Who were the "brothers" of Jesus?

[Uriel1]

The great majority of the Church considers Mary as a perpetual virgin, so Jesus had no siblings. So one clear error where some Protestants and the Bible Society Course (3rd ed.) steps outside agreed traditional teaching is when it states that Jesus had “several siblings” (see p 108).The church teaches that James (the brother of Jesus), was not Jesus’ sibling. Rather, James is corroborated as the son of another Mary, the wife of Clopas, and relative of Jesus’ mother by the historian Hegesippus (110 – 180 AD). (Eusebius quotes this from Hegesippus fifth and last book). Clopas was the brother of Joseph, who himself was Jesus’ foster-father. James is then seen to be Jesus’ cousin and Joseph’s nephew.
a. There stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary Clopas*, and Mary Magdalene. (John 19:25) b. Some women were looking on from afar: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary* the mother of James the lesser, and Jose, and Salome.(Mk 15:40) c. Mary Magdalene, and Mary* the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s children. (Matt 27:56)
Christians have believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity from the earliest days, from her conversation with Gabriel, who addressed her, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” If you want to go further into Mary’s perpetual virginity further just ask and I’ll happily write you a short piece.
It was Helvidius (c380) who first raised the idea that those called the brethren of Jesus 1 were His younger siblings, born to Mary from Joseph. St. Jerome rebutted this in a treatise called “On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary,” available on-line, which employs both scriptural arguments, and cites early Church Fathers e.g., Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr.
Helvidius’ discredited idea then died for some 1500 years, only being revived in the late 19th century2. The Church teaches (in CCC 510) 3 that Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin.”
see pt 2

 

[Uriel1]

pt 2
Today, some Protestant apologists will say that the “And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son” (Matt1:25) infers that she then lost her virginity, but just look at the use of until in 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; and Matthew 12:20 to refute that poor logic.
So why the confusion? Well, we know that neither Hebrew nor Aramaic employ a word for “cousin” and they would have normally used either “brother,” or a description like, “the son of my uncle,” so that for example in I Chronicles 23:21-22, we read that the sons of Kish married their “sisters,” which is a literal translation of the text, but in practice they would have married their cousins. In Greek the word “adelphos” is used to describe various kith and kin relationships, and “sibling/brother” is simply a shoddy and biased translation.

 

[C.Longinus]

Because brother doesn’t necessarily mean younger sibling.

 

[Hodos]

I don’t think anyone disputes that the Gospel writers were correct. What is disputed is the interpretation of one or more translations of what the Gospel writers actually wrote, taking into account the vagaries of how relationships are described in different languages.

The gospel writers wrote brothers and sisters, in the context of a familial relationship rather than a close friend, etc. Not seeing why this is so complicated or “vague.” You don’t question that Mary was Jesus’ mother, do you?

 

[OddBird]

The gospel writers wrote brothers and sisters, in the context of a familial relationship rather than a close friend, etc. Not seeing why this is so complicated or “vague.”

Yes, but what a word means in today’s American English is not necessarily what that word meant in Greek, in a semitic culture, 2000 years ago.

 

[BartholomewB]

The gospel writers wrote brothers and sisters,

Well, yes and no. “Brothers” and “sisters” are English words. The Evangelists didn’t write their Gospels in English.

 

[whatistrue]

The gospel writers wrote brothers and sisters, in the context of a familial relationship rather than a close friend, etc.

That is exactly what is in dispute.

Not seeing why this is so complicated or “vague.”

Well, one possible complication is that the Gospel writers didn’t write in Modern English. And even if they did, the use of “brother” and “sister” in a collegial rather than familial sense is quite common. The language likely spoken by the people being (more or less) quoted did not differentiate between those relationships and the Koine version of Greek in which the Gospels were written is not as fixed in description as some have claimed.

 

[Hodos]

Well, yes and no. “Brothers” and “sisters” are English words. The Evangelists didn’t write their Gospels in English.

No one said that they did. But Adelphos and Adelphe mean brother and sister. This is the normative translation of the Greek terms that Matthew and Luke use in regard to these people, and contextually and grammatically there is no difference or shift in the sentences where Mary is referred to as Jesus’ mother and where James, Joses, Simon, and Judas are referred to as Jesus brothers. Additionally, Jesus uses them as his biological family as a contrast to those who obey his word.

I keep seeing statements above that Protestants are employing a biased translation, but so far I am not seeing any evidence within the text to point to a less literal interpretation. It appears to me that this conclusion you are reaching is not being derived from the text of scripture, but from somewhere outside of the text. That would be the definition of bias.

 

[whatistrue]

It appears to me that this conclusion you are reaching is not being derived from the text of scripture, but from somewhere outside of the text.

You mean like the Church? Who just coincidentally is the organization who compiled the New Testament and decided which were the true Gospels?

