Jesus's siblings

[Hodos]

Jerome himself, even in his polemic against Helvidius, admits that Helvidius was not alone in this matter as does Basel the Great.

 

[Zach]

Where are his brothers when at 12 years old he and his family go to the Temple in Luke 2?

As @EloyCraft mentioned why did John and not Jesus’ siblings take care of Mary
after Jesus’ death?

Does the Bible anywhere say “Mary’s sons” directly?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Not alone, but not the majority.

 

[twf]

At best, we can say that the half-sibling claim is not inconsistent with the text.

Exactly…while not popular in the West, the idea that St. Joseph had children from a previous marriage is very ancient…and it makes sense to me that St. Paul and others would readily refer to those sons as “brothers of the Lord”…I mean if they were St. Joseph’s sons it just makes sense. From a legal standpoint, as far as the Jewish community was concerned, St. Joseph was the Lord’s father…so his sons would be the Lord’s brothers.

 

[twf]

There are two apostles named James. One was the son of Alpheus, one was the son of Zebedee. Is anyone proposing that Mary was at one time married to one of these? Seems unlikely. James is called a brother of the Lord.

This is only an issue in the Western tradition. In the Eastern tradition, St. James the brother of the Lord is NEITHER of these two apostles…but a third man, who was a biological son of St. Joseph by his first wife and who went on to become the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

 

[Dan_Defender]

The Greek word is adelphos. Hebrew didn’t have a word for cousin and the gospel writers had Hebrew in mind. Simple as that. The Septuagint uses adelphos for the relationship between Abraham and Lot and we know they were not brothers either.

 

[BartholomewB]

In the Eastern tradition, St. James the brother of the Lord is NEITHER of these two apostles…but a third man, who was a biological son of St. Joseph by his first wife and who went on to become the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

In the west, too, this is the now a widely held view, I think, though it’s not in accordance with Catholic teaching. The James mentioned in Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 is neither James the Greater nor James the Less, but a third James, who reappears in Acts 12:17, when Peter says, “Tell this to James and the rest of the believers.” He later became known as James the Just.

 

[Bluebright]

I had a lecturer who said he was believed to be Johanna’s son. She being the owner of the upper rooms the disciples used. This explained why Mark was at the last supper as a young boy he should have been sleeping but was listening in just wrapped in a sheet he followed them and was the ‘naked youth’ referred to in his gospel which ran away leaving his sheet when the Romans came. I’m not sure where the idea comes from but it is an interesting thought as Joanna is mentioned as a follower of Christ so a teen child could easily follow too and sneak around listening enough to write an account. And living around the Upper room would provide ample opportunities for hearing about Jesus and the disciples first hand.

 

[Gorgias]

Can you site some historians who make this argument?

The arguments proceed from Scriptural evidence. How many historians do you know of who will proceed from Scripture? On the other hand, this argument proceeds from a Scripture scholar, not a theologian.

Besides, your ad hominem approach doesn’t really strike me as a valid one. Scripture scholars are experts in their own right.

Prof. Pitre is a theologian, not a historian.

“Scripture scholar”. Again, ad hominem much?

He is a good example of the kinds of (perfectly good and honest I might add!) scholars Meier was talking about

Incidentally, do you know what Meier’s academic background is? Not history. He has an S.T.L. and an S.S.D., which means his academic background is theology and Scripture scholarship. Now… what was your complaint, again? 'Cause it can’t be “historians only, please”, or else you’d have to throw out Meier’s theories.

I’ve probably written this sentence more than any other on this board, but it bears repeating: History and theology are not the same thing.

Fair enough, but you’re missing the point: Scripture scholarship isn’t theology, per se, either; and besides, just because it’s Scripture scholarship, that doesn’t mean it pales in validity next to history.

Luke is referring to “many” compilations made by others, and says that the eyewitness testimony has been “handed down”. To me that is clear that he is not talking to eyewitnesses, but referring to compilations “handed down” from eyewitnesses to others - so at least third hand. But he maybe he did talk to a few eyewitnesses, which is why I included “second and third hand.”

Think about that for a minute. Your claim is that Luke knows that there are already first-hand accounts out there (“eyewitnesses from the beginning”) and the accounts of apostles (“ministers of the word”). Are you really claiming that Luke thought to himself “ya know what? I’m not sure that these eyewitness accounts are accurate. I’ll tell ya what I’m gonna do! I’m gonna go get second- and third-hand accounts !! Yeah! That’ll be something that’ll make people realize the certainty of what they’d heard from eyewitness sources!!!”

C’mon, friend… that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Gorgias]

“parthenos” is greek for “virgin”.

Actually, it’s not. It means “maiden”. By implication, though, it takes on the meaning “virgin”. (After all, aren’t all unmarried young women virgins? – ok… maybe that was the presumption, in those days!)

in the septuagint the christian scribes translated the hebrew word “almah” (“young woman”)into the greek word “parthenos” (virgin)

Oh, boy. Brother, I think you’re off by a couple centuries. The Septuagint came into existence around the 3rd or 2nd century B.C., so it’s not a Christian translation – it’s a Jewish one!

