Replies

I realize now that there is a difference of opionion betweeen Roman Catholics and Protestants on this subject.

This is not a question of opinion; it is fact. You need to go back to the original texts of Scripture as written in the original languages.

While the Bible does mention the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3), they are never called the sons and daughters of the Virgin Mary because they are not her children. Mark 15:40 mentions a woman called "Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses". James and Joses are two of the "brethren" of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 13:55, so this woman is clearly their mother, not the Mother of Jesus. This "other Mary" (Mt 28:1) is mentioned in John 19:25 as "Mary the wife of Cleophas", the "sister" of Jesus' mother ("sister" here probably refers to a sister-in-law, since they are both called Mary).

So James and Joses are the sons of Cleophas and the other Mary, who are most likely Jesus' uncle and aunt on Joseph's side. Since Simon and Jude are mentioned with James and Joses, they must also be Jesus' cousins. The fact that the Bible calls them "brothers" does not contradict this. In that culture, as in many Middle Eastern cultures today, the term "brother" was used for many relatives who were not full siblings, such as half or step-brothers, brothers-in-law, nephews, cousins of various degrees, etc. So Jesus' "brothers and sisters" were really His cousins; Scripture calls them "brothers and sisters" in accord with the custom of the time.

In the Gospel accounts of Jesus' family, we discover a definite pattern which indicates that He was indeed an only child. The Bible portrays the Holy Family as consisting of three persons: Jesus, Mary and Joseph. No more, no less. Only Jesus, Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt (Mt 2:13-14); only these three return a while later (2:20-21); only these three go up to Jerusalem when Jesus is twelve (Luke 2:41-43); and these three alone are mentioned after that event (Luke 2:51-52).

None of these episodes in Jesus' childhood mention the birth or existence any brothers or sisters. So at best, any hypothetical half-siblings would have to have been born after the trip to Jerusalem. The oldest of them (James?) would have been thirteen years younger than Jesus, and only seventeen when Jesus began his ministry.

Yet this is inconsistent with the portrayal of Jesus' "brethren" in the Gospels. They speak and act very disrespectfully toward Him (Mark 3:27; John 7:3). Such behavior toward an elder brother would have been inappropriate in that culture, for the firstborn commanded respect from younger siblings. Their tone toward Jesus makes it more likely that they were Jesus' elders, in which case they could not have been Mary's children.

Again, in the account of the Wedding Feast at Cana, we read that Mary was present (Joseph was evidently deceased by then) and that Jesus and His disciples were also invited (John 2:1-2). Yet no mention is made of His "brethren" being present, or even being invited (though they come into the picture again in vs. 12, after the feast ends). If these "brethren" were also Mary's children, it seems odd that just one of her sons would be invited to the wedding with His followers, while absolutely none of the rest of her children were invited! Yet if He were an only child, and his "brethren" were actually more distant relatives, this would make more sense.

Finally, while on the Cross, Jesus gave Mary into the care of St. John, telling them to regard one another as mother and son (Jn 19:26-27). Christ would not have done this unless she had no other sons to provide for her. This is further evidence that Mary had no other children.

And finally, some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."