Jesus's siblings

[YHWH_Christ]

Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, JP Meier, writes:

Paul, Mark, John, Josephus and perhaps Luke in Acts 1:14 speak independently of the “brother(s) of Jesus” (or the Lord). Most of their statements yoke the brothers (and at times sisters) directly with Mary the mother of Jesus in phrases like “his mother and his brothers.” […] The Greek use of Josephus distinguishes between “brother and cousin,” […] thus it is especially significant that Josephus, an independent 1st-century Jewish writer, calls James of Jerusalem, without further ado, “the brother of Jesus.” […]

In the NT there is not a single clear case where “brother” means “cousin” or even “stepbrother,” while there are abundant cases of its meaning “physical brother” (full or half). This is the natural sense of adelphos in Paul, Mark and John; Matthew and Luke apparently followed and developed this sense. Paul’s usage is particularly important because, unlike Josephus or the evangelists, he is not simply writing about past events transmitted to him through stories in oral or written sources. He speaks of the brother(s) of the Lord as people he has known and met, people who are living even as he is writing. […] And Paul, or a close disciple, shows that the Pauline tradition knew perfectly well the word for “cousin” ( anepsios in Col 4:10). […] [T]he most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were his siblings. This interpretation of the NT texts was kept alive by at least some Church writers up until the late 4th century.

So how are traditional Catholic and Orthodox Christians supposed to respond to this?

 

[EloyCraft]

Why didn’t Jesus give His mother to his younger brother to take care of her. Great insult to give her to a friend instead. I’d be put out if she were my mom.

 

[Limoncello4021]

We know Mary was a virgin all her life. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Joseph may have been married before (we don’t know) which means Jesus might have had step foster brothers. Most likely the brothers of Jesus means extended family members, like cousins. And that’s what we know.

 

[twf]

This is a very strong argument. If Our Lady had other natural sons, the Jewish culture would have considered it a great insult to them that she was entrusted to another man, not her sons…

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Christians know and live as truth that Our Lady had no other biological children. Of course, she has millions of other spiritual children .

The ancient tradition, still accepted in the East, is that St. Joseph was a widower who had St. James, St. Jude, etc. by his first wife. In this sense, I could see how the community would label them “brothers” of Jesus… the common Latin view that they were cousins of the Lord is also plausible but I’m not sure how to reconcile it with the claims in the OP.

 

[billsherman]

So how are traditional Catholic and Orthodox Christians supposed to respond to this?

Msgr. Meier’s conclusion (which is from "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. I) is a historical conclusion reached via historical methodology.

As he clearly states in the first part of that book, history is NOT theology. Historical methodology can only follow evidence and report on that. Meier has laid out the historical evidence, and summarized it as well as anyone. As he has said repeatedly:

“I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed. Go all the way back to Reimarus, through Schleiermacher, all the way down the line through Bultmann, Kasemann, Bornkamm. These are basically people who are theologians, doing a more modern type of Christology.”

Msgr. Meier is a priest in good standing incardinated in the Archdiocese of New York. He has recently retired as a professor at Notre Dame University. He has won more awards from pontifical academies than I can name, and has been praised by name by Pope Benedict XVI. I don’t know if the OP intended to imply that he is unorthodox, but he isn’t. He’s an honest historian, doing the work of an honest historian, not a theologian.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Josephus was not a first-hand witness. Whatever he wrote about James cannot be considered inspired. Also, the difference between kinsman and biological brother would not have mattered to him as he wasn’t a Christian.

 

[new-kirishitan]

As someone grew up in the Chinese culture until my teenage years, this statement makes perfect sense to me, because the word ‘brother’ is frequently used as an umbrella term for one’s male relatives of the same generation, which includes both male siblings and male cousins. In formal speaking, however, it will be used to indicate one’s male siblings only. Same thing for the word ‘sister’.

 

[BartholomewB]

This same question is asked quite frequently here at CAF. Here is a thread from two years ago, with all the relevant details about the origin of the three theories. The oldest of the three is that Simeon, James, and the other “brethren” were Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage. The “cousins” theory originated with Jerome, in the 380s or later, and the Helvidian theory – that they were all the offspring of Joseph and Mary – at around the same time.

Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin" Sacred Scripture

I’ve heard the argument that the “brothers” of Jesus mentioned in scripture were not literal blood brothers, but were most likely akin to cousins and the like, because the language of the time didn’t have words for those other, familial terms. How is it then that elsewhere in the Gospel, it describes Elizabeth as being Mary’s “cousin”? Thanks in advance

 

[BartholomewB]

And Paul, or a close disciple, shows that the Pauline tradition knew perfectly well the word for “cousin” ( anepsios in Col 4:10)

ἀνεψιὸς (anepsios), “cousin,” is an unusual word in Biblical Greek. In the New Testament it occurs just this one single time. In the whole of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) the word is found only three times, once in Numbers and twice in Tobit. In Numbers 36:11 and Tobit 7:2 it translates the Hebrew ben dod, “uncle’s son”. We can guess that the same Hebrew expression was also used in Tobit 9:6, but that is one of the lost fragments.

 

[TMC]

Josephus was not a first-hand witness. Whatever he wrote about James cannot be considered inspired. Also, the difference between kinsman and biological brother would not have mattered to him as he wasn’t a Christian.