In other words, in Hebrew, Jews were saying “young woman” by saying “almah”, and in Greek, Jews were saying “young woman” by saying “parthenos.” Both of these would have implied virginity.

Yes you’re correct. I should have said "long after the translation of the septuagint the christian scribes inserted the word “virgin”. My mistake.

In the Latin, you mean? “Virgo” would have had the same implications – a maiden who is pure.

It feels like you have a chip on your shoulder regarding “Christian scribes” (the first clue is that you refuse to capitalize the word “Christian”). Am I misreading you?

 

[Dovekin]

When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who is called Mark, where there were many people gathered in prayer.
Acts 12:12

This is the seed from which the story grew. John who is called Mark goes off with Paul and Barnabas at the end of the chapter.

As to Luke, he is identified by the “we” passages in Acts. When the narrative shifts from third person to first person, it is assumed it is because Luke, the author of Acts, has joined Paul. This could mean many things, from he was converted by Paul at Troas, to he met up with him there, to this is just leftover from clumsy editing together of accounts. It does give us eyewitness accounts presumably, but witnessing Paul, not Jesus.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

leftover from clumsy editing together of accounts. It does give us eyewitness accounts presumably, but witnessing Paul, not Jesus.

The Eastern Church disagrees.

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Luke

And Luke was a native of Antioch, not Troas. He moved there.

 

[TMC]

That’s pretty recent. Luke has been mentioned in lists of the 72 disciples and is regarded as the man at Emmaus.

I think that was Papias’ view, which is not particularly recent. I don’t know what “lists” you are referring to, but Luke certainly never mentions meeting Jesus, and on the few occasions that he puts himself in his writings, it is as a companion of Paul.

Mark wasn’t Roman. He was a Jew and cousin of Barnabas. The Church in Jerusalem met often in his home if you check Acts 12.

Again, not my view. I am giving what I understand is the interpretation of Papias’ comments on Mark, which is that he was Peter’s interpreter in Rome. Other than the fact that they have the same name, I don’t now that there is any support for the theory that the Mark mentioned in Acts is the author of Mark.

 

[TMC]

Exactly…while not popular in the West, the idea that St. Joseph had children from a previous marriage is very ancient…and it makes sense to me that St. Paul and others would readily refer to those sons as “brothers of the Lord”…I mean if they were St. Joseph’s sons it just makes sense. From a legal standpoint, as far as the Jewish community was concerned, St. Joseph was the Lord’s father…so his sons would be the Lord’s brothers.

Frankly, its the only explanation that is consistent with the text of the Gospels and Paul, which may be how it wound up in the Protoevangelium in the first place.

 

[billsherman]

The word parthenos in Greek originally did have the meaning of young woman and like many words do, it shifted to mean virgin.

The definition of this poor word has been the subject of more debate across the millennia than nearly any other. Nearly everyone in the Western world has something invested in its definition.

As @Gorgias said it is usually best translated as “maiden.” It did, however, always have an association with virginity - particularly when used in relation to Greek goddesses. Once the Christian context becomes dominant, the word becomes almost exclusively synonymous with “virgin.”

Did the Hebrew scribes intend it to mean “virgin” or “maiden” or “young woman” or some combination? Sadly I wish I could ask them, because I don’t know any way of knowing for certain. There are libraries written about this very issue, and I don’t think we’re any closer to the answer.

To paraphrase from the brilliant Fr. Raymond Brown: The broad story has captivated billions for thousands of years, the specific language has vexed a handful of scholars. Sometimes it’s a good idea to keep things simple.

 

[Pattylt]

Thanks for the reply. As I couldn’t remember where I heard this theory, I can’t even remember if it was a secular or apologetic response!

So, seems it’s still up in the air… darn, would have liked some closure!

 

[billsherman]

The arguments proceed from Scriptural evidence. How many historians do you know of who will proceed from Scripture?

All of them? Seriously, I don’t know any historians of early Christianity who don’t use the Gospels, the Letters of Paul, etc. as their most significant sources. The entire first part of Meier’s “A Marginal Jew, vol. I” is about why those sources are the best ones we have.

“Scripture scholar”. Again, ad hominem much?

I’m not sure why saying someone is a theologian and not a historian is an ad hominem. I’m 100% certain Prof. Pitre wouldn’t consider it one, just like I wouldn’t consider it an ad hominem to call me a historian and not a theologian.

The two disciplines are different. They use different methodology, they operate by different rules, and they are aimed at different goals. Kind of like electricians and HVAC guys. They might look the same from 100 feet away, and they work with many of the same tools, but they are ultimately different.

I don’t see the problem here.

Incidentally, do you know what Meier’s academic background is? Not history. He has an S.T.L. and an S.S.D., which means his academic background is theology and Scripture scholarship .

