Replies

Good summary. The Catholic position is that Mary was "ever Virgin," and of course that there was only one miraculous virgin birth, that of Jesus. The usual Catholic opinion is that Jesus had no brothers or step-brothers; but that is not, like Mary's virginity, an article of faith. It's conceivable (though sheer speculation and I think unlikely) that Joseph had sons from an earlier marriage.

As one response notes, the usual Catholic position is that the word often translated as "brother" simply means a close relation, such as a cousin. In fact this is one of the few instances where the translators of the RSV Bible agreed to differ. The Protestant version has "brothers" and the Catholic version "brethren."

In any case, there's no way this "find" can be proved, one way or the other. Assuming that the artifact is genuine, there were numerous people with these three names in Jerusalem. Early traditions agree that James did not die in Israel. Those traditions can be questioned, of course, but they are still the best evidence we have.

It's conceivable (though sheer speculation and I think unlikely) that Joseph had sons from an earlier marriage.

Dittos on the "unlikely" word due to the notion of primogeniture. Jesus was descended from David through both his mother and his adopted father, Joseph. If Jesus were not the first-born (even if adopted) son of Joseph, he would not have had the title King of the Jews. Ergo, the notion that Joseph could have had sons from a previous marriage is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of those trying to escape the obvious.

Doesn't the Greek 'brother' mean 'brother' in Greek? Why do I need a theologian to spin for me - I read the Bible - and trnaslate Greek - for myself. James is, was and always will be the familial btother of Jesus, son of Mary, who did NOT miraculously ascend into heaven still a virgin.

There, I feel better. I have enough spin in my life.