Joseph was actually married to Mary, right?

[mmmcounts]

Joseph was betrothed to Mary, but before they “came together” she was found to be “with child.” Nevertheless, it certainly appears to be the case that Joseph stuck around and acted as Jesus’ stepfather, in a way, though he wasn’t Jesus’ biological dad.

It also appears to be the case that Mary and Joseph were actually husband and wife, and that they had “marital relations” as would be expected in a marriage where the husband and wife don’t hate each other. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

If that’s a credible assumption to make, and we also suppose that Mary and Joseph did not use contraception, it would be reasonable to assume that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters birthed by Mary after Jesus was born. Thus, it should not surprise us that the Bible talks about and names and numbers Jesus’ brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas), mentions his sisters, and has a tendency to talk about Jesus’ “mother and brothers” together (Acts 1:14, Mt. 12:46, Luke 8:19, Mark 3:31).

If you don’t think Mary and Joseph ever had marital relations, why is this? And one last question: Matthew 1:25 says of Joseph, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” Obviously, the key word is “until.” Is it fair to characterize this as a verse that tells us when they had relations for the first time? If the Bible tells us when they had relations, can you possibly get away with saying they didn’t have relations at all?

I’m going to say this later, so I might as well say it now. Yes, Mary was the mother of Jesus. Yes, Jesus is God and was never at any point not God. Therefore, Mary was the mother of God.

She was more than that, though, and you shouldn’t be afraid of the more complete picture. She was also the wife of Joseph. It’s not good to dwell on it too excessively or in depth, but she had normal marital relations with him- try to think about it the same way you think about it with your parents. (ie., not that much- but at least you don’t deny that it happens). She was the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, as well as at least two girls. That doesn’t make her any less the mother of Jesus, but there was more to her than that, too.

Do you have problems with any of that?

 

[YADA]

Joseph was betrothed to Mary, but before they “came together” she was found to be “with child.” Nevertheless, it certainly appears to be the case that Joseph stuck around and acted as Jesus’ stepfather, in a way, though he wasn’t Jesus’ biological dad.

The scriptures are silent on this … the betrothal in jewish times was so much more then an engagement but not yet marriage …

It also appears to be the case that Mary and Joseph were actually husband and wife, and that they had “marital relations” as would be expected in a marriage where the husband and wife don’t hate each other. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Not necessarrily, many couples live chaste lives for many reasons may or may not have sexual relations. In the Book of Numbers [Chapter 22], it discusses women who make vows to the Lord [both while still living at home and when married] … if their fathers [or husbands] know and immediately do not nullify the vow made they are then bound by that vow … a young girl who made a vow of chastity [consecrated virgins] would still need a male protector. Look at Mary’s response at the annunciation … a betrothed woman told that she would bear a son would not respond “how can this be?” … the how is marital relations with person to whom she was betrothed… if she intended to have carnal relations at any time …

If that’s a credible assumption to make, and we also suppose that Mary and Joseph did not use contraception, it would be reasonable to assume that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters birthed by Mary after Jesus was born. Thus, it should not surprise us that the Bible talks about and names and numbers Jesus’ brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas), mentions his sisters, and has a tendency to talk about Jesus’ “mother and brothers” together (Acts 1:14, Mt. 12:46, Luke 8:19, Mark 3:31).

Aramaic has no term for cousin … and actually the use of brothers and sisters can be for any male/female relation … like uncle/aunt, cousin, sibling [half, whole or step] … Brother can also be used to denote a male from the same village or clan … I have friends from India and Africa … for both, their mother tongues have no names for denoting male relatives other than “brother” be they cousin or uncle or a very close friend

If you don’t think Mary and Joseph ever had marital relations, why is this? And one last question: Matthew 1:25 says of Joseph, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” Obviously, the key word is “until.” Is it fair to characterize this as a verse that tells us when they had relations for the first time? If the Bible tells us when they had relations, can you possibly get away with saying they didn’t have relations at all?

