Sifting through the "Mary's"-rebutting the "brothers of Jesus" fallacy

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I will do this by taking a look at the women who stood by Jesus at the cross and eliminating them one-by-one to better understand exactly who they were.

We begin:

Mattew 27:[55] There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him;
[56] among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.

Mark 15:[40] There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me,

John 19:[25] But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

Matthew has: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mark has: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salo’me.

John has: Mary(Jesus’ mother), His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

We can eliminate the common Mary(s) that we know of-Mary, the mother of Jesus & Mary Magdalene

Once you eliminate them you have:

Matthew: Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee

Mark: Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salo’me

John: His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas

Since in the Greek the difference between Joseph and Joses is only one letter, its a safe bet that the mother of James and Joseph/Joses is Mary, who is the wife of Clopas.

So all that is left is Salo’me, who is the mother of the sons of Zebedee, who is the sister of Mary, the Lord’s mother. Therefore it is highly likely that James and John are COUSINS of Jesus-not brothers.

 

[zdon011]

I will do this by taking a look at the women who stood by Jesus at the cross and eliminating them one-by-one to better understand exactly who they were.

We begin:

Mattew 27:[55] There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him;
[56] among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.

Mark 15:[40] There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me,

John 19:[25] But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

Matthew has: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mark has: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salo’me.

John has: Mary(Jesus’ mother), His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

We can eliminate the common Mary(s) that we know of-Mary, the mother of Jesus & Mary Magdalene

Once you eliminate them you have:

Matthew: Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee

Mark: Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salo’me

John: His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas

Since in the Greek the difference between Joseph and Joses is only one letter, its a safe bet that the mother of James and Joseph/Joses is Mary, who is the wife of Clopas.

So all that is left is Salo’me, who is the mother of the sons of Zebedee, who is the sister of Mary, the Lord’s mother. Therefore it is highly likely that James and John are COUSINS of Jesus-not brothers.

In his book ‘The Virgin’, amateur historian Geoffrey Ashe gave a good defence of the traditional Catholic account of Jesus’ ‘brothers’.

 

[MartinJordan]

To try to show Jesus had other brothers is futile imo. If he did on a technical standpoint, atleast one Gospel writer would have written and with a sincere heart had people saying “your mother and your mother’s sons” if Jesus had indeed brothers (or sisters).

And we KNOW the Gospel writers were sincere.

MJ

 

[Rightlydivide]

I will do this by taking a look at the women who stood by Jesus at the cross and eliminating them one-by-one to better understand exactly who they were.

We begin:

Mattew 27:[55] There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him;
[56] among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.

Mark 15:[40] There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me,

John 19:[25] But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

Matthew has: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mark has: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salo’me.

John has: Mary(Jesus’ mother), His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

We can eliminate the common Mary(s) that we know of-Mary, the mother of Jesus & Mary Magdalene

Once you eliminate them you have:

Matthew: Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee

Mark: Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salo’me

John: His mother’s sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas

Since in the Greek the difference between Joseph and Joses is only one letter, its a safe bet that the mother of James and Joseph/Joses is Mary, who is the wife of Clopas.

So all that is left is Salo’me, who is the mother of the sons of Zebedee, who is the sister of Mary, the Lord’s mother. Therefore it is highly likely that James and John are COUSINS of Jesus-not brothers.

You can eliminate Mary the mother of Jesus…but I do not.
According to your view Mary the mother of Jesus was not even mentioned by Matthew and Mark.
In my view, she is simply identified as the mother of her other children.

 

[Todd520]

To try to show Jesus had other brothers is futile imo. If he did on a technical standpoint, atleast one Gospel writer would have written and with a sincere heart had people saying “your mother and your mother’s sons” if Jesus had indeed brothers (or sisters).

And we KNOW the Gospel writers were sincere.

MJ

Martin,
There is another thread titled “Misquoting Jesus” that you should read

We can’t be 100% certain what the original Gospel writers wrote, which does make it impossible to prove Jesus had brothers from a few sentences. I also wonder about the Gospel not mentioning Mary was a perpetual virgin, as that should be something unusual and worth noting. Thus we have a lack of clarity on many fronts.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I don’t care about this issue as much as I used to. For me it’s no longer a dividing case between myself and a Christian brother.

