Recall that the brothers mentioned in the gospels ... were late-comers to the party.
I don't see how that effects what Jude wrote years after the resurrection. As a matter of fact, it would give more force to his writings by making the more direct claim (if true).
I will grant that your analysis is a possibility.
However, I believe that it is just as reasonable ... that those related to Jesus ... would be hesitant to be seen as claiming any legitimacy ... based upon that relatedness.
You, in fact, see the same thing with John the Baptist.
Even though Jesus was his cousin, you never see John mentioning that.
I am not so sure. Why would you think men related directly to Jesus would hesitate to claim that?
You, in fact, see the same thing with John the Baptist.
Even though Jesus was his cousin, you never see John mentioning that.
Yes, that is true. However, it appears that John did not know Jesus, even by sight, in the human sense. If they were related, they must have been distant cousins who probably did not meet until Christ's ministry began. John may not even had been aware of this relationship.
Regards