Who were the "brothers" of Jesus?

[Hodos]

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.

Again, you are making an assumption that Matthew didn’t read or write in Greek. Considering he frequently quotes from the Septuagint and was a publican, the possibility is sound that he did. Greek was the lingua franca in much of that part of the world, and as we know the gospel was preached within weeks (Pentecost) to Hellenized Jews. Also, that depends on your dating of Matthew, which is not a settled matter by any stretch of the imagination. I find it interesting though that whenever arguing for this viewpoint, the RC apologist is forced to resort to make arguments that remove the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew and sets them up for attacks against the efficacy and accuracy of scripture from a textual critical standpoint. Essentially, you end up adopting Erhmanesque modes of argumentation.

 

[Hodos]

No one is saying that Adelphos doesn’t have a range of usage. The question is what is the usage in the passages we are discussing. Which range of meanings are given in a concordance for the passage we are discussing? Again, it goes back to the specific context, which you continue to avoid.

 

[whatistrue]

Not sure why it’s vague. I am not making any pronouncements on what it did mean, whether step-sibling or cousin or what have you. None of that matters to my faith.

 

[whatistrue]

The question is what is the usage in the passages we are discussing.

Exactly the point I was making. You claim that it could only mean blood sibling, and many people much better educated than I am disagree with that assertion. So where does that leave us?

Again, it goes back to the specific context, which you continue to avoid.

How am I avoiding? I made no assertions as to which of the many meanings it could have had was the true one. And the discussion about X, Y, and Z and their relationship to Jesus was, it seems to me, locking in the identification, which does not necessitate that each and every relationship mentioned be a blood one.

 

[OddBird]

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.

I’m not assuming a Hebrew Matthew. In fact, I am rather convinced there isn’t one, and that the Gospel was written in Greek from the beginning.

So I am not postulating a translation; but the fact that the author of Matthew is Jewish is pretty undisputed, and he sometimes words things in a way that could indicate he was not necessarily a native Greek speaker.

A given word in one language often does not have an absolutely exact correspondance in another. Someone who would write in Greek, but from a different linguistic and cultural background, would not use it in the same way than a native Greek speaker – exactly in the same way that some nuances or cultural implications elude me, or that I project some which do not exist, in English (it’s not my first language).

It is an apples to oranges comparison.

Not really. How words are commonly used in broad contexts (for example, Semitic culture) is one of the things exegetes try to establish. Jerome’s line of thought is not unlike what some modern exegetes do in that respect.

Of course, that doesn’t replace looking at the context of Matthew. But that still gives a necessary background.

 

[Hodos]

Exactly the point I was making. You claim that it could only mean blood sibling, and many people much better educated than I am disagree with that assertion. So where does that leave us?

Given the context, that would be the natural reading. So your viewpoint appears to elevate the Infancy Gospel of James above scripture, which assumes Joseph was a somewhat elderly caretaker husband for an already pregnant Mary. Matthew refutes that outright, demonstrating that Joseph was already engaged to Mary prior to learning of her being pregnant. Next you have vs. 1:25 which excludes the possibility of Mary remaining a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus. I have heard the argument against the use of eos, but this frequently ignores the fact that the actual phrase used by Matthew is eos ou which carries a far more certain limit to the state which comes before the conjunction. Then you have the brothers being referred to in the same context as Mary is mentioned as Jesus mother, and Jesus uses it as a contrast that those who obey him are his mother and brother and sister, rather than his biological siblings. So again, context doesn’t support your speculation. So exactly, what from Matthew’s usage leads you to believe that the other possibilities you are mentioning are indeed the proper translation? The point here being, you are offering up speculation from something outside the text as a definitive statement of orthodoxy, when the text quite frankly points in another direction. Both of us are arguing from probabilities. However, only one is actually basing the probability of their viewpoint from the text of Matthew.

 

[Hodos]

So I am not postulating a translation; but the fact that the author of Matthew is Jewish is pretty undisputed, and he sometimes words things in a way that could indicate he was not necessarily a native Greek speaker.

Right, so you are speculating that Matthew didn’t know how to speak Greek and was incapable of selecting the vocabulary consistent with his message, and that somehow the Holy Spirit erred.

 

[OddBird]

Right, so you are speculating that Matthew didn’t know how to speak Greek and was incapable of selecting the vocabulary consistent with his message, and that somehow the Holy Spirit erred.

I certainly speculate no such thing.

I speculate that the use of reason, history, linguistics, and a minimal knowledge of the context, is necessary to have a right understanding of Scripture. This is the very aim of exegesis. There wouldn’t be a need for exegetes if there wasn’t a huge cultural, temporal and linguistic gap to bridge between us and the world of the Scriptural authors.