All those that record the events of Jesus life describe his siblings as siblings (not cousins), as has been pointed out. There is only one Scriptural author whose identity is certain - Paul. And we know Paul knew James. And we know that Paul believed James was Jesus’ brother. That is pretty compelling. But even if one credits Matthew and John as being actual eyewitnesses (neither Luke nor Mark have any claim to having met Jesus), they also call James Jesus’ brother.

Also, why would Josephus not care about the identities of those he wrote about? He was a Jew, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t know the difference between a brother and a cousin.

The claim that Jesus’ brothers are not full siblings, but rather cousins or half-brothers is a faith-based theological claim. That does not necessarily make it illegitimate. But it is not a historical claim, and it cannot be supported by the text of the documents. At best, we can say that the half-sibling claim is not inconsistent with the text.

 

[davidharper]

If I remember my studies from 30 years ago correctly none of the N.T. authors were actual eyewitnesses. Also it should be considered that there is no such thing as an eyewitness to a conception. Trying hard not to offend here. To me, the idea that a christian scribe who was writing at least 50 years after the fact could know the intimate circumstances surrounding the conception of Jesus seems more than a little far-fetched. Of course, divine revelation would make my argument irrelevant. But James is called “the brother of Jesus” in the bible so,to me, I would assume “brother” means brother, not cousin or half-brother. But that’s just me. Even if Mary did have other children that fact would not diminish my faith in Him one bit.
One must, IMO, separate historical fact from theological doctrine. I carried on personal email correspondences with the authors of several books about Jesus. Barns Tatum, E.P. Sanders, Ray Martin. But these guys are historians, not theologians. This is an argument that will never end, I guess.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If I remember my studies from 30 years ago correctly none of the N.T. authors were actual eyewitnesses.

You’re saying that John the Evangelist, who spent 3 years with Jesus and took Mary into his home to live out the rest of her life after Jesus’ crucifixion, wasn’t an “actual eyewitness”?

Am I missing something here?

 

[Gorgias]

If I remember my studies from 30 years ago correctly none of the N.T. authors were actual eyewitnesses.

You’re accurately recalling what you were taught 30 years ago. More recent Catholic Scripture scholarship has moved on, though, and now there are some pretty convincing claims that there was eyewitness involvement in the development of the NT. See Pitre’s “The Case for Jesus” for one good such example.

You’re saying that John the Evangelist, who spent 3 years with Jesus and took Mary into his home to live out the rest of her life after Jesus’ crucifixion, wasn’t an “actual eyewitness”?

Am I missing something here?

Yes… the whole debate over the identities of “John the apostle”, “the beloved apostle”, and “John the evangelist”, and whether (and if so, then how) they conflate!

[T]he most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were his siblings. This interpretation of the NT texts was kept alive by at least some Church writers up until the late 4th century.

I would be interested to see his rebuttal to the claims that demonstrate – by bringing together verses across multiple Gospels – that these ‘brothers’ were really the children of Mary (the wife of Clopas).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yes… the whole debate over the identities of “John the apostle”, “the beloved apostle”, and “John the evangelist”, and whether (and if so, then how) they conflate!

I’m aware of that issue having different schools of thought, but it’s not a definite conclusion that John didn’t write any part of the NT. It’s one theory/ opinion at best, as far as I know. The (non-Catholic) poster presented it as fact established at least 30 years ago.

It’s also not a settled conclusion that some of the other authors didn’t have at least some eyewitness experience.

Ultimately it’s just a matter of which professor’s opinions somebody wants to accept. Whatever opinion that is, we could find some other evidence next week that turns it on its head.

 

[Gorgias]

it’s not a definite conclusion that John didn’t write any part of the NT. It’s one theory/ opinion at best, as far as I know. The poster presented it as fact.

Well, to be fair, I interpreted what he wrote as meaning “here’s what was being taught 30 years ago”… and that’s true – it was!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

OK, I’ll buy that “here’s what was being taught 30 years ago”. It’s not 30 years ago any more though. All fields move forward.

 

[davidharper]

John’s gospel was written between 90a.d. and 130a.d. by a school of disciples of the evangelist.

 

[BartholomewB]

John’s gospel was written between 90a.d. and 130a.d. by a school of disciples of the evangelist.

It depends what you mean by “written.” “Compiled,” perhaps, or “edited,” incorporating earlier material.

 

[TMC]

I’m aware of that issue having different schools of thought, but it’s not a definite conclusion that John didn’t write any part of the NT. It’s one theory/ opinion at best, as far as I know. The (non-Catholic) poster presented it as fact established at least 30 years ago.

The author of John does not claim to be the beloved apostle, that is something we read into the text. There is some tradition that John was written by John the Apostle, but there is really no evidence of that, and the Church does not mandate that belief.

It’s also not a settled conclusion that some of the other authors didn’t have at least some eyewitness experience.

Well, Luke makes very clear that he is recording second and third hand descriptions. Mark is completely anonymous, but even the tradition is that Mark was not a witness. So that leaves only Matthew and John, again, both anonymous, with very thin (if any) evidence of their identities. The one author that everyone agrees can be identified with some certainty is Paul. Paul did not meet Jesus before the Resurrection, but he did know James, Peter and at least some of the other Apostles.

 

[davidharper]

very well-informed post. What is your opinion concerning the word “Almah” in Isiah 7;14 ?