 

[TMC]

You mean like the Church? Who just coincidentally is the organization who compiled the New Testament and decided which were the true Gospels?

The Church does not take the position that the word “brother” in Matthew and Luke actually means “cousin,” at least as far as I am aware. The Church maintains that Mary was perpetually virgin, of course, but does not mandate a particular way to harmonize those passages. I think the position that the passages refer to step-siblings is at least as common as the position that Matthew and Luke used the wrong word to describe the relationship.

 

[Hodos]

You mean like the Church? Who just coincidentally is the organization who compiled the New Testament and decided which were the true Gospels

Well, for one, the doctrine you are perpetuating doesn’t even come from the Scriptures which the Church compiled into the Bible. Would you agree with me on that? Also, not every document that has originated from the Church was Orthodox. Or have we forgotten about guys like Origin, Arius, etc.? My point here is that the Church recognized the gospels as normative canon because they were true documents of the apostle’s preaching, yet, for reasons unknown, you are rejecting the Apostolic witness for something else.

 

[whatistrue]

The Church does not take the position that the word “brother” in Matthew and Luke actually means “cousin,” at least as far as I am aware.

Nor did I take that position.

 

[OddBird]

But Adelphos and Adelphe mean brother and sister. This is the normative translation of the Greek terms that Matthew and Luke use in regard to these people

Yes, but whether or not one postulates the preexistence of a “Hebrew Matthew”, the Gospel of Matthew clearly has a semitic background, and the terms he uses in Greek sometimes translate rather more Hebrew concepts.

Jerome, in Against Helvidius, goes in some detail referencing Old Testament passages where “brother” or “brethren” obviously cannot refer to biological siblings.

 

[whatistrue]

My point here is that the Church recognized the gospels as normative canon because they were true documents of the apostle’s preaching, yet, for reasons unknown, you are rejecting the Apostolic witness for something else.

Ummm, no. I am having a discussion about word meanings. You are the one who seems to think that the passage can only be interpreted one way (oddly enough, your way). But, as I said before, it is not as fixed as some claim:

Excerpted from https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/adelphos.html

TDNT Entry
Adelphos
1:144,22

Noun Masculine
Definition

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   a. his brothers by blood
   b. all men
   c. apostles
   d. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

 

[po18guy]

I so admire Saint Jerome for his warm and very human Vulgate. Far better than the committee-think translations which followed. Oh, and we are brothers in temper.

 

[TMC]

Nor did I take that position.

Fair enough. What are you saying, then?

 

[whatistrue]

Allow me to reiterate:

The language likely spoken by the people being (more or less) quoted did not differentiate between those relationships and the Koine version of Greek in which the Gospels were written is not as fixed in description as some have claimed.

And earlier:

What is disputed is the interpretation of one or more translations of what the Gospel writers actually wrote, taking into account the vagaries of how relationships are described in different languages.

 

[po18guy]

Point: The words were much later - decades later - written in Greek. But they were SPOKEN in Aramaic. Huge difference that only the Church can explain with authority.

Zechariah (12:10) prophesied that the Messiah will be a first born and only son. And no, I do not care what the biased translation you might be using says.

As well, each and every one of the reformers believed that Mary was the handmaid (bond slave!) of the Lord - thus she served him and Him alone her entire life.

What has happened to the “reform”? It has become a herd of cats with no fence - and no cat herder. It has attacked the Eucharist, the Mother of Christ, the other 6 Sacraments - in fact nearly everything relating to Christ. It no longer baptizes, thus declaring itself a goat rather than a sheep.

Really, what has happened?

 

[Hodos]

Yes, but whether or not one postulates the preexistence of a “Hebrew Matthew”, the Gospel of Matthew clearly has a semitic background, and the terms he uses in Greek sometimes translate rather more Hebrew concepts.

Well, for one, there is very little evidence there ever was a Hebrew Matthew. But let’s assume there was, you are then assuming that whomever translated didn’t know how to pick words that convey the same meaning.

Jerome, in Against Helvidius , goes in some detail referencing Old Testament passages where “brother” or “brethren” obviously cannot refer to biological siblings.

I am well aware of this; however, if you read his work Against Helvidius he really doesn’t address the verses in Matthew in their own context. Essentially, he brings a speculative assumption to the table and rather than looking at the context of Matthew he goes to another passage, by another writer, who is writing in another language, who has already given a genealogy that eliminates the possibility of a literal rendering. Neither, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, or Acts does this. It is an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[TMC]

OK. Not sure if you are trying to be deliberately vague, but that is still unclear. Are you saying that Koine Greek sometimes used the word typically translated as “brother” to mean “cousin,” (or perhaps some other non-sibling relationship) and further saying you believe that both Matthew and Luke used the word that way in their Gospels?