The word “until” or “til” is only binding on what comes before the event … you can infer something after but that is not the subject of the use … The emphasis of the scriptural passages was on the Virgin Birth … that God was the “Father” not Joseph … the subject of carnal relations afer the fact was not the topic at hand …

EXAMPLE: I did not buy you dinner until I met you in person.
This satement does not mean that I bought dinner after we met …

I’m going to say this later, so I might as well say it now. Yes, Mary was the mother of Jesus. Yes, Jesus is God and was never at any point not God. Therefore, Mary was the mother of God.

TRUE

She was more than that, though, and you shouldn’t be afraid of the more complete picture. She was also the wife of Joseph. It’s not good to dwell on it too excessively or in depth, but she had normal marital relations with him- try to think about it the same way you think about it with your parents. (ie., not that much- but at least you don’t deny that it happens). She was the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, as well as at least two girls. That doesn’t make her any less the mother of Jesus, but there was more to her than that, too.

She is their “spiritual Mother” in the faith … Mary is so much mor … Mary is the model of the Christian person, obeying God at all cost, humbly and obediently. Mary points the way to her Son - Jesus… Mary tells us to “Do whatever He says” …

Do you have problems with any of that?

Only the parts where you inter-jected your own personal interpretations and biases upon the scriptures and negated 2000 years of Christian belief …

 

[Della]

I just wanted to add to Yada’s excellent post that you are also projecting onto people in a different time and culture our sensibilities about marriage. People in Mary’s day didn’t fall in love and then get married. Marriages were contracted by parents for their children or other head of the family. They didn’t marry for love–they married to produce heirs and to maintain a stable society. Romance had almost no place in marriage. Joseph would not have felt deprived nor Mary either of anything by not having marital relations if both had agreed beforehand to remain chaste.

Also, as you read the Gospels you will never find a reference to Mary being the mother of anyone but Jesus. Whenever Mary is mentioned as a mother it is only with reference to Jesus and no one else. The persons listed as Jesus’ brothers and sisters were tribal relations of theirs not blood brothers and sisters.

 

[Princess18]

There is a page on this in the Catholic Answers Library. Mary was a consecrated virgin, who had taken vows to remain a virgin and serve the Lord at the Temple. Women like her were assigned a protector, a “husband”, usually an older man who was a widower and likely had grown children. When they were married, the husband in this scenario knew ahead of time that he would not have relations with her.

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’s birth because she still took her vow of dedication seriously. It was not a marriage in the conventional sense, so the “common sense” of her having more babies does not apply.

Also see here, covers all those same points :catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp

 

[Christy_Beth]

And Jesus was referred to by the people of Nazareth as “the” son of the carpenter, and not “A” son. If there were others born after, he would probably been referred to as the eldest son, or something of that sort. As has already been mentioned, it was likely that Joseph was probably a widower with children when he and Mary came together. So, that could be a reason for the mention of “brothers.” If I were to call someone here my brother (or sister) in Christ, that doesn’t mean that we are biologically related.

 

[Godfollower]

And one last question: Matthew 1:25 says of Joseph, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” Obviously, the key word is “until.” Is it fair to characterize this as a verse that tells us when they had relations for the first time? If the Bible tells us when they had relations, can you possibly get away with saying they didn’t have relations at all?

If “He had no union with her until she gave birth to a son” means that they did have relations afterwards, then does “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” mean “You can have other gods so long as you worship me first”?

Or does it mean that some day he will stop existing, and then it will be okay to have other gods?

Or are you perhaps projecting a modern-day interpretation onto the translated words, rather than accepting what was taught by all of Christendom from the beginning?

 

[ahollars]

If Jesus had half-brothers, then why did He have to give His mother away to John (“John, behold your mother. Woman, behold your son”) before he died on the cross? A first-born in the Jewish tradition would never have done this if there were other sons ready to assume the role as head of the family?

Answer: Jesus was an only child. The half-brothers you speak of could have been Joseph’s children from a first marriage, making him a widower. In this capacity, it’s easier to understand why he would agree to marry a consecrated virgin without consummating. What was mentioned before about Aramaic not having a word for “cousin” is also true. Search this website for an article called “Bad Aramaic Made Easy”.

Someone out there please clarify for me if you can.

 

[patrick457]

If you don’t think Mary and Joseph ever had marital relations, why is this? And one last question: Matthew 1:25 says of Joseph, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” Obviously, the key word is “until.” Is it fair to characterize this as a verse that tells us when they had relations for the first time? If the Bible tells us when they had relations, can you possibly get away with saying they didn’t have relations at all?

