Comments for Jesus’ “Brothers” at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 54 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Wed, 22 May 2013 19:37:59 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-14140 Was Mary "ever virgin"? Much has been debated on the dogma that Mary was "ever virgin", which became Church doctrine in the seventh-century. The dogma has brought into question the identities of Jesus’ (so-called) "brothers" and "sisters", of which there are three major views: (a) the Protestant view [expoused by Helvidius] is that they were the later children of Joseph and Mary; which is based on the text "she gave birth to her firstborn son" (Lk 2:7), however, this does not imply that there were later born children, for the grave of the first-century Jewish woman, Arsinoe, found near Leontopolis, Egypt, dated 5BC, gives the inscription saying that the woman had died giving birth to her "firstborn" child, and, if she died giving birth to her "firstborn", obviously she had no more children, hence, according to Jewish usage, the first to open the womb (Ex 13:1,12; Num 3:12) was the "firstborn", whether or not any other children were afterwards born; too, the word "firstborn", i.e., "prototokos", is sometimes used as the equivalent to "monogenes", i.e., "only born" (Ps 13:8; 18:4; IV-Ezra 6:58); (b) the Catholic view [theorized by St. Jerome] is that they were His cousins, that is, the children of either Joseph’s brother Ptolas, which is the more probable case, or the children of Joseph’s brother Clopas, which is a preposterous solution for it identifies His "brothers" with His "disciples". The "brothers" of Jesus are always spoken of separately from His disciples, and they appear in the Bible as two separate groups (Mk 6:13-35; Jn 6:66-7:10; & Acts 1:14). The most feasible scenario is that upon the early death of Ptolas his widow Escha moved into the home of her "in-laws", Joseph and Mary, and soon afterwards died herself leaving behind her young children to be brought-up by them; and (c) the Orthodox view [theorized by Epiphanius] is that they were Joseph’s children either by a previous marriage [which view has many difficulties] or by a "levirate marriage" [which is not improbable]; the possibility that Joseph had children of his brother’s [Ptolas’] widow, Escha, in a "levirate marriage" (Dt 25:5) though also married to Mary would not be contrary to Jewish practice of the time. That they were not Mary’s children is suggested by Jesus’ provision for His mother (Jn 19:26), for that would not have been necessary if they were her children. Too, that Mary’s uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, claimed her son’s, Jesus’ body, on her behalf as her next-of-kin, suggests the same. For, the authorities would never have given Jesus’ body away, which they were then arguing about how to dispose of it, either of burying it in "the potter’s field" or burning it in the trash heaps outside the city’s gates, except for the Jewish law that gave the next-of-kin the right to claim the corpse, and had to turn the body over to Joseph of Arimathea, Mary’s uncle. It seems that the early Church elders did not have all of the facts, for as late as the second century they were still assuming that Jesus’ "brothers" and "sisters" were his half-siblings, and that their mother was Mary, who later begot them by Joseph, their father. It is Origen (185-254), who, in the third century, says otherwise, due perhaps to recently discovered documents or due perhaps to the growing reverence to Mary. - David Hughes Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:12:38 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-12118 @Mick Lee: I find it interesting that you keep pulling from Luther's tradition who himself was a mere man but object when the Catholics utilize the tradition of the church. I find it ironic that you can sever that relationship with the Catholics when in fact the Sola Scripture Lutherans so love in fact get their Biblical Cannon from the Catholic church. My question is this: How do you even know that the Biblical Cannon is correct if you do not adhere to at least some of the authority of the Catholic church? Interesting. - Michelle Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:33:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-11690 Having been raised Catholic & having studied the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that 'the Word of the Lord' (the Bible) supports the belief that the 'brothers & sisters' of Jesus in Matthew 12:46-50 & Matthew 13:54-57 are