I am more than aware of his background. The S.T.L. and S.S.D. degrees are interdisciplinary degrees, and his specialty is now, and always has been, history. He has exclusively worked in the discipline of history. He has been in theology departments, but that is pretty common for historians doing Biblical history. Every major theology department will have a historian (sometimes with the S.S.D.!) in it.

Incidentally, it’s rare to see history departments with someone holding an S.S.D. - historians, at least in the US, are more biased toward the Ph.D.

I’d be happy to go into greater detail on his degrees and qualifications with you via pm. It would just be too off topic - and uninteresting to anyone else, I imagine.

just because it’s Scripture scholarship, that doesn’t mean it pales in validity next to history.

Of course not. But you can’t use theology to answer historical questions, just like you can’t use history to answer theological questions.

To get back to the point of the thread: Whether or not Jesus had siblings is a question that some chose to answer based on historical evidence and others chose to answer with theological evidence. Both are perfectly valid, even though they may provide different answer.

Msgr. Meier provides a historical answer in the OP. The theological answer will vary, significantly, based on the individual’s faith tradition. Catholics have one answer, Episcopalians another, and there are countless other variations.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

The arguments proceed from Scriptural evidence. How many historians do you know of who will proceed from Scripture?

All of them?

Then why is your standard that it should be a specialist in history and not a specialist in these precise sources who you want to hear answers from?

billsherman:

“Scripture scholar”. Again, ad hominem much?

I’m not sure why saying someone is a theologian and not a historian is an ad hominem.

Because you’re rejecting them not based on their arguments, but on the basis of their identity. In other words, you’re arguing “against the person”.

billsherman:

Incidentally, do you know what Meier’s academic background is? Not history. He has an S.T.L. and an S.S.D., which means his academic background is theology and Scripture scholarship .

I am more than aware of his background. The S.T.L. and S.S.D. degrees are interdisciplinary degrees, and his specialty is now, and always has been, history.

So much for the “electricians and HVAC guys are ultimately different” argument, then, eh? You can’t have it both ways, right? Either they’re different (and therefore, Meier isn’t a historian) or they’re the same (and your desire to only listen to arguments from historians is mistaken). Which is it, then?

billsherman:

just because it’s Scripture scholarship, that doesn’t mean it pales in validity next to history.

Of course not. But you can’t use theology to answer historical questions, just like you can’t use history to answer theological questions.

Wow. Do you really mean what you just wrote? The whole point of the “historical Jesus” experiment is precisely to answer theological questions through the lens of history!

The whole “point of the thread” is to answer the question of Jesus’ siblings, but not because we want an accurate family tree (a la “Jesus’ bloodline” conspiracy theorists), but because we want to answer the question “was Mary truly a virgin all her life.” I mean, very literally, we’re trying to answer a theological question here!

The theological answer will vary, significantly, based on the individual’s faith tradition. Catholics have one answer, Episcopalians another, and there are countless other variations.

So, then, the best we can say is that, out of the “countless variations”, at most there is one correct answer, and at the very least, there are n-1 incorrect ‘answers’. I don’t think it’s helpful to suggest that there are multiple, mutually exclusive, correct answers out there, eh?

 

[billsherman]

The whole point of the “historical Jesus” experiment is precisely to answer theological questions through the lens of history!

No it isn’t. You should seriously read “A Marginal Jew.” It’s by far the best synthesis of work on the historical Jesus.

Msgr. Meier devises a thought experiment to explain the purpose of his project. He calls it the “Unpapal Conclave.” Imagine, he writes, that you took a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Muslim, and an atheist who were all honest and well trained historians, and locked them in the Harvard Divinity College’s library. You would only let them out when they all agreed on a view of the historical Jesus. That is the point.

History for the sake of history, not for the sake of theology. His warning that there are often people who say they are doing history, but are really doing theology is exactly what you are advocating. You can do that, of course, but it isn’t history. It’s theology.

I certainly did mean what I wrote.

I think you’re trying to create some kind of narrative that theology and history stand in opposition to each other. They don’t. They just use different methodologies and try to get to different places.

 

[Gorgias]

You should seriously read “A Marginal Jew.” It’s by far the best synthesis of work on the historical Jesus.

I’ve read parts. As you might imagine, I’m not fond of the “search for the historical Jesus” project, largely on the basis of the ‘results’ it’s produced in any of its various phases. (I’m with Tyrell in his conclusion that the project produces only reflections of the image of the particular scholar.)

I could’ve sworn I had a copy of the first volume in one of my boxes of books that didn’t make it to my bookshelf. Can’t find it. As memory serves, it’s only available in hardcover; no ebook has been developed. Hard pass…

You would only let them out when they all agreed on a view of the historical Jesus. That is the point.

Isn’t that the point, though? That they cannot agree, as such…?

I think you’re trying to create some kind of narrative that theology and history stand in opposition to each other.

Certainly not. But, when you draw your line in the sand, that’s what your argument has the appearance of suggesting!