Some observations need to be raised on this:

• The focus in the context of Matthew 1:25 is on the “extra-ordinary” birth of Jesus, and Matthew’s intention is to show that Jesus conception did not occur in the course of normal course of human relations but by the power of the Holy Spirit. The focus is on the events leading up to Jesus’ birth; it does not say anything about what happened after the birth. It is not Matthew’s intention to say whether Mary had any more children as that is not the focus of his narrative.
• The Greek proposition eōs (“until”) or eōs ou is just shorthand for heos hou chronou en oi (“until the time when”), and that both eōs and eōs ou have the same range of meaning. Now not every occurrence of eōs or eōs ou in the New Testament, or indeed, in the Septuagint or in the writings of the Greek Fathers plainly indicates reversal of the condition being described in the main clause (cf. Acts 25:21; 1 Corinthians 15:25; 2 Peter 1:19; Deuteronomy 34:6 LXX; 2 Samuel 6:23 LXX; Psalm 72:7 LXX; Psalm 111 (112):8 LXX; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1.21). In fact St. John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) addresses the eōs ou argument in his homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew (Homily 5.5; Patrologia Graeca 7.58):

“And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.” He has here used the word till, not that you should suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, has he used the word, till? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times.
For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, “The raven returned not until (eōs ou) the earth was dried” up. (cf. Genesis 8:7) And yet it did not return even after that time.
And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture says, “From age until (eōs) age You are” (Psalm 90:2), not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, “In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till (eōs ou) the moon be taken away” (Psalm 72:7), it does not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word till, to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves you to make the inference.
Thus, what it was necessary for you to learn of Him, this He Himself has said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for you to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord (John 19:27) commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home?

• Most of the issues surrounding the desposyni are largely questions that arise in the Western cultural world and thought. It is in fact an illustration of imposing modern-day cultural assumptions onto 1st century Mediterranean society and betrays an inability to respect the NT world itself. If we could compare Biblical culture to a modern-day one, present-day rural African societies would be one of the good candidates, because in many respects (lifestyle, thought patterns, and cultural practices to name a few) it resembles New Testament-period culture. In rural African culture, the extended family is the major social network and the terms “brother” or “sister” are used in a wider sense to refer to these members of the extended family. The important thing in that culture is not physical generation, but rather being part of a family network. So, in this context, saying that the “brethren of the Lord” are not blood brethren of Jesus but rather are merely part of the same family network He belongs to would be still valid when viewed in the light of Jewish culture of the 1st century AD. In fact, the whole controversial issue surrounding the “brothers” of Jesus would not arise in African, much less Biblical Jewish, culture; it is quite proper to Western society and thinking.
• References to Jesus being “the firstborn son” (Luke 2:7) need to be viewed through the lens of Exodus 13:2, Numbers 3:12-13; 18:15-16 and Jewish culture as a technical term that need not imply the birth of subsequent brothers. The term “first-born” was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Exodus 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. In fact an ancient grave marker refers to a woman who died giving birth to her “firstborn son”.

 

[CWBetts]

Jesus had no half-brothers, only step-siblings. Mary did not have marital relations. The “brothers” sited are used to indicate any male relative. That is a problem with translation.

 

[patrick457]

Answer: Jesus was an only child. The half-brothers you speak of could have been Joseph’s children from a first marriage, making him a widower. In this capacity, it’s easier to understand why he would agree to marry a consecrated virgin without consummating. What was mentioned before about Aramaic not having a word for “cousin” is also true. Search this website for an article called “Bad Aramaic Made Easy”.

That reminds me of something - not quite related, begging your pardon. The Greek word usually translated as “cousin” in many Bibles - such as in the case of Elizabeth, sungenis, is not necessarily that specific; the meaning connotes something like “blood relation”, “of the same kin”, or in the wider sense, “fellow countryman” (here is where the New American Bible gets it quite right by rendering it as “kinswoman” in the 1970 1st Edition and “relative” in the present one). The proper Greek word for cousin is anepsios.

In both Hebrew and Aramaic, meanwhile, there are no single words for “cousin” or “stepbrother”. Circumlocutions were often used, such as “son of an uncle” (Hebrew: ben dod; Aramaic: bar dad). There are many instances in the Greek NT and the Septuagint where adelphos is used outside of its usual definition and more closer to the Hebrew 'ah and Aramaic 'aha, which had multiple meanings.

Another example would be in modern Syriac, where “nephew” is still denoted by brona d’khona in Swadaya (Eastern Syriac) or abro d’ahuno in Turoyo (Western Syriac), both literally meaning “son of the brother”. “Uncle”, meanwhile is distinguished between “father’s brother”, in which case the word would be khala (Swadaya) or holo (Turoyo) and “mother’s brother”, dada/mama (Swadaya) or 'ammo/dodo (Turoyo). The case for “aunt” is also the same: khalta/khalti (Swadaya) or hulto (Turoyo) for “mother’s sister” and dadta/dadti (Swadaya) or 'amtho/dado (Turoyo) for “father’s sister”. Modern Syriac still does not have a word for “cousin”, prompting circumlocutions like the one for ‘nephew’. For example, “bartha d’khalti” (Swadaya) denotes “a daughter of my mother’s sister”.

 

[thistle]

Joseph was betrothed to Mary, but before they “came together” she was found to be “with child.” Nevertheless, it certainly appears to be the case that Joseph stuck around and acted as Jesus’ stepfather, in a way, though he wasn’t Jesus’ biological dad.

It also appears to be the case that Mary and Joseph were actually husband and wife, and that they had “marital relations” as would be expected in a marriage where the husband and wife don’t hate each other. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

If that’s a credible assumption to make, and we also suppose that Mary and Joseph did not use contraception, it would be reasonable to assume that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters birthed by Mary after Jesus was born. Thus, it should not surprise us that the Bible talks about and names and numbers Jesus’ brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas), mentions his sisters, and has a tendency to talk about Jesus’ “mother and brothers” together (Acts 1:14, Mt. 12:46, Luke 8:19, Mark 3:31).

If you don’t think Mary and Joseph ever had marital relations, why is this? And one last question: Matthew 1:25 says of Joseph, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” Obviously, the key word is “until.” Is it fair to characterize this as a verse that tells us when they had relations for the first time? If the Bible tells us when they had relations, can you possibly get away with saying they didn’t have relations at all?

I’m going to say this later, so I might as well say it now. Yes, Mary was the mother of Jesus. Yes, Jesus is God and was never at any point not God. Therefore, Mary was the mother of God.

She was more than that, though, and you shouldn’t be afraid of the more complete picture. She was also the wife of Joseph. It’s not good to dwell on it too excessively or in depth, but she had normal marital relations with him- try to think about it the same way you think about it with your parents. (ie., not that much- but at least you don’t deny that it happens). She was the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, as well as at least two girls. That doesn’t make her any less the mother of Jesus, but there was more to her than that, too.

Do you have problems with any of that?

Mary was a perpetual virgin. She did not have sexual intercourse with Joseph. That is not only the teaching of the Catholic Church but also the teachings of the founders of Protestantism who declared in writing she was ever-virgin.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Joseph was betrothed to Mary, but before they “came together” she was found to be “with child.” Nevertheless, it certainly appears to be the case that Joseph stuck around and acted as Jesus’ stepfather, in a way, though he wasn’t Jesus’ biological dad.

I would agree with this although it is my understanding that Joseph died at some point prior to Jesus’ public ministry. Note that Mary was invited to the wedding at Cana (John 2) but Joseph is not mentioned. Also, Jesus commended Mary to John from the cross. If Joseph (or any other relatives) were available, Jesus would not have had to go outside the family to find someone to care for her.

It also appears to be the case that Mary and Joseph were actually husband and wife, and that they had “marital relations” as would be expected in a marriage where the husband and wife don’t hate each other. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

They were actually husband and wife, but they did not have sexual relations. This was understood by prior arrangement. Joseph was probably an older widower (he died long before Mary - see above) who agreed to take Mary under his roof to protect her due to her vow of perpetual virginity.