Jesus' half-brothers & sisters, & NOT referring to His disciples, cousins, or spiritual brothers & sisters: First, Matthew 13:54-57 gives us their names: James, Joses (Joseph), Simon, & Judas (Jude). They are clearly brothers, since they are part of a family unit, with the father, 'the carpenter' (Joseph) & Mary, their mother. Second, at the cross, Mary the wife of Alphaeus (aka: Clopas), who is the mother of James the Less & Joses (Joseph) are mentioned (Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25-27). James is the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3). However, James & Joseph are never paired in Scripture as 'brothers' of Simon & Judas (Jude). So, they are 'not' the 'James & Joseph' in Matthew 13:54-57. Third, at the cross Salome (Mark 15:40) is the sister of Jesus' mother (Mary) (John 19:25-27) & the mother of Zebedee's sons (Matthew 27:55-56). Zebedee's sons are James & John (Mark 10:35). However, James & John are never paired in Scripture as 'brothers' of Simon & Judas (Jude). So, this 'James' is 'not' the same 'James' in Matthew 13:54-57. Third, since the 'James' who is the 'son of Mary & Zebedee' & since the 'James & Joses (Joseph)' who are the sons of 'Mary & Alphaeus (Clopas)' are NOT the same 'James & Joses (Joseph)' who are the brothers of Simon & Judas (Jude) in Matthew 13:54-57, then these 'brothers' in this verse are sons of Mary & Joseph, & Jesus' half-brothers. Fourth, in Matthew 12:46-50, Jesus compares his 'believing brothers' by pointing to his disciples INSIDE, with his 'non-believing brothers' OUTSIDE (compare to John 7:3-5 & Psalm 69:8). Fifth, Jesus makes a distinction between his brothers & his BELIEVING disciples (John 2:12). Sixth, these 'brothers' in Matthew 13:54-57 aren't Jesus' cousins, because the Greek words for 'cousins' ('synggenes' & 'anepsios') used in Luke 1:36 & Colossians 4:10 are not used in Matthew 13:54-57, or anywhere else by Jesus to give us the impression that His 'brothers' in this verse are actually His cousins. Sixth, the Greek word for 'brothers' & 'sisters' (adelphos & adelphe) can mean LITERAL blood brothers, such as James the BROTHER (adelphos) of John, & Martha & Mary the SISTERS (adelphe) of Lazarus. So, using the Word of the Lord (the Bible), which cannot be wrong, & comparing it to church tradition (which 'can' be wrong), the most correct understanding of Jesus' 'brothers & sisters' in Matthew 13:54-57 is that they were his LITERAL half-brothers & sisters. Therefore, Joseph kept Mary a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:24-25), & then had at least 6 children together (4 sons & at least 2 'unnamed' daughters). - Steve Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:41:34 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-10584 I'll use one verse to end this discussion: "... for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." -Romans 3:23 If Mary was indeed sinless then it would have been MARY who was sacrificed on a Roman cross and it would have been MARY who rose from the dead 3 days later and it would be MARY who sits at the right hand of the Father and it would be MARY who is coming again (soon) to judge the living and the dead. Mary, however, sinned when here and her sons showed unbelief in Jesus (see Matthew 12:46-48, where Jesus points out his mother and brothers NOT adhering to the will of God). Unbelief is sin. This argument over Mary's "perpetual virginity" needs to seriously stop once and for all ... virginity does NOT constitute a sinless life. The end. Period. I'm tire of all this blasphemy of God's Holy Spirit and the reverence of the mother of Jesus, who may have remained a virgin (highly unlikely because then Joseph would have become an adulterer by giving into his lust and then having slept with other women) but again VIRGINITY DO DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SINLESS LIFE. Only God knows why Mary was chosen but it was NOT because of her lack of sin... utter nonsense for those who believe that. - Jesse Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:37:22 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-7419 I was Catholic and things didn't make sense to me until I became a born again Christian. As I became knowledgeable on the scriptures, I began questioning my earlier teachings. I attended a funeral at a Catholic Church and found a panphet that said that Mary was physically taken to heaven. Certainly, Mary was chosen. She was blessed "Among" women, not, "Above". She herself needed salvation, she said so. I find this chat helps me with the inner knowledge I have gain throughout the 40 years I've been a Christian. - sue Sun, 17 Jul 2011 04:12:03 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-7311 With James the Less , - a commemorative name , - in place at Acts 12 : 2 ; we have continuity of Scripture . The Scriptures come alive with harmony . The Lord ' s chosen three , Peter , James , and John , show forth the Godhead in the New Testament . They follow on from the three in the Old Testament , Abraham , Issac , and Jacob . We have the three strong of the Twelve Patriarchs . And the three strong of the Virgin Mary ' s virgins . The Virgin Mary has alive James bar Zebedee , the son of thunder , at her Assumption . James the Less is brought as a Martyr to her Assumption . Thereupon , James the Just is then more fully revealed by The Lord ' s testament in James' Apocalypse . And thereupon the The Lord ' s brothers are revealed . Refs . 1 . Of the Life of The Virgin , Forbes Robinson . 2. The History of the Virgin Mary , W . Wright . - Daniel Tue, 05 Jul 2011 09:25:08 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-7131 When you , Howard , bring into account the extended meaning of terms , such as brothers in the case of James bar Alphaeus and John bar Zebedee , { both given or foster sons of The Virgin Mary and therefore brothers } ; you can jibe Matthew 27:56 with Mary , wife of Alphaeus . James Alphaeus is her stepson . Joses is her stepson James' foster brother and so she is Joses' extended mother . In the verse , she is primarily James' mother , and then more distant mother of Joses . Even with Joses , by far being the elder , he is listed second . And so in this instance , one would set it down as the meticulous recording of Matthew , ( his trade ) , over any recension of translators in substituting Joses for Judas . Ref. 1. History of the Nativity of Mary ; The History of Joseph the Carpenter . 2. Deuteronomy 13:6 ; Leviticus 18:6 ff , Leviticus 20:17 ff . - concerning extended kin and Law . - Daniel Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:28:21 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-7101 Contrasting the mistake of reading something and giving to it credence , when it is not there , - { son of Zebedee is not written at Acts 12.2 , above May 22 , } - there is the mistake of reading something written and giving to it credence , - when it doesn't belong there . In deference to John 19 : 25 in which Mary , " wife " of Clopas is quoted , - " wife " is an added word from the translators . Do enlightened readers presume that John bar Zebedee , the Apostle and original scribe , would n ' t know who the kin of his foster brother were ? Alphaeus , was the son of Clopas , and so his wife Mary , or Mariame , or Miriam or such , the younger sister of the Virgin Mary , was called Mary of Clopas , { belonging to that family or clan } , - for recording purposes , to differentiate between both Marys being of , or belonging to the family of , Joachim and Anna , grandparents of The Lord . By making a father in law an husband , disorder is created in the family ties , and so there is no continuity of scripture in this instance also . Ref ' s : Papias : Fragments X ; scholars of Professor Howard Kainz ' station - on Aramaic and Jewish differences for the same name - ( Mary ). - Daniel Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:41:01 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-6993 Redaction references ( for the post above , June 6 ) , are from : Epiphanius : Panarion 29 - record shows James the Less and Judas his brother , were brought up with The Lord . Origen : Contra Celsus Bk 1 . ch 47 - record shows this James at Gal . 1 . 19 . was described by Paul as the Lord ' s Brother on account of his virtue and doctrine - one of merit ; and not of upbringing , or nearness of blood ( kin ) . - Daniel Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:16:57 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-6989 Howard , thanks for your reply , although you haven ' t answered the question : Can you see who the other brother of John Zebedee named James is ? You do realize that John bar Zebedee has two brothers named James ? You do see the term applied to this kind of ( other ) brother ? James the Less , also named James bar Alphaeus , ( who was brought up with the Lord ) - the son of Mary of Clopus ; is one of the Twelve Apostles . James , the Brother of the Lord , named by Paul at Gal . 1 . 19 . is an Apostle , one of The Twelve - on Paul ' s authority : besides Peter , ' other of the apostles saw I none , save James the Lord's brother . ' Paul called him an Apostle , and in context , - one of the Twelve . Ref . Epiphanius , on James the Less , brother of The Lord . Origen : on Gal . 1 . 19 . - Paul 's reasoning , for calling James The Lord's brother . ( Regarding continuity . ) - Daniel Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:57:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-6977 @Daniel: Yes, James the Apostle in Acts 12:2 is the son of Zebedee and brother of John, but this James is not James the son of "the other Mary," who was a brother of Jesus but not an Apostle. I think the confusion comes from assuming that James the brother of the Lord in Gal. 1:19 is an Apostle, but he was not. As I have argued above, the two meanings of the Greek conjunction have to be taken into account in translating 1:19. - Howard Kainz Sat, 04 Jun 2011 15:03:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-6882 With the basic mistake , Howard Kainz , of placing the wrong brother of John within Acts 12 . 2 , you have no continuity of scripture . Do you not see that you read something in Acts 12 . 2 that is not there ? Do you see son of Zebedee written there ? Can not anyone see who the other brother of John Zebedee named James is ? Who is not blind ? - Daniel Sun, 22 May 2011 06:05:26 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-6854 Re, I was just curious, I wasn't sure. This discussion is fairly new to me. How about your claim that Christ resembled James, His brother, do you have corroboration for this from Scripture or the Fathers? - Nick Thu, 19 May 2011 20:08:25 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-6852 Nick: "Does your interpretation that John 7:5 ONLY includes the four brothers of Christ, and not James the Less, the brother of Jesus, have any corroboration in any other Scripture, or any of the early Church Fathers?" Individual Church Fathers sometimes made no small mistakes. Only when they were unanimous their teaching was regarded as teaching of The Church by all Christians. It is absolutely certain that there can be no proof for unanimity of The Church Fathers on the claim that James the Less together with the four Jesus' brethren didn't believe in Jesus. Because James the Less was an Apostle and, as was shown, believed in Jesus when those four brethren didn't. The Church, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), cannot teach against the truth. Whether there were other Jesus' brothers (close relatives: see previous comments) who didn't believe in Jesus is not important. We know the four who didn't believe in Jesus but believed in Him after His resurrection (Acts 1:14). - Re Thu, 19 May 2011 13:41:04 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-6846 Re, Does your interpretation that John 7:5 ONLY includes the four brothers of Christ, and not James the Less, the brother of Jesus, have any corroboration in any other Scripture, or any of the early Church Fathers? - Nick Thu, 19 May 2011 05:38:16 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-6835 Howard Kainz: There were only Jesus and the eleven Apostles in Gethsemani (Matthew 26:20,30,36). When Judas Iscariot came to betray Jesus he said to the mob he would show them Jesus by kiss (Matthew 26:48). The Church has always taught as it is only reasonable: it was because of one of the Apostles, who was physically very much like Jesus. It was no one of the four Jesus' brothers since they didn't believe in Jesus (John 7:5) until His Resurrection (Acts 1:14) while the Apostles always believed in Jesus (John 15:27). Except them there is only this James that is called “brother of The Lord” by The Scripture (Galatians 1:19) and could thus have a good reason for great physical similarity to Jesus. James the brother of The Lord from Galatians 1:19 must be the same James mentioned in Galatians 2:9 with Cephas (Peter) and John as “pillar (of The Church)” since no ordinary disciple called James would merit special mentioning by name by Paul in Galatians 1:19 in the very same sentence where the (Twelve) Apostles are mentioned. And “pillar” can only be one of The Twelve Apostles where there were only two James, not three or more. James the brother of John (a.k.a. James the Greater by The Church) was already dead (Acts 12:1-3) when Apostle Paul in Galatians 2:9 mentioned James as one of the “pillars” (it was 17 years(!) after Paul's conversion at Damascus: see from Galatians 1 and 2). Thus James the brother of The Lord can only be Apostle James the son of Alpheus (a.k.a. James the Less by The Scripture: Mark 15:40) and the writer of Epistle of James. Hence it was because of James the Less, the son of Alpheus, the brother of Jesus, one of The Twelve Apostles and the one mentioned in Galatians 1:19 and 2:9, why Judas Iscariot had to show Jesus to the mob in Gethsemani. - Re Tue, 17 May 2011 15:49:59 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-6834 Nick: “You state that James the Apostle was the "brother of the Lord" (with which I agree.) But, then you cite John 7:5 as if it is saying, "For neither did [ANY OF] His brethren believe in Him." How can this be? When James, the brother of Jesus, was an Apostle? Does this not mean that at least one brother of Christ DID believe in Him? Also, John doesn't name the brethren in 7:5, so, we don't know to whom he was referring, do we?” We know who they were from Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. John didn't have to repeat what was already known. If you carefully read what I wrote before you could see that unlike us The Scripture uses the term “brother” also for those of the same blood (at least half of it) who don't have even a single common parent (close relatives). Thus James was the brother of The Lord (close relative), an Apostle and always believed in Jesus and wasn't James of the four Jesus' brethren who didn't believe in Jesus until His Resurrection (Acts 1:14). - Re Tue, 17 May 2011 15:39:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-6833 Nick: “Did you not try to use John 2:11 to claim that the disciples ALWAYS believed in Christ? As compared to his brethren, who didn't? Also, where is it written that His brethren "obviously didn't believe much more?" (emphasis mine). No. Some became disciples of Jesus as soon as they heard The Gospel, some disbelieved at first but later on became the disciples. Some were the disciples all the time since they had become the disciples, some not. No believing in Jesus, no disciple of Jesus. James the brother of The Lord and the other ten Apostles (Judas Iscariot of course excluded) became disciples of Jesus as soon as He called them and were disciples all the time (John 15:27). James and the other Jesus' brothers didn't believe in Jesus (John 7:5) and thus weren't His disciples but after His Resurrection became His disciples (Acts 1:14). Thus there were two James, called “brother of Jesus”. “NEITHER did his brethren believe in him” (John 7:5) says that also many other didn't believe in Jesus (John 7:43; Luke 2:34). “obviously didn't believe much more” is conclusion which necessarily follows from the necessary difference between the two contrary sides. You claimed that “didn't believe in Jesus” from John 7:5 meant only “didn't believe in His Passion and Resurrection that were to come”. But the very same didn't believe also those who “believed in Jesus”. Thus, according to you, there would be no difference between the two. Which cannot be true. - Re Tue, 17 May 2011 15:36:56 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-6820 Re, Your argument is becoming confusing and contradictory. Did you not try to use John 2:11 to claim that the disciples always believed in Christ? As compared to his brethren, who didn't? Also, where is it written that His brethren "obviously didn't believe much more?" You state that James the Apostle was the "brother of the Lord" (with which I agree.) But, then you cite John 7:5 as if it is saying, "For neither did [ANY OF] His brethren believe in Him." How can this be? When James, the brother of Jesus, was an Apostle? Does this not mean that at least one brother of Christ DID believe in Him? Also, John doesn't name the brethren in 7:5, so, we don't know to whom he was referring, do we? - Nick Mon, 16 May 2011 20:03:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/jesus-brothers.html#comment-6819 @Re: I didn't know this thread was still going. In regard to Galatians 1:19, Paul says he had seen Peter, but "I did not see any of the other apostles [besides Peter], only James the brother of the Lord." This doesn't imply that James was an Apostle, but just the opposite. You are using a different translation. The Greek is "eteron de twn apostolwn ouk eidon ei mh iakwbon ton adelfon tou kuriou." Other translations I've seen translate ei mh, as "only" or "I only saw..." "ei mh" is a conjunction which can be either adversative, meaning "but I did see James" or exceptive, meaning "except for James." Since the exceptive meaning might imply that would mean that there was some third apostle named James, son of "the other Mary," the other meaning is closer to the context. - Howard Kainz Mon, 16 May 2011 19:00:22 +0100