Did Mary Have Other Children?

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry ^ | Unknown | Matt Slick

[HarleyD]

One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic church deals with the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine maintains that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and that biblical references suggesting Jesus had siblings are really references to cousins (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510).

As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters?

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)

• Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
• Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
• Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
• Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
• John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
• Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
• 1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
• Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."

An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.

Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.

• Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
• Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.

Psalm 69, A Messianic Psalm

There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, they hated Me without a cause."

He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Fathers house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."

Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.

To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."

This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." Gods will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.

Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?

Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase "my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.

The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary.

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.

[boatbums]

So was Matthew 28:19. So was 1 John 5:7. So was Mark 16:9-20. How about the whole of John 21? And a whole raft of others. Do you admit it or not? If yes, then I admire your willingness to grasp what is. If not, then what?

The OT is seen through the New. As a matter of fact, for several hundred years, the OT was thought to be spurious and not necessarily for early Christians. It took the Councils to bring them back into general acceptance.

The 21st. chapter of John??? Well, I guess you can't use the "feed my sheep" command from Jesus to Peter anymore to prove he was the first Pope, can you? Oh, and that part about "there were also many other things which Jesus did that if they should be written, every one, the world itself could not contain the books that should be written", I guess you can't use that one anymore either to prove "Tradition" is just as authoritative as Scripture, can you?

That last part about it taking the "Councils" to bring the Old Testament back into "general usage", have you forgotten that the NT is full of references from the Old Testament as well as numerous future prophecies? Why on earth would the early Christians - who were mostly Jewish - reject the OT or discontinue reading it, proving Jesus as the Messiah from it and studying it? What makes you think that when they concluded their worship services and sang a "psalm", that is wasn't referring to the Psalms in the OT? Honestly, sometimes I get the impression that the early church is thought to be nothing but a bunch of idiot bumpkins without The Church to show them everything.

[boatbums]

Ezekial 44

The Priesthood Restored

1 Then the man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it. 3 The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway to eat in the presence of the LORD. He is to enter by way of the portico of the gateway and go out the same way.”
4 Then the man brought me by way of the north gate to the front of the temple. I looked and saw the glory of the LORD filling the temple of the LORD, and I fell facedown.

5 The LORD said to me, “Son of man, look carefully, listen closely and give attention to everything I tell you concerning all the regulations and instructions regarding the temple of the LORD. Give attention to the entrance to the temple and all the exits of the sanctuary. 6 Say to rebellious Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Enough of your detestable practices, people of Israel! 7 In addition to all your other detestable practices, you brought foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh into my sanctuary, desecrating my temple while you offered me food, fat and blood, and you broke my covenant. 8 Instead of carrying out your duty in regard to my holy things, you put others in charge of my sanctuary. 9 This is what the Sovereign LORD says: No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites.

10 “‘The Levites who went far from me when Israel went astray and who wandered from me after their idols must bear the consequences of their sin. 11 They may serve in my sanctuary, having charge of the gates of the temple and serving in it; they may slaughter the burnt offerings and sacrifices for the people and stand before the people and serve them. 12 But because they served them in the presence of their idols and made the people of Israel fall into sin, therefore I have sworn with uplifted hand that they must bear the consequences of their sin, declares the Sovereign LORD. 13 They are not to come near to serve me as priests or come near any of my holy things or my most holy offerings; they must bear the shame of their detestable practices. 14 And I will appoint them to guard the temple for all the work that is to be done in it.

15 “‘But the Levitical priests, who are descendants of Zadok and who guarded my sanctuary when the Israelites went astray from me, are to come near to minister before me; they are to stand before me to offer sacrifices of fat and blood, declares the Sovereign LORD. 16 They alone are to enter my sanctuary; they alone are to come near my table to minister before me and serve me as guards.

17 “‘When they enter the gates of the inner court, they are to wear linen clothes; they must not wear any woolen garment while ministering at the gates of the inner court or inside the temple. 18 They are to wear linen turbans on their heads and linen undergarments around their waists. They must not wear anything that makes them perspire. 19 When they go out into the outer court where the people are, they are to take off the clothes they have been ministering in and are to leave them in the sacred rooms, and put on other clothes, so that the people are not consecrated through contact with their garments.

20 “‘They must not shave their heads or let their hair grow long, but they are to keep the hair of their heads trimmed. 21 No priest is to drink wine when he enters the inner court. 22 They must not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of Israelite descent or widows of priests. 23 They are to teach my people the difference between the holy and the common and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean.

24 “‘In any dispute, the priests are to serve as judges and decide it according to my ordinances. They are to keep my laws and my decrees for all my appointed festivals, and they are to keep my Sabbaths holy.

25 “‘A priest must not defile himself by going near a dead person; however, if the dead person was his father or mother, son or daughter, brother or unmarried sister, then he may defile himself. 26 After he is cleansed, he must wait seven days. 27 On the day he goes into the inner court of the sanctuary to minister in the sanctuary, he is to offer a sin offering[a] for himself, declares the Sovereign LORD.

