[NYer]

James is the only one named in scripture, but John 7 speaks of brothers plural.

James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

As for "brothers" plural, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother." The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did.

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

From GotQuestions.org

Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?

---

Subscribe to our Question of the Week
  

---

Question: "Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?"

Answer: Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph's being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

[Lancey Howard]

My barber once told me that Jesus was conceived after Mary was raped by the priest Uriah when Mary was in a boarding school for girls. What was she, 14 when she gave birth to Jesus? Anyway, people can make up all kinds of stories, but if Mary was that young (and I once heard Mary may have even been younger than 14) then Jesus was certainly her first child.

Between all the theories and historians and other nonsense, I’ll stick with the Holy Bible, thank you.

[doc1019]

So, why do some automatically assume “cousin” and not “brother”?

Sounds like some are blinded by their overwhelming adoration of Mary. G_ds word says what G_ds word says.

[Theo]

You jump through a lot of hoops to explain away the clear teaching of Scripture.

You’re really saying, aren’t you, that Joseph was never really united with Mary. You’ve got a problem there, now. Joseph was a live-in boyfriend, who never “became one” with his wife? Don’t you “venerate” Joseph as the husband of Mary? Sheesh, the false doctrines in Roman Catholicism are confounding ...

Why can’t you simply accept that Mary and Joseph were truly united as husband and wife, and had children as normal husbands and wives have? Do you consider sexual intercourse to be sinful, that somehow Jesus’ having brothers and sisters took away from His holiness?

This whole perpetual virginity of Mary thing is just sick sick sick. It really denigrates the gift of sex between husband and wife.

[DaveyB]

As for "brothers" plural, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle."

Of course the gospel of John was not written in either Hebrew nor Aramaic but was written in Koine, Greek. Hence the appeal needs to be not to the spoken words, but to the recorded writings, which does not state cousin, but brothers. To make further assumptions about the authors intent is to beg the question and amounts to poor exegetical methods.

AS to Hegesippus, what we have of his writings are fragments and what we know of him is almost exclusively from Eusebius. Because the works of both were extant to the early church, it is generally considered a better practice to follow the rest of the church writers who speak uni-vocally that James was the brother of Jesus.

[roamer_1]

James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

This Hegesippus?

Because as I recall it, he makes a distinction between James the Just, brother of Jesus (explicitly identified as 'brother' throughout), and a Simon, son of Clopas. Why would he call Simon a son of Clopas, but refer to James as 'brother of Jesus' ?

[Iscool]

The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

Sure...Your religion has a source for everything...I’m sure this guy fits right in there with the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals...