146-48 he addresses the question of Jesus’s “brothers” and the Catholic point of view. He points out that in 1 Corinthians Paul talks about the “brothers of the Lord” as separate from himself or Peter–so most likely “brothers” of Jesus in the literal sense, even if that sense is “relative.” In Galatians Paul talks about Peter, then about “James, the brother of the Lord,” again showing that “brother” is not used here in the sense that “we are all brothers in Christ” or something like that.

But Bart claims that the Catholic view of “brothers” dates back to the 4th c. doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, not just being a virgin at the time of Jesus’s conception. Ehrman relates that view to the idea that sex was somehow “sinful,” and since Mary couldn’t sin, she couldn’t have sex. But he goes on to say that there’s no textual backing for this interpretation, or even a backing in tradition.

Ehrman goes on to say that the first interpretation of the Catholic church was that the “brothers” of Jesus were Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage–Jesus’s step-brothers. Thus Joseph is shown as an “old” man in paintings of the Holy Family while Mary is always a young woman.

Then Ehrman says that this view began to be displaced by a view espoused by Jerome: that Joseph as well as Mary practiced celibacy (Ehrman thinks that since Jerome was an ascetic, he figured Joseph would have been, too). So Jerome makes the “brothers” into cousins. Ehrman objects that Greek has two separate words: one for “brother” and one for “cousin,” and the New Testament always uses the word for “brother” not “cousin.”

Any thoughts?

There is a 472-page book, no less, dealing with virtually every aspect of this question: Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, by Richard Bauckham.

amazon.com/Relatives-Jesus-Church-Academic-Paperback/dp/0567082970/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440449667&sr=1-1&pebp=1440449672525&perid=171EJ4Z3FMW21GWE6H59

I haven’t yet read it, but I hope to soon. From what I’ve read about it, his conclusion is as follows: he rejects Jerome’s idea about the cousins and is undecided between the so-called Helvidian view (that the “brethren” were indeed the sons of Joseph and Mary) and the Epiphanian view (that they were the children of Joseph’s earlier marriage).

Wherever the Epiphanian view is explicitly endorsed in early Christian writings ― according to Bauckham ― the notion of the perpetual virginity is also in evidence in the same work. Obviously, anyone who accepts the Helvidian view can’t assent to the belief jn the perpetual virginity. In Bauckham’s words, the belief in the perpetual virginity necessitated the Epiphanian (as opposed to the Helvidian) view. But in his book he points out that this is a chicken-and-egg argument: perhaps it was only because Jesus’ brothers and sisters were known not to be Mary’s children that belief in the perpetual virginity was able to gain ground.

 

[Duane1966]

James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40). Judas was the son of James (not either of the Apostles) (Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Mt 20:20).

From Tim Staples:

You begin with Galatians 1:18-19: “Then after three years I [St. Paul] went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”*“Notice two very important points,” you explain. “First, the ‘James’St. Paulis talking about was a ‘brother of the Lord.’ Sound familiar? And second, he was an apostle. There are only two apostles named James. The first was the ‘son of Zebedee.’ He would not be the ‘James’St. Paulwas talking about because he was martyred very early according to Acts 12:1-2. And even if it were him, his father was named Zebedee, not Joseph. If he were the uterine brother of the Lord, his father would have been Joseph.**“There is only one James left who was an apostle according to Scripture. And according to Luke 6:15-16, his father’s name was Alphaeus, not Joseph. That would mean James the apostle and Jesus were not uterine brothers.

I was listening to Tim Staples on CA within the past three months. He mentioned a Jewish scholar who basically said that no Jew would ever talk to an older brother the way that some of the gospel passages have Jesus’ brothers talking to him, lending credence to the step-brother theory.

 

[feed_me]

Jesus siblings are a representation of the spiritual family in heaven, he said “only those who do the will of my father are my brothers and sisters”. At jesus death when he told john “behold your mother and mother behold your son”, it was a representation of the spiritual mother, son, which makes Mary the spiritual mother to the children of the church or should we say the adopted mother to Gods’ abandon children at that time.

 

[Richca]

A good article. I just happen to be reading “Did Jesus Exist?” by Bart Ehrman (2012). Bart calls himself “an agnostic with atheistic leanings” but I have always found his books to be clear, fair, and illumin.

In any case, on pp. 146-48 he addresses the question of Jesus’s “brothers” and the Catholic point of view. He points out that in 1 Corinthians Paul talks about the “brothers of the Lord” as separate from himself or Peter–so most likely “brothers” of Jesus in the literal sense, even if that sense is “relative.” In Galatians Paul talks about Peter, then about “James, the brother of the Lord,” again showing that “brother” is not used here in the sense that “we are all brothers in Christ” or something like that.

But Bart claims that the Catholic view of “brothers” dates back to the 4th c. doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, not just being a virgin at the time of Jesus’s conception. Ehrman relates that view to the idea that sex was somehow “sinful,” and since Mary couldn’t sin, she couldn’t have sex. But he goes on to say that there’s no textual backing for this interpretation, or even a backing in tradition.