Martin,
There is another thread titled “Misquoting Jesus” that you should read

We can’t be 100% certain what the original Gospel writers wrote…

Ah yes, the thread where people, including myself, discussed why that conclusion is wrong.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friends,

Mary never had any other children other than her Son, Jesus. This was never even raised by anyone before the 19th century on the basis of literalist interpretations of Scripture.

In the fourth century, St Jerome, the bible translator, did write a response to an individual who thought that Mary had other children on the basis of the word “until.”

St Jerome ridiculed that interpretation and said that, at the end of the Gospel of Matthew, our Lord told His Apostles and His Church that He would be with us until the end of the world. St Jerome then stated, “Does this mean that at the end of the world our Lord will depart from us?”

In the Eastern Church, St Joseph was and is understood to have been a widower with four sons and two daughters (based on a deuterocanonical book but more centrally on the early Tradition of the Church). This is a different tradition from that which developed in the West, to be sure. All of Joseph’s sons were therefore “brothers” of Jesus and became leaders and martyrs for His Name. St James the Bishop of Jerusalem has always been honoured as “the Brother of God.” But at no time was he ever considered to be a “Son of Mary.”

St John the Theologian or Apostle is, in the Syriac tradition, referred to as the “Son of Mary” but only by adoption at the Cross.

The later, Western notion that Mary had other children is based on contemporary, negative views of celibacy. The point is that the Mother of Jesus was never honoured as anything other than the “Virgin Mary.” This does not refer only to her virginity at the Birth of Jesus, but also to her continual virginity, in both body and soul, as the person who was chosen by God to participate so directly in the Incarnation of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. If she had had other children, would she still be the “Virgin Mary?” Is there a direct quote saying this anywhere in Scripture? References to the brothers and sisters of Jesus are insufficient since there are many languages, my own ancestral tongue included, where distant relations are also referred to as “brothers and sisters.”

This does NOT contradict Scripture in the least. It does show that we must always read Scripture in context and the most important context is that Scripture be read with the historic Church of Christ which He founded and said that He would be with it for all time.

Let us not give offense to God Incarnate/Jesus Christ Who called the Virgin Mary “Mother” since that is who she is. To try and “prove” that she had other children and was not wholly devoted to her Son alone, at Bethlehem, in the Temple with Simeon, in Nazareth, at the Wedding at Cana and under the Cross is something that I, for one, cannot imagine entertaining.

May God keep us from such thoughts which come from the evil one - who is also, as we see in the Gospel relation of the Temptations of Christ in the desert very adept at quoting scripture to suit his purposes.

Blessed are you among women and blessed is the Fruit of your womb, Jesus!

Alex

 

[Todd520]

Dear Friends,
Mary never had any other children other than her Son, Jesus. This was never even raised by anyone before the 19th century on the basis of literalist interpretations of Scripture. . . .

The later, Western notion that Mary had other children is based on contemporary, negative views of celibacy. . . .

Let us not give offense to God Incarnate/Jesus Christ Who called the Virgin Mary “Mother” since that is who she is. To try and “prove” that she had other children and was not wholly devoted to her Son alone, at Bethlehem, in the Temple with Simeon, in Nazareth, at the Wedding at Cana and under the Cross is something that I, for one, cannot imagine entertaining. . . .

May God keep us from such thoughts which come from the evil one - . . . .

Alex, I remain puzzled why the concept of Mary having other children takes anything away from her role as “Mother” of Jesus.

Since Catholics see it as an insult, I guess it stems from a historical prejudice against women - this is the only paradigm where it fills the role of evil slander.

I see the role of mother as something holy and God given that does not demean or reduce the Grace of the mother. When I’ve suggested it here, I apologize if it comes as an insult to Catholics.

 

[TMC]

The question of whether Jesus had full-blood siblings cannot be resolved from the text of the Gospels. If it could, we would not have this dispute with our Protestant brothers. If anything, the texts seem to lean their way, which is why the dispute exists. One can either accept the tradition as passed down by the Church or not. Catholics do, and continued quibbling over the texts seems unlikely to change the minds of those who do not.

 

[thirdworld]

Alex, I remain puzzled why the concept of Mary having other children takes anything away from her role as “Mother” of Jesus.

Since Catholics see it as an insult, I guess it stems from a historical prejudice against women - this is the only paradigm where it fills the role of evil slander.

I see the role of mother as something holy and God given that does not demean or reduce the Grace of the mother. When I’ve suggested it here, I apologize if it comes as an insult to Catholics.