If you don’t think Mary and Joseph ever had marital relations, why is this? And one last question: Matthew 1:25 says of Joseph, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” Obviously, the key word is “until.” Is it fair to characterize this as a verse that tells us when they had relations for the first time? If the Bible tells us when they had relations, can you possibly get away with saying they didn’t have relations at all?

After the automobile accident almost took his life, Mike gave up drinking until the day that he died.

Does this statement mean that Mike took up drinking again once he was dead?

You’ve read too much into the idomatic statement.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If that’s a credible assumption to make, and we also suppose that Mary and Joseph did not use contraception, it would be reasonable to assume that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters birthed by Mary after Jesus was born. Thus, it should not surprise us that the Bible talks about and names and numbers Jesus’ brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas), mentions his sisters, and has a tendency to talk about Jesus’ “mother and brothers” together (Acts 1:14, Mt. 12:46, Luke 8:19, Mark 3:31).

She was the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, as well as at least two girls. That doesn’t make her any less the mother of Jesus, but there was more to her than that, too.

Do you have problems with any of that?

Of course I have problems with it. It flies in the face of 2,000 years of Church teaching. Even the Protestant Reformers accepted the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

As for these so-called “brothers” and “sisters”, you should learn a bit about the limitations of Aramaic. Even Abraham called his nephew, Lot, “brother” because he had no other word for his own brother’s son. Nephew, Niece and Cousin were unknown terms in that language.

But look, don’t take my word for it…what does God’s Word have to say?

Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)

2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I 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. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)

4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

9. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary. The same concept may be applied to the “sisters”, as well.

 

[BrianH]

Phillp Schaff writes:

1. The brother-theory takes the term ἀδελφοίthe usual sense, and regards the brothers as younger children of Joseph and Mary, consequently as full brothers of Jesus in the eyes of the law and the opinion of the people, though really only half-brothers, in view of his supernatural conception. This is exegetically the most natural view and favored by the meaning of ἀδελφός(especially when used as a standing designation), the constant companionship of these brethren with Mary (John 2:12; Matt. 12:46; 13:55), and by the obvious meaning of Matt. 1:25 (οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἑως οὓ,comp. 1:18 πρίν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτούς) and Luke 2:7 (πρωτότοκος), as explained from the standpoint of the evangelists, who used these terms in full view of the subsequent history of Mary and Jesus. The only serious objection to it is of a doctrinal and ethical nature, viz., the assumed perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord and Saviour, and the committal of her at the cross to John rather than her own sons and daughters (John 19:25). If it were not for these two obstacles the brother-theory would probably be adopted by every fair and honest exegete. The first of these objections dates from the post-apostolic ascetic overestimate of virginity, and cannot have been felt by Matthew and Luke, else they would have avoided those ambiguous terms just noticed. The second difficulty presses also on the other two theories, only in a less degree. It must therefore be solved on other grounds, namely, the profound spiritual sympathy and congeniality of John with Jesus and Mary, which rose above carnal relationships, the probable cousinship of John (based upon the proper interpretation of the same passage, John 19:25), and the unbelief of the real brethren at the time of the committal.

This theory was held by Tertullian (whom Jerome summarily disposes of as not being a, “homo ecclesiae,” i.e. a schismatic), defended by Helvidius at Rome about 380 (violently attacked as a heretic by Jerome), and by several individuals and sects opposed to the incipient worship of the Virgin Mary; and recently by the majority of German Protestant exegetes since Herder, such as Stier, De Wette, Meyer, Weiss, Ewald, Wieseler, Keim, also by Dean Alford, and Canon Farrar (Life of Christ, I. 97 sq.). I advocated the same theory in my German tract, but admitted afterwards in my Hist. of Ap. Ch., p. 378, that I did not give sufficient weight to the second theory.