Ehrman goes on to say that the first interpretation of the Catholic church was that the “brothers” of Jesus were Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage–Jesus’s step-brothers. Thus Joseph is shown as an “old” man in paintings of the Holy Family while Mary is always a young woman.

Then Ehrman says that this view began to be displaced by a view espoused by Jerome: that Joseph as well as Mary practiced celibacy (Ehrman thinks that since Jerome was an ascetic, he figured Joseph would have been, too). So Jerome makes the “brothers” into cousins. Ehrman objects that Greek has two separate words: one for “brother” and one for “cousin,” and the New Testament always uses the word for “brother” not “cousin.”

Any thoughts?

Yes, the brothers of the Lord mentioned in scripture does not necessarily mean real siblings of Jesus. Hebrew and Aramaic do not have a word for cousin and so brother or sister in the New Testament can mean a blood relation of some kind such as cousin or kinsman. It does not necessarily mean a sibling brother or sister.

For example, in Mark 6:3 it says “Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses [variant Joseph or Joset] and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” In Matt. 27:26, at the crucifixion of Jesus, there is a Mary there who is the mother of James and Joseph and this Mary is certainly not the Blessed Virgin Mary. Mark 15:40 also has a Mary who was the mother of James the younger and Joset. Luke 24:10 also has a Mary, the mother of James. John 19:25, has a Mary the wife of Clopas and this Clopas could be the father of James and Joseph. From the gospels then, the James and Joses of Mark 6:3, appear to be the sons of a Mary who is not the Blessed Virgin Mary; yet they are called the brothers of the Lord.

The Blessed Virgin Mary, as this name implies, is a perpetual virgin and this is an article of faith for catholics and a dogma of the Catholic Church. Our Blessed Lady had no other son than that of Jesus, the Son of God, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit. As I mentioned in a previous post, St Joseph was most likely a young man when he married Mary, and this will become clearer below. The idea that St Joseph was a widow and had children before his marriage to our Blessed Lady, if we really think about it, doesn’t really make any sense. Joseph was called by God from all eternity to be the husband of Mary and foster father of Jesus, the Man-God. Should we think that God couldn’t find a virginal young man to be the husband of the virginal Mary, the Mother of God? Since the time of Adam and Eve, young virginal couples have been marrying. The Holy Family is the perfect family and the model for all families. It simply does not make much sense that God would choose a husband for Mary from all eternity who was previously married and was not a virgin. To be the husband of Mary is obviously a special calling and God prepared Joseph with special gifts of grace to fulfill this vocation and to be the father of the Holy Family.

St John Paul II in a general audience, August 21, 1996, gave a catechesis on Mary’s and Joseph’s Lived Gift of Virginity. Here he talks about the virginal love that Mary and Joseph had for each other. Joseph was a virgin like our Lady. Link to homily:
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm30.htm

St John Paul II talks about the virginity of both Mary and Joseph again in the Apostolic Exhortation REDEMPTORIS CUSTOS, ON THE PERSON AND MISSION OF
SAINT JOSEPH IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST AND OF THE CHURCH. And he quotes a text from the Liturgy of the Church itself, he says: In the Liturgy, Mary is celebrated as “united to Joseph, the just man, by a bond of marital and virginal love.” (footnote is too: Collectio Missarum de Beata Maria Virgine, 1, “Sancta Maria de Nazareth,” Praefatio.). St Mary of Nazareth or Our Lady of Nazareth is an approved Mass that can be said in the Church. Link to Redemptoris Custos:
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_15081989_redemptoris-custos.html

From the two above sources from St Pope John Paul II and from the Liturgy of the Church itself, it appears that the doctrine or teaching of the virginity of St Joseph is not just pious speculation, but the teaching and doctrine of the Church. John Paul II does not appear to talk about the virginity of St Joseph as if he is just speculating or that this is just pious opinion. The text from the Liturgy of the Mass of Our Lady of Nazareth that St John Paul II quotes is a part of the living Sacred Tradition of the Church.

 

[dje14338]

Elizium’s quote from a Catholic scholar is probably the coreect answer. One reason that the problem arose is that there are too many Mary’s. Some of commentator’s above allude to this but do no go far enough. One should consider their names in Greek. The Virgin Mary is Miriam [which is actually Hebrew] while all the other Marys are Maria. The confusion arises because both are translated as Mary.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

One of the most overlooked facts of Jesus and Mary’s filial son relation is within the context of the prevalent culture of the time.
The Bible gives us clues as to what were the customs and prescriptions in the Moses tradition of relations between mother and son.

Now if the proponents of the existence of Jesus brothers are right, we have a huge issue, Jesus would have totally insulted HIS direct family when HE entrusted HIS mother to the care of the Apostle John not a kinsman of Jesus.
It was the custom that at the disappearance of the first born the brothers would take on the responsibility and in fact the duty to care for the parents.

We see this played out over and over in the Bible.
And that having children was seen as something of utmost importance while having no children was often considered a curse from GOD.
This reason or argument is much more convincing IMHO, that Jesus had in fact no one to take care of HIS mother and entrusted her to John.