28 “‘I am to be the only inheritance the priests have. You are to give them no possession in Israel; I will be their possession. 29 They will eat the grain offerings, the sin offerings and the guilt offerings; and everything in Israel devoted[b] to the LORD will belong to them. 30 The best of all the firstfruits and of all your special gifts will belong to the priests. You are to give them the first portion of your ground meal so that a blessing may rest on your household. 31 The priests must not eat anything, whether bird or animal, found dead or torn by wild animals.

[boatbums]

Not even Paul 'knew' that he was saved. I guess that you are extra special.

I'm honestly not picking on you tonight, Mark, but I find I must answer some of these wild things you are coming out with. Paul most certainly KNEW he was saved, and that same assurance is our own if we have trusted in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Want some proof? Okay:

II Corinthians 5:1 Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

II Corinthians 5:5-8 Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come. Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

Galatians 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Romans 3:24-28 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I could go on, there are many, many more but it is late and time for bed. I find it hard to believe that a person who claims to study the Bible would ever say that Paul did not know he was saved. He did, and so can we who place our faith in Christ. We can KNOW we have eternal life (I John 5:13).

[Lera]

The Septuagint was written in Alexandria, by the way.


The Torah was translated by 72 Jewish scholars into Greek for the library of Alexandria in ---- > 300 BC <----
and that has NOTHING to do with Augustine or any of the others you mentioned .

[boatbums]

So do we, but you don't have to read far on these threads to see that the same heresies they fought then still exist.

Oh, I agree. The way we know that something is heresy is by judging from the only objective and authoritative source we have, the Holy Bible. It was one of God's wonderful gifts to us, his church, so that we will know the truth.

[boatbums]

Okay, thanks. And an “amateur theologian”, you ain’t. I think it all came from your Protestant background, though. ;o)

[D-fendr]

We way we know that something is heresy is by judging from the only objective and authoritative source we have, the Holy Bible.

And heretics claim the same. Their word against ours. Boatbums vs. FReeperZ each with the same authority - none.

Without the creeds determined by the authority of His Church… without His Church's authority there can be no One Faith, no One Universal, Holy and Apostolic Church.

thanks for your reply.

[Cronos]

No, we cannot "reasonably know" that James and Jude were Jesus' cousins. The Bible specifically mentions brothers and sisters:

Actually, Aramaic and other Semitic languages do not differentiate between a blood brother/sister and a cousin or other

I know it can be difficult for a purely Anglophone person to understand, but some languages just do not have the same differentiations as English.

In the Middle East even today, people may call their cousins as brothers -- that's the same in South Asia

Even if you take it that the Gospels were written in Greek, in Greek they read as ouch outos estin o tekton o uios Marias adelphos de Iakobou Iose kai Iouda kai Simonos -- note adelphos.

If the term is that the adelphoi have the same mother then it would be ho adelphos But that is not used. Without the article adelphos is non-specific and non-exclusive and can mean kinsmen, relatives

[Cronos]

Like I've emphasised before, please do note that a lot of the arguments one has can be just down to language -- a lot of the problems are just because we don't understand that things are expressed differently in different languages and the translation can nearly never be perfect.

but in this case of brothers etc. this is primarily an Anglophone problem, especially since the 1800s (Calvin, Luther, Zwingli etc. believed this to be cousins) when the atomic family really started getting in vogue -- while we don't see this raised or having been raised in societies that still have extended families

In a society where cousins lived together, sometimes even in the same house, the term brother and cousin was and IS analogous -- look at the Middle East and India

[Cronos]

madison, where did you get this Jesus' brothers, who thought Jesus a nut, had scattered to the four winds & did not yet believe in Him as the Christ -- the Gospels don't say that the cousins "scattered to the four winds"

[bkaycee]

The TRUTH? The truth is that this was a forgery, NOT written by James.

So was Matthew 28:19. So was 1 John 5:7. So was Mark 16:9-20. How about the whole of John 21? And a whole raft of others. Do you admit it or not? If yes, then I admire your willingness to grasp what is. If not, then what?

Suspect verses in EXISTING books that do not alter or contradict KNOWN scripture is hardly comparable to a forgery condemned by a Pope!

Is the protevangelium of James part of the Church Canon?

Was the author an eye witness who just happend to be over 150 years old when the forgery was written?

Why are the handul of NT verses about Mary interpreted thru the "Prizm" of this condemned forgery? Aquinas on the forgery: "apocryphal ravings" (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 9, Reply to Objection 3)

[Cronos]

There's absolutely nothing I, you, or anyone else could do to become a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ, the church...

Really? You are not to believe?

Jesus says

• Mk 16:16 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

• Lk 13:3 3I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

• Matt. 24:13 13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

  luke 18 " Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said unto him:.."Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother....Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."

Nothing? you don't have to repent, believe and endure to the end as Jesus Christ said?

your post is filled with the pride that we were warned about. if one does not first have to repent and believe, then why are you wasting your time on this forum? If there are those who are not in the brahmin caste, then aren't your posts just taunts?

[Iscool]

Lousy point. