Regarding Jesus' bretheren (not the same old question)

[Mordocai]

So the argument follows that Jesus was an only child.
Jesus ‘bretheren’ refer to His cousins because, supposedly, there was no word to distingish ‘cousin’ from ‘brother’
(i believe that’s right, correct me if i’m wrong)
but what of Mary and Elizabeth, described as cousins? Why wasn’t Jesus’ brothers then described as cousins?
Even so, this doesn’t affect my holding of the doctrine of Mary’s Ever-Virginity.
Or even my belief (not doctrinal, but appropriate accordinal to small ‘t’ tradition) of Joseph’s virginity as well.
But a further explanation would be appreciated.

Hope my question makes sense: “Cousin” is used elsewhere to distinguish what we understand as cousin (correct?) but it is not always used (sometimes bretheren/brothers). Any reason?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Leviticus 10:4
Moses summoned Mishael and Elzaphan, sons of Aaron’s uncle Uzziel, and said to them, “Come here; carry your cousins outside the camp, away from the front of the sanctuary.”

Leviticus 25:49
An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself.

Numbers 36:11
Zelophehad’s daughters—Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah—married their cousins on their father’s side.

1 Chronicles 23:22
Eleazar died without having sons: he had only daughters. Their cousins, the sons of Kish, married them.

Esther 2:7
Mordecai had a cousin named Hadassah, whom he had brought up because she had neither father nor mother. This girl, who was also known as Esther, was lovely in form and features, and Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter when her father and mother died.

Jeremiah 32:8
"Then, just as the LORD had said, my cousin Hanamel came to me in the courtyard of the guard and said, ‘Buy my field at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. Since it is your right to redeem it and possess it, buy it for yourself.’ "I knew that this was the word of the LORD;

Jeremiah 32:9
so I bought the field at Anathoth from my cousin Hanamel and weighed out for him seventeen shekels of silver.

Jeremiah 32:12
and I gave this deed to Baruch son of Neriah, the son of Mahseiah, in the presence of my cousin Hanamel and of the witnesses who had signed the deed and of all the Jews sitting in the courtyard of the guard.

Colossians 4:10
My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the** cousin** of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.)

Luke 1:36
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Luke 1:58
And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

Colossians 4:10 (King James Version)
Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him

blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=4773

 

[Nita]

A couple thoughts I’ve had:

In the parallel passages contained in Matthew 12 & 13, Mark 3, and Luke 6, the evangelists quote the actual words of the people. Since the people used the words “brothers” and “sisters” that is how the evangelists recorded them. They naturally used the same terms in their introductory sentence (eg Mt.12:46) because of it’s connection to the quotes which followed.

As has been said and shown many times, close kin were referred to as brothers and sisters by those who spoke Aramaic. The expression “brothers”/“sisters” would be natural to the crowds and three of the evangelists (Jewish): Matthew, Mark, and John. Luke was Greek.

Regarding Luke’s use of “cousin”. Where “cousin” occurs in Luke’s gospel there is no connection to any spoken conversation. Luke is recording in Greek what he has learned of Mary’s relationship to Elizabeth; he uses the Greek expression he was familiar with.

Perhaps another reason??? Closer relationship between Jesus and “brothers” than the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth??? Pure speculation.

Nita

 

[Wieland]

The explanation that is the most plausible to me, is that Joseph was a widower when he married Mary, and had children from his previous marriage. Joseph was probably much older than Mary, since he was already established in his career while she was a young teenager, and he had already passed away when Jesus was crucified. The children from his previous marriage would be seen as Jesus’ brothers.

 

[mkarzon]

The Greek work for cousin, anepses, (I may have the spelling wrong) appears only once in the NT, at Col 4:10. Other uses of the word cousin in the NT are “Dynamic Equivalence” translations that attempt to express the meaning of what’s being said, but do not use the exact wording of the Greek.

For example, in Lk 1:36, the Greek anepses is not used. The word cousin is not taken from the Greek, it’s used by the translator of a particular version of scripture. (BTW, I would expect the NIV to be loaded with the word cousin)

The Aramaic language (the language of Jesus and the apostles) did not have a word for cousin. The Jewish culture did not think in terms of “cousins”, and that’s why the word is rarely found in the NT. The words brother/sister/bretheren could be applied by a Jew to any other Jew.

Based on Jewish culture, it would be a better rendering of the Greek in Lk 1:36 to call Elizabeth Mary’s sister, not her cousin. This can be applied to the occurrences of the word cousin in the entire NT with the exception of Col 4:10.

 

[thistle]

The explanation that is the most plausible to me, is that Joseph was a widower when he married Mary, and had children from his previous marriage. Joseph was probably much older than Mary, since he was already established in his career while she was a young teenager, and he had already passed away when Jesus was crucified. The children from his previous marriage would be seen as Jesus’ brothers.

That would mean Jesus had step brothers and sisters. I don’t believe that because from the Cross Jesus entrusted Mary to John. If he had step siblings why would he not have asked his family to look after his mother/their step mother. For me this is a solid argument against even step siblings existing.

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

The explanation that is the most plausible to me, is that Joseph was a widower when he married Mary, and had children from his previous marriage. Joseph was probably much older than Mary, since he was already established in his career while she was a young teenager, and he had already passed away when Jesus was crucified. The children from his previous marriage would be seen as Jesus’ brothers.

Would it be a heresy for a catholic to believe that Mary , mother of God , actually had other children ? What do the other churches believe on the ‘sibling’ issue ? Even if Mary did have other children i can’t see how this would make me doubt the divinity of Jesus ?!!!:

 

[davidv]

Would it be a heresy for a catholic to believe that Mary , mother of God , actually had other children ?

Yes. Mary’s perpetual virginity is a constant teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[davidmammola]

1. Just because the King James version or another translation uses the English word “cousin” in an Old Testament passage, that does mean that the original language (ancient Hebrew) has a word for cousin.
2. Yes, the perpetual virginity of Mary is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Church that a Catholic must believe. It is a very ancient and well-attested teaching.

 

[Angelos]

Would it be a heresy for a catholic to believe that Mary , mother of God , actually had other children ? What do the other churches believe on the ‘sibling’ issue ? Even if Mary did have other children i can’t see how this would make me doubt the divinity of Jesus ?!!!:

In my church (Eastern Orthodox) every Orthodox faithful traditionally believes that Mary remained a virgin until her death although there’s no official dogma imposing this tenet on people or threatening them with heresy.

As far as I know, the Church always considers and addresses Mary as the eternally virgin God-bearer (mother of God) because Mary’s virginity is directly associated with the divine mystery of Incarnation. Actually believers infer that God-bearer would not try or wish to have children through natural ways after being appointed by God as the instrument of Jesus’ miraculous conception and nativity with a marvelous and unique participation in the redemption of mankind.

Besides, the traditional Church always tends to see the marital union between Mary and Joseph as a God-directed incident serving the protection of Jesus’ mother from the charges of adultery in her society. Thus, Mary dedicated herself to God’s plans and service by remaining eternally virgin.

Peace & blessings,
Angelos N.

 

[Mordocai]

mkarzon,
your response was most helpful and is extremely plausible.
thank you for clearing that up!
God Bless

 

[Ceil-1]

I have been told that James the Lesser was indeed the half-brother of Jesus. He was also the bishop of Jerusalem, and a very important one. It was a given for many, many years that St. Joseph was an elderly man with grown children. It is believed by many that lots were cast to find a husband for Mary, as this was the custom to find guardians for the temple servants once they reached of age, (of which she was one). Apparently, these things are recorded in the Protoevangelium of James and other “gospels” written at the time.

I have not corroborated this, nor do I wish to. It is not required of us to believe it, so I don’t even speculate because there is no way to authenticate it. I take it on faith that what the early Church believed occurred probably did occur, why bother myself with it?

Protestants who wish to know, really should look into these early beliefs because much of this stuff has been ignored or anabandoned by the Church in modern times, and certainly has not been taught, but is still valuable. Try asking eastern rite and orthodox people for their beliefs on the subject. It will shed much more light on how these beliefs began. Things make much more sense when you know the background.

 

[Wieland]

That would mean Jesus had step brothers and sisters. I don’t believe that because from the Cross Jesus entrusted Mary to John. If he had step siblings why would he not have asked his family to look after his mother/their step mother. For me this is a solid argument against even step siblings existing.

I’m not any kind of expert on 1st century family dynamics, but when my grandfather died, my half-uncle (grandfather’s child from previous wife) wanted nothing to do with caring for my elderly grandmother. Mary would have been the best stepmother in history, but that doesn’t guarantee children not biologically related would feel any obligation.

 

[Ceil-1]

I believe John may have been a close relative as well. Perhaps they were all in ministry and John was chosen for a special reason. I’m not sure that a step-brother of the married man would trump the son of, say, her sister or cousin. Just a thought, really.

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

In my church (Eastern Orthodox) every Orthodox faithful traditionally believes that Mary remained a virgin until her death although there’s no official dogma imposing this tenet on people or threatening them with heresy.