…

John the apostle WAS a kinsman of Jesus!!!

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

Every theory I’ve read has theorized that Mary was probably 14 or so at the time of the birth of Christ.

She was sixteen, per Protoevangelium, which as noted above is not canonical, but has some “authority”. Reading the Protoevangelium you can easily see why it wasn’t received as canonical: it switches from third-person to first-person about midway through and gets a little weird in the first-person commentary, and in the first section (the third person commentary) every third word is “behold.” That said, the Church does use the book for the name of Mary’s parents (as noted) and, as such, I would think, it is an acceptable (if not definite) source for Mary’s age at the time she bore Christ.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hebrew and Aramaic do not have a word for cousin

This is a false statement perpetuated by many Catholic apologists, not that I would say that the canard ultimately has all that much bearing on the question.

For example, take a look at the Hebrew of Jer. 32:8, 9 or Esther 2:7 or the Peshitta of any of these verses plus Colossians 4:10. It’s not that the Jews of Jesus’ time lacked a specific way of designating someone as a “cousin.” And it does seem like if the Gospels had meant “cousin” the writers would have said “cousin.”

This does not rule out the possibility that Joseph had other children from another woman/women.

 

[ericc]

This is a false statement perpetuated by many Catholic apologists, not that I would say that the canard ultimately has all that much bearing on the question.

For example, take a look at the Hebrew of Jer. 32:8, 9 or Esther 2:7 or the Peshitta of any of these verses plus Colossians 4:10. It’s not that the Jews of Jesus’ time lacked a specific way of designating someone as a “cousin.” And it does seem like if the Gospels had meant “cousin” the writers would have said “cousin.”

This does not rule out the possibility that Joseph had other children from another woman/women.

Jer 32:8 in Hebrew is written as son of my uncle and Esther 2:7 is uncle daughter. It is not cousin. Colossians 4:10 “anepsios” is indeed cousin in Greek. But that is not what we are arguing, we are saying there is no equivalent word in Hebrew/Aramaic for cousin.

Before you accuse Catholic apologists of spreading falsehoods, you may wish to do some homework on the Hebrew language first. Googling for the word “cousin” on your English Bible does not qualify as homework.

In fact I can use the same principle that you are using in reverse to disprove your claims. You are claiming Jesus brethren to be uterine brothers. There is such a word in Greek for uterine brothers. books.google.com.my/books?id=jKpWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=greek+uterine+brother&source=bl&ots=XstLSnrMzF&sig=GJoqIL1A6q8NIyMt7hz9sjSO6aw&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=greek%20uterine%20brother&f=false

But since the Gospel writers didn’t use that word, then those brethren can not be uterine brothers. Case close.

We have beaten this adelphoi to the death several times. Both Catholic and Protestant scholars have worked at it for decades/centuries and the conclusion is that adelphoi could take several meanings and therefore one can not claim conclusively that it takes only one meaning. I hope you are gracious enough to accept that reality instead of accusing folks of spreading falsehoods. And that is not nice.

 

[BartholomewB]

Jer 32:8 in Hebrew is written as son of my uncle and Esther 2:7 is uncle daughter. It is not cousin. Colossians 4:10 “anepsios” is indeed cousin in Greek. But that is not what we are arguing, we are saying there is no equivalent word in Hebrew/Aramaic for cousin.

Modern Israeli Hebrew has a complete set of four nouns, two masculine and two feminine:

דוד (dod), uncle
דודה (dodah), aunt
דודן (dodan), cousin (male)
דודנית (dodanit), cousin (female)

The first of the four, *dod *(uncle), is the word used in the two verses you mention, Jer. 32:8 and Esther 2:7. None of the other three, however, are found anywhere in the OT, as far as I can see, according to the Bible Hub online concordance:

biblehub.com/hebrew/1730.htm

Why that should be, I have no idea. Perhaps those three words weren’t coined until centuries later? Anybody?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Modern Israeli Hebrew has a complete set of four nouns, two masculine and two feminine:

דוד (dod), uncle
דודה (dodah), aunt
דודן (dodan), cousin (male)
דודנית (dodanit), cousin (female)

The first of the four, *dod *(uncle), is the word used in the two verses you mention, Jer. 32:8 and Esther 2:7. None of the other three, however, are found anywhere in the OT, as far as I can see, according to the Bible Hub online concordance:

biblehub.com/hebrew/1730.htm

Why that should be, I have no idea. Perhaps those three words weren’t coined until centuries later? Anybody?

Yes, that’s correct–these expression were later developments in the language. There are many differences between Modern and Biblical Hebrew (as you are probably aware) including the importation of words from Aramaic, Arabic and even German and English.

The Hebrew Bible uses the terms ben-dod (male cousin) and bat-dod (female cousin).

 

[BartholomewB]

Yes, that’s correct–these expression were later developments in the language. There are many differences between Modern and Biblical Hebrew (as you are probably aware) including the importation of words from Aramaic, Arabic and even German and English.

Not to mention Italian: פיצה, pizza.

Thanks for your help.

Regards
Bart