Later developing cousin theory

[Rightlydivide]

Once again, we are having the brothers debate on another thread. Let us leave the more probable two theories of half-brothers or step-brothers and I will quote Phillip Schaff

The Cousin-theory regards the brethren as more distant relatives, namely, 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 είμή, Gal. 1:19 (but I saw only James), does not prove this, but rather excludes James from the apostles proper (comp. είμή in 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[2], 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 the 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 acknowledges 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 “brothers,” when the New Testament has the proper word for cousin (άνεψιός, Col. 4:10, comp. also συγγενής, Luke 2:44; 21:16; Mark 6:4, etc.), and the obvious sense of the passage 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 the former is a Hebrew name, while the latter is an abbreviation of the Greek Κλεόπατρος.

(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 be an apostle, as this theory assumes of two or three.

home.comcast.net/~SMOF/SNBIBL16.htm

 

[Peter_J]

Rightlydivide,

You’re not going to like this () but I agree with you.

I find the theory that the “brothers of the Lord” were actually cousins (rather than half-brothers or step-brothers) to be pretty weak.

 

[Pro_Domina]

My dear auto-interpreting friends,

In other languages, the words first cousin’s do not exist as having a meaning as we know them in English.

What does exist alot is “brother-cousins” (primo hermano for example)

Brother indicates that super strong bond between 1st cousins, and in this case also the similarities. Remember that James being a first cousin look a lot like Him, so much so that Judas had to indicate who with a kiss if not they might have gotten the wrong person. Herode was stricken when he saw Our Lord because he thought he was seeing a risen John the Baptist.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

**Listen, I am so tired of Protestants making false accusations that Christ had brothers or even sisters. This is totally absurd and ignorant of the Scriptures. Protestants tend to take things so litrally because it isn’t what it means at all. People were called brothers back then, just like priests call other priests their brothers.
What is wrong with you people? Christ was Divine, his mother Mary was a Virgin, she was chosen to be the Mother of Christ and Christ only. He was here for one purpose and one purpose only, to die for me and you. THAT’S IT! Not to have sex with Mary Magdalen as some nitwits think, neither to come and fulfill a family of his own. But to die for the forgiveness of sin.
Stop interpreting Scripture literally and realize Jesus Christ was Divine. The Blessed Mother had NO other children. Good grief… **

 

[mark_a]

Rightlydivide,

You’re not going to like this () but I agree with you.

I find the theory that the “brothers of the Lord” were actually cousins (rather than half-brothers or step-brothers) to be pretty weak.

I know a man from Cameroon, where society is still very tribal, who calls his uncle his brother and his nephew is son.

But then again, he’s a Catholic.

 

[mark_a]

Remember that James being a first cousin look a lot like Him, so much so that Judas had to indicate who with a kiss if not they might have gotten the wrong person. Herode was stricken when he saw Our Lord because he thought he was seeing a risen John the Baptist.

Excellent points!

 

[gcnuss]

From my perspective, whether Jesus had brothers or not has no effect on my faith. Jesus is the incarnate Word – God made man, fully human and fully divine. Nothing will change that.

 

[BrianH]

It is interesting, according to 2nd Century tradtion from the link, the Step Brother theory appears much older than the Cousin theory

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).