Well, maybe He did and maybe He did not. ...
Really? I obviously cannot quote chapter and verse, as is my want :), but my point is that you seem to be denying the friendship between Jesus and His disciples. Jesus spoke so openly to so many strangers during His ministry, and I just find it hard to believe that He would not have shared about Himself with His closest brethren.
You are free to speculate otherwise, but as far as the scripture is concerned there is no contradiction to the traditional view on Mary as ever virgin.
LOL! Well, I suppose there is no contradiction if you simply interpret away anything in scripture that disagrees with your tradition. That's been my problem with tradition all along. It seems that tradition rules first, and then, after that, scripture is systematically reconfigured through interpretation to conform with that tradition. I admit it is very convenient, but as an outsider I can't possibly buy it. :) You have to throw out so much of the actual text.
FK: ... "there's a pretty good reason why Jesus didn't ask James. Perhaps because HE WASN'T THERE."
But neither St. Peter was there, yet Christ charged him with the pastorship of the Church when he appeared following the resurrection. If Jesus preferred James over John, He could have accomplished that one way or another.
You are right in that if Jesus wanted James, then it would have been James. But John is the one whom Jesus loved. And, by God's design, he was the only one there. Also, I don't know the exact year that everyone died, but isn't it generally accepted that John lived the longest, meaning that he was able to provide for Mary until "whatever" happened to her. :) I appreciate what you are saying about Jewish tradition, but, if I am right, do you think this was the first time Jesus broke with that?
But it does not abolish that fact that James was older than Jesus and therefore not suitable for the role.
You're just testing to see if I read every word of your post, right? :) James was the (half) KID brother of Jesus. :) BTW, just out of curiosity, even if James was an older brother, why would that make him unfit for the role?
Intimate details about one's parents are not a necessary prerequisite of friendship. I, incidentally, never shared any such with my roommates, and I have kept friendship with some of them to this day. Remember the "honor thy mother" part in the scripture?
there is no contradiction if you simply interpret away anything in scripture that disagrees with your tradition
It is you who takes the scripture that does not say anything about Mary and Joseph following the birth of Christ, and insists on the least favorable to Mary interpretation, which goes against the historical and linguistic evidence. All I do is explain what "eos" means and how "adelphos" is used in the scripture. Was Lot Abraham's brother?
John lived the longest
Tradition says that John was the youngest and James the oldest. The latter is consistent with James often referred to as one of the elders and acting as bishop of Jerusalem. For more detail please ask Agrarian, who brought it up. The significance of the taking Mary to the care of John is in that if there were other direct sons of hers that would be an insult to them, -- not merely a break with the Jewish tradition.
if James was an older brother, why would that make him unfit for the role?
If James was Mary's stepson from a previous marriage of Joseph, and therefore older, then his age, close to Mary's, would not make him a good caregiver because he might become frail together or even before Mary. On the identity of James, however, the Catohlic and the Orthodox traditions differ somewhat. We beleive that James was the son of Cleopas and the "other Mary", therefore, a cousing of Christ rather than a step brother.