As far as I know, the Church always considers and addresses Mary as the eternally virgin God-bearer (mother of God) because Mary’s virginity is directly associated with the divine mystery of Incarnation. Actually believers infer that God-bearer would not try or wish to have children through natural ways after being appointed by God as the instrument of Jesus’ miraculous conception and nativity with a marvelous and unique participation in the redemption of mankind.

Besides, the traditional Church always tends to see the marital union between Mary and Joseph as a God-directed incident serving the protection of Jesus’ mother from the charges of adultery in her society. Thus, Mary dedicated herself to God’s plans and service by remaining eternally virgin.

Peace & blessings,
Angelos N.

Angelos…many thanks , i have and no doubt will learn a lot more from this site !!! Peace and unity in HIS name…

 

[guanophore]

I’m not any kind of expert on 1st century family dynamics, but when my grandfather died, my half-uncle (grandfather’s child from previous wife) wanted nothing to do with caring for my elderly grandmother. Mary would have been the best stepmother in history, but that doesn’t guarantee children not biologically related would feel any obligation.

It would not matter how they “felt”. According to Jewish law and custom, it would have been theri duty to take her in. That is why it is so strange that Jesus should feel a need to give her to John, and vice versa. The early fathers saw this as Jesus’ giving Mary to the whole church, and the church to her.

 

[guanophore]

A couple thoughts I’ve had:

In the parallel passages contained in Matthew 12 & 13, Mark 3, and Luke 6, the evangelists quote the actual words of the people. Since the people used the words “brothers” and “sisters” that is how the evangelists recorded them. They naturally used the same terms in their introductory sentence (eg Mt.12:46) because of it’s connection to the quotes which followed.

As has been said and shown many times, close kin were referred to as brothers and sisters by those who spoke Aramaic. The expression “brothers”/“sisters” would be natural to the crowds and three of the evangelists (Jewish): Matthew, Mark, and John. Luke was Greek.

Regarding Luke’s use of “cousin”. Where “cousin” occurs in Luke’s gospel there is no connection to any spoken conversation. Luke is recording in Greek what he has learned of Mary’s relationship to Elizabeth; he uses the Greek expression he was familiar with.

Perhaps another reason??? Closer relationship between Jesus and “brothers” than the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth??? Pure speculation.

Nita

Jesus knew that He intended to leave John the longest of the Apostles, and he, being the youngest when chosen, had the longest stretch of his life to care for Mary. Even though James was Jesus’ older stepbrother, Jesus knew that James’ life would be required of him soon, as he was martyred. Remember that John is the one about whom Jesus said “what is it to you, if I want him to remain until I come?” John was also exhiled and imprisoned, but only in his older age, and long after Mary had passed.

 

[Eileen_T]

Jesus knew that He intended to leave John the longest of the Apostles, and he, being the youngest when chosen, had the longest stretch of his life to care for Mary. Even though James was Jesus’ older stepbrother, Jesus knew that James’ life would be required of him soon, as he was martyred. Remember that John is the one about whom Jesus said “what is it to you, if I want him to remain until I come?” John was also exhiled and imprisoned, but only in his older age, and long after Mary had passed.

In Gal. 1, 19, St. Paul calls St. James “the Lord’s brother.” There were only two Apostles named James - James Son of Zebedee, and James the Less, Son of Cleophas. Neither had St. Joseph as their father. “Brother” is used here simply to designate the close affection between the Apostle and Our Lord, not to show a blood relationship.

We read in John 19 *“Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene.” * This would mean that the Virgin Mary either had an older sister also named Mary (!) or that the wife of Cleopas was her cousin.

 

[guanophore]

Would it be a heresy for a catholic to believe that Mary , mother of God , actually had other children ? What do the other churches believe on the ‘sibling’ issue ? Even if Mary did have other children i can’t see how this would make me doubt the divinity of Jesus ?!!!:

My question for you would be, why would it matter what “other churches” thought about Mary? Are you under the impression that they would hold truths not taught about her in the Catholic Church? Also if you d no twish to beleive what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, that might be a statement about your attitude toward other truths taught by the church. It is not a buffet. Also, don’t you wonder why this belief has persisted 2000 years since the first century if it is not true? Do you think that someone made it up recently, or did you not know how far back it went?

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

My question for you would be, why would it matter what “other churches” thought about Mary? Are you under the impression that they would hold truths not taught about her in the Catholic Church? Also if you d no twish to beleive what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, that might be a statement about your attitude toward other truths taught by the church. It is not a buffet. Also, don’t you wonder why this belief has persisted 2000 years since the first century if it is not true? Do you think that someone made it up recently, or did you not know how far back it went?

Actually i’m not too concerned what the other churches teach about Mary ; all i was trying to establish was WHY IS IT PARAMOUNT IN CATHOLIC TERMS for us to believe that Mary had no other children ???!