 

[po18guy]

Are you assuming that a Greek dictionary is all that is needed to know God’s truth?

Assuming that Matthew did speak fluent Greek? Show me from the bible!

Show us the names of Mary’s children form the bible.

Except for One, no one can.

So, why are you arguing?

 

[whatistrue]

So your viewpoint appears to elevate the Infancy Gospel of James above scripture,

Nope.

Then you have the brothers being referred to in the same context as Mary is mentioned as Jesus mother

Same scene yes, but why necessarily the same context (as in framed as the same sort of relationship)?

you are offering up speculation from something outside the text as a definitive statement of orthodoxy,

No, what I am offering is the interpretation the Church makes. The Church which uses Tradition in addition to Scripture.

when the text quite frankly points in another direction. Both of us are arguing from probabilities. However, only one is actually basing the probability of their viewpoint from the text of Matthew.

Your interpretation of the text. You can say “the text” all day long, but when you dispute the interpretation of that text made by the Church who compiled it and declared that it was Scripture, we part ways.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Are adelphos & Adelphi used in Mt 12:50 in reference to those who do the will of the father?

 

[Hodos]

I speculate that the use of reason, history, linguistics, and a minimal knowledge of the context, is necessary to have a right understanding of Scripture. This is the very aim of exegesis.

Then exegete the text. So far, you have avoided doing so.

 

[Hodos]

Are you assuming that a Greek dictionary is all that is needed to know God’s truth?

No, I am assuming that we aren’t Gnostics relying on secret knowledge for salvation and that words mean something. I am assuming that God communicated to us by his Word, and that the word was meant to be understood.

 

[Hodos]

Are adelphos & Adelphi used in Mt 12:50 in reference to those who do the will of the father?

Yeah, the same as Mother. Are you then assuming that when Jesus referred to Mary, he meant so in a non-biological sense? Of course not. The entire point of that passage is to contrast Jesus biological family vs. those who obey his commands. Context. Context. Context. It seems to me that your theory requires that you parse one phrase without respect to the rest of the sentence being interpreted.

 

[BartholomewB]

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.

I think your accusation of bias is slightly unfair, for several reasons. First of all, I have not endorsed any single interpretation of the noun adelphos as used by the authors of the NT books in this connection. I have simply stated what I believe to be a historical fact, that different people at different times have believed that the word conveyed three different degrees of kinship. Second, of course my views are derived in part from somewhere outside the text of scripture. Aren’t yours? I have read one or two Bible commentaries. Haven’t you? I have looked up words in dictionaries. Haven’t you? I have listened to homilies in which the preacher has expounded a text from the day’s Gospel reading. Haven’t you? All of us posting in this thread, I expect, have committed all three of those suspect acts at one time or another. Does that mean we are all “biased”? I don’t think so. Third, you say that brother and sister are “the normative translation of the Greek terms that Matthew and Luke use.” I fully agree with you on that point. I disagree, however, with what seems to be your underlying assumption that “normative” is the same as “invariable”. There is at least one good reason for accepting that the evangelists may possibly be using the noun adelphos in a way that is not the normative way, and that is the frequency of Semitisms in their Greek texts.

 

[Hodos]

I think your accusation of bias is slightly unfair, for several reasons. First of all, I have not endorsed any single interpretation of the noun adelphos as used by the authors of the NT books in this connection.

Perhaps you are correct, I may be attributing a quote to you which you did not say. If that is the case, I apologize. I may have been referring back to someone else’s comment.

 

[TMC]

No, I am assuming that we aren’t Gnostics relying on secret knowledge for salvation and that words mean something. I am assuming that God communicated to us by his Word, and that the word was meant to be understood.

Can you say what you think it means? Do you believe Jesus had biological brothers? If so, do you allow the possibility that they were half or step-brothers - meaning sons of Joseph from a previous wife?

 

[njlisa]

One theory is that Joseph was a widower. So Jesus’ brothers could have been step brothers.

Jimmy Akin has a great article on the topic of the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virigin.

And this article from the National Catholic Register points out that even John Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother.

 

[po18guy]

OK. Back on topic.

Why do you insist, against the bible, that Mary had other children? There is only One in the bible. Yet you add to the bible and insist, apparently for the sake of demeaning or condemning the Catholic Church, that you are right and millions of others are 100% wrong.

Can you see how that appears to be arrogant?

 

[Hodos]

Can you say what you think it means? Do you believe Jesus had biological brothers? If so, do you allow the possibility that they were half or step-brothers - meaning sons of Joseph from a previous wife?

I certainly think its possible, although unlikely given the rest of the text in Matthew. However, I am not the one insisting on a de fide dogma that must be believed on pain of anathema. My issue is the declaration of a dogma based on speculation that at best cannot be proven by the text, and at worst violates the text.