According to infallible Catholic teaching, Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. If she was the mother of other children this teaching would be false and if that’s false then what other teachings could be inaccurate? It’s all or nothing since the Church is supposed to be infallible. It has nothing to do with “prejudice against women”

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And, as a sociologist, I was always taught that women needing to bear children to “prove” their womanhood was an insult to them!

The Virgin Mary was, in fact, “freed” of that so she could be free to be 100% committed to her Son, to ponder in her heart His words and actions.

Spiritually, the Virgin Mary did and does have many other children - us. Just as she nurtured Christ, so too she nurtures the Body of Christ which is the Church by her prayer, example of submission to God’s Will and trust in His promises.

She was indeed “radically” devoted to God and her Son. That radical commitment, witnessed to by Christ Himself and affirmed by St Paul, was that one leaves everything behind, even one’s relations, to follow Jesus. And in Jesus, everyone becomes one’s children and relatives. We transcend the simple physical-blood relations that can often keep us from exercising that radical faith and love that our Christian calling does demand of us.

In Christ, Mary became our Mother, she is my Mother, the one who nurtures us in Christ on the milk of His Grace.

She did not need to seek “fulfillment” in having other children on a physical plane. Her fulfillment lies in the millions of spiritual children she has nurtured who were and are members of the Body of her Son, Jesus Christ.

I believe this is the sense of the relation between Mary, Jesus and the Church that we get from the New Testament.

This alone teaches me to look at Mary as our Mother and Sister, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Ark of the New Covenant and the first Daughter of God the Father, Ever-Virgin because ever united in intense union with the Holy Trinity.

The early images of Mary showed her holding her Son. In fact, the Fathers understood this not as being a depiction of a Mother with her Baby. This was and is a depiction of the Mother of Christ who holds out her Baby to touch us with Him so He can heal us and transfigure us and bring us to Heaven to be one with His Father.

Her perpetual virginity was made fruitful in the intensity of her love and devotion to her Son and to His Church - which is all of us.

Be it done to me according to thy word.

Alex

 

[LittleSoldier]

And, as a sociologist, I was always taught that women needing to bear children to “prove” their womanhood was an insult to them!

The Virgin Mary was, in fact, “freed” of that so she could be free to be 100% committed to her Son, to ponder in her heart His words and actions.

Spiritually, the Virgin Mary did and does have many other children - us. Just as she nurtured Christ, so too she nurtures the Body of Christ which is the Church by her prayer, example of submission to God’s Will and trust in His promises.

She was indeed “radically” devoted to God and her Son. That radical commitment, witnessed to by Christ Himself and affirmed by St Paul, was that one leaves everything behind, even one’s relations, to follow Jesus. And in Jesus, everyone becomes one’s children and relatives. We transcend the simple physical-blood relations that can often keep us from exercising that radical faith and love that our Christian calling does demand of us.

In Christ, Mary became our Mother, she is my Mother, the one who nurtures us in Christ on the milk of His Grace.

She did not need to seek “fulfillment” in having other children on a physical plane. Her fulfillment lies in the millions of spiritual children she has nurtured who were and are members of the Body of her Son, Jesus Christ.

I believe this is the sense of the relation between Mary, Jesus and the Church that we get from the New Testament.

This alone teaches me to look at Mary as our Mother and Sister, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Ark of the New Covenant and the first Daughter of God the Father, Ever-Virgin because ever united in intense union with the Holy Trinity.

The early images of Mary showed her holding her Son. In fact, the Fathers understood this not as being a depiction of a Mother with her Baby. This was and is a depiction of the Mother of Christ who holds out her Baby to touch us with Him so He can heal us and transfigure us and bring us to Heaven to be one with His Father.

Her perpetual virginity was made fruitful in the intensity of her love and devotion to her Son and to His Church - which is all of us.

Be it done to me according to thy word.

Alex

Wow!! I am impressed!! Great post!!

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

You can eliminate Mary the mother of Jesus…but I do not.
According to your view Mary the mother of Jesus was not even mentioned by Matthew and Mark.
In my view, she is simply identified as the mother of her other children.

And John, who was at the cross, has Mary there at the foot of the cross with her son.

In Matthew 10:3 the Evangelist has James the younger being the son of Alphaeus, not the son of Joseph.

So are you going to go so far in rejecting Mary that you’re going to assert that somehow Mary was an adulteress?

 

[Anrando]

And, as a sociologist, I was always taught that women needing to bear children to “prove” their womanhood was an insult to them!

The Virgin Mary was, in fact, “freed” of that so she could be free to be 100% committed to her Son, to ponder in her heart His words and actions.

Spiritually, the Virgin Mary did and does have many other children - us. Just as she nurtured Christ, so too she nurtures the Body of Christ which is the Church by her prayer, example of submission to God’s Will and trust in His promises.

She was indeed “radically” devoted to God and her Son. That radical commitment, witnessed to by Christ Himself and affirmed by St Paul, was that one leaves everything behind, even one’s relations, to follow Jesus. And in Jesus, everyone becomes one’s children and relatives. We transcend the simple physical-blood relations that can often keep us from exercising that radical faith and love that our Christian calling does demand of us.

In Christ, Mary became our Mother, she is my Mother, the one who nurtures us in Christ on the milk of His Grace.

She did not need to seek “fulfillment” in having other children on a physical plane. Her fulfillment lies in the millions of spiritual children she has nurtured who were and are members of the Body of her Son, Jesus Christ.

I believe this is the sense of the relation between Mary, Jesus and the Church that we get from the New Testament.

This alone teaches me to look at Mary as our Mother and Sister, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Ark of the New Covenant and the first Daughter of God the Father, Ever-Virgin because ever united in intense union with the Holy Trinity.

The early images of Mary showed her holding her Son. In fact, the Fathers understood this not as being a depiction of a Mother with her Baby. This was and is a depiction of the Mother of Christ who holds out her Baby to touch us with Him so He can heal us and transfigure us and bring us to Heaven to be one with His Father.

Her perpetual virginity was made fruitful in the intensity of her love and devotion to her Son and to His Church - which is all of us.

Be it done to me according to thy word.

Alex

I too am most impressed. The most succinct presentation of how to approach Mary with regards to the Church and its faithful that I have ever read.

Regards,
Bill Unland

 

[prodromos]

Mary, the mother of James and Joses is Mary the mother of Jesus. By nature of her betrothal to Joseph, it is perfectly natural to refer to her as the mother of his existing children.
It is also known that Salome, the husband of Zebedee and mother of the apostles James and John, is actually the daughter of Joseph. Jesus was the uncle of James and John, not their cousin.

John

 

[MartinJordan]

Martin,
There is another thread titled “Misquoting Jesus” that you should read

We can’t be 100% certain what the original Gospel writers wrote, which does make it impossible to prove Jesus had brothers from a few sentences. I also wonder about the Gospel not mentioning Mary was a perpetual virgin, as that should be something unusual and worth noting. Thus we have a lack of clarity on many fronts.

Thanks but my point here, is that people spoke in a certain way and IF someone made an announcement of Mary (along with others) were waiting for Jesus they WOULD without ANY doubt would say IF she had other children “Your Mother and Your Mothers sons”. That’s the way it was.

MJ

 

[Rightlydivide]

And John, who was at the cross, has Mary there at the foot of the cross with her son.

In Matthew 10:3 the Evangelist has James the younger being the son of Alphaeus, not the son of Joseph.

So are you going to go so far in rejecting Mary that you’re going to assert that somehow Mary was an adulteress?

Correct John 19:25 has them coming closer but it remains that this view has Matthew and Mark omitting the mother of Jesus! My view does not
And you know that 10:3 refers to James the younger how?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Thanks but my point here, is that people spoke in a certain way and IF someone made an announcement of Mary (along with others) were waiting for Jesus they WOULD without ANY doubt would say IF she had other children “Your Mother and Your Mothers sons”. That’s the way it was.

MJ

No. The crowds comments are focused on their relation to Christ. His mother. His brothers. Their relationship to Christ is central. The only exception is naturally that the crowd considered Him the son of Joseph which would have probably been the common understanding for those who were not aware of the circumstances

 

[prodromos]

Thanks but my point here, is that people spoke in a certain way and IF someone made an announcement of Mary (along with others) were waiting for Jesus they WOULD without ANY doubt would say IF she had other children “Your Mother and Your Mothers sons”. That’s the way it was.

You make a bold claim, but can you back it up with examples from the available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts produced in that time and place?

John

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Correct John 19:25 has them coming closer but it remains that this view has Matthew and Mark omitting the mother of Jesus! My view does not
And you know that 10:3 refers to James the younger how?

Argument from silence is not “proof”.

There were only two men named James who were apostles. James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus(the younger). Look at the lists that the gospels give of the Twelve.