(2) The half-brother-theory regards the brethren and sisters of Jesus as children of Joseph by a former wife, consequently as no blood-relations at all, but so designated simply as Joseph was called the father of Jesus, by an exceptional use of the term adapted to the exceptional fact of the miraculous incarnation. This has the dogmatic advantage of saving the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord and Saviour; it lessens the moral difficulty implied in John 19:25; and it has a strong traditional support in the apocryphal Gospels and in the Eastern church. It also would seem to explain more easily the patronizing tone in which the brethren speak to our Lord in John 7:3, 4. But it does not so naturally account for the constant companionship of these brethren with Mary; it assumes a former marriage of Joseph nowhere alluded to in the Gospels, and makes Joseph an old man and protector rather than husband of Mary; and finally it is not free from suspicion of an ascetic bias, as being the first step towards the dogma of the perpetual virginity. To these objections may be added, with Farrar, that if the brethren had been elder sons of Joseph, Jesus would not have been regarded as legal heir of the throne of David (Matt. 1:16; Luke 1:27; Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8; Rev. 22:16).

This theory is found first in the apocryphal writings of James (the Protevangelium Jacobi, the Ascents of James, etc.), and then among the leading Greek fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria); it is embodied in the Greek, Syrian, and Coptic services, which assign different dates to the commemoration of James the son of Alphaeus (Oct. 9), and of James the Lord’s brother (Oct. 23). It may therefore be called the theory of the Eastern church. It was also held by some Latin fathers before Jerome (Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose), and has recently been ably advocated by Bishop Lightfoot (l.c.), followed by Dr. Plumptre (in the introduction to his Com. on the Ep. of James).

(

 

[BrianH]

1. The cousin-theory regards the brethren as more distant relatives, namely, as children of Mary, the wife of Alphaeus and sister of the Virgin Mary, and identifies James, the brother of the Lord, with James the son of Alphaeus and James the Little, thus making him (as well as also Simon and Jude) an apostle. The exceptive εἰ μή, Gal. 1:19 (but I saw only James), does not prove this, but rather excludes James from the apostles proper (comp. εἰ μήin Gal. 2:16; Luke 4:26, 27).

This theory was first advanced by Jerome in 383, in a youthful polemic tract against Helvidius, without any traditional support,338338 The passage quoted from Papias Maria Cleophae sive Alphaei uxor, quae fuit mater Jacobi episcopi et apostoli,"is taken from Jerome and belongs not to the sub-apostolic Papias of Hierapolis (as has been supposed even by Mill and Wordsworth), but to a mediaeval Papias, the writer of an Elementarium or Dictionary in the 11th century. See Lightfoot, p. 265 sq. but with the professed dogmatic and ascetic aim to save the virginity of both Mary and Joseph, and to reduce their marriage relation to a merely nominal and barren connection. In his later writings, however, after his residence in Palestine, he treats the question with less confidence (see Lightfoot, p. 253). By his authority and the still greater weight of St. Augustin, who at first (394) wavered between the second and third theories, but afterwards adopted that of Jerome, it became the established theory of the Latin church and was embodied in the Western services, which acknowledge only two saints by the name of James. But it is the least tenable of all and must be abandoned, chiefly for the following reasons:

(a) It contradicts the natural meaning of the word “brother,” when the New Testament has the proper term for cousin Col. 4:10, comp. also συγγενήςLuke 2:44; 21:16; Mark 6:4, etc.), and the obvious sense of the passages where the brothers and sisters of Jesus appear as members of the holy family.

(b) It assumes that two sisters had the same name, Mary, which is extremely improbable.

(c) It assumes the identity of Clopas and Alphaeus, which is equally doubtful; for Ἀλφαῖοςis a Hebrew name (חלפי), while Κλωπᾶς, like Κλεόπας, Luke 24:18, is an abbreviation of the Greek Κλεόπατρος, as Antipas is contracted from Antipatros.(d) It is absolutely irreconcilable with the fact that the brethren of Jesus, James among them, were before the resurrection unbelievers, John 7:5, and consequently none of them could have been an apostle, as this theory assumes of two or three.

 

[CWBetts]

Typical Protestant inability to look at cultural context. If Jesus had brothers, it would have been a slap in their face to entrust the care of his mother to a non-relative at the cross.

 

[elvisman]

1. The cousin-theory regards the brethren as more distant relatives, namely, as children of Mary, the wife of Alphaeus and sister of the Virgin Mary, and identifies James, the brother of the Lord, with James the son of Alphaeus and James the Little, thus making him (as well as also Simon and Jude) an apostle. The exceptive εἰ μή, Gal. 1:19 (but I saw only James), does not prove this, but rather excludes James from the apostles proper (comp. εἰ μήin Gal. 2:16; Luke 4:26, 27).

This theory was first advanced by Jerome in 383, in a youthful polemic tract against Helvidius, without any traditional support,338338 The passage quoted from Papias Maria Cleophae sive Alphaei uxor, quae fuit mater Jacobi episcopi et apostoli,"is taken from Jerome and belongs not to the sub-apostolic Papias of Hierapolis (as has been supposed even by Mill and Wordsworth), but to a mediaeval Papias, the writer of an Elementarium or Dictionary in the 11th century. See Lightfoot, p. 265 sq. but with the professed dogmatic and ascetic aim to save the virginity of both Mary and Joseph, and to reduce their marriage relation to a merely nominal and barren connection. In his later writings, however, after his residence in Palestine, he treats the question with less confidence (see Lightfoot, p. 253). By his authority and the still greater weight of St. Augustin, who at first (394) wavered between the second and third theories, but afterwards adopted that of Jerome, it became the established theory of the Latin church and was embodied in the Western services, which acknowledge only two saints by the name of James. But it is the least tenable of all and must be abandoned, chiefly for the following reasons:

(a) It contradicts the natural meaning of the word “brother,” when the New Testament has the proper term for cousin Col. 4:10, comp. also συγγενήςLuke 2:44; 21:16; Mark 6:4, etc.), and the obvious sense of the passages where the brothers and sisters of Jesus appear as members of the holy family.

(b) It assumes that two sisters had the same name, Mary, which is extremely improbable.

(c) It assumes the identity of Clopas and Alphaeus, which is equally doubtful; for Ἀλφαῖοςis a Hebrew name (חלפי), while Κλωπᾶς, like Κλεόπας, Luke 24:18, is an abbreviation of the Greek Κλεόπατρος, as Antipas is contracted from Antipatros.(d) It is absolutely irreconcilable with the fact that the brethren of Jesus, James among them, were before the resurrection unbelievers, John 7:5, and consequently none of them could have been an apostle, as this theory assumes of two or three.

Sorry, friend – gotta disagree with you here.

First of all, many scholars agree that there is overwhelming evidence that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Aramaic then, translated into Greek.
There is no word for cousin in Aramaic.

Look what you get from the Masoretic text regarding 3 different situations in the Old Testament where “brothers” are mentioned:
In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s “brother”, even though he was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28).

In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the “brother” of his uncle Laban.
Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The Greek adelphos is not like the Hebrew ach, meaning “blood relation.” Adelphos is best rendered as “kinsman” whereas anepsios is a more precise term for cousin. Anepsios is used in Col. 4:10, wheras “Adelphoi” is used when mentioning the Brothers of the Lord.

Furthermore, the Protoevangelium of James from the2nd century mentions Mary’s life apart from what is said in Scripture – about 150 years - almost 2 centuries before Jerome. In it, the author says that Joseph was a widower with children – who would have been Jesus’ step siblings.
This would explain the Greek renderings of the word for brothers.

This would also explain one of only 2 possibilities for Jesus telling John to take his mother into his care. The other is that they were kinsman – not uterine brothers.

---

To have told John this at the foot of the cross when he had uterine siblings would have been unthinkable.

 

[thistle]

I see the OP is up to his usual tricks. Hit and run for cover. He started the thread. Why is he not participating in it?

 

[mmmcounts]

I see the OP is up to his usual tricks. Hit and run for cover. He started the thread. Why is he not participating in it?

I will. But first I’m going to eat food and play Mafia. I’ll get this done in a few hours. I haven’t had leisure time for this kind of stuff the last few days due to studying for the Psych GRE. Sorry to keep you waiting so long. But you won’t have to wait much longer. Don’t worry, it’s coming.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I will. But first I’m going to eat food and play Mafia. I’ll get this done in a few hours. I haven’t had leisure time for this kind of stuff the last few days due to studying for the Psych GRE. Sorry to keep you waiting so long. But you won’t have to wait much longer. Don’t worry, it’s coming.

No rush. The Catholic Church has been answering and converting some of the brightest minds humanity has produced for 2,000 years.

Whenever you’re ready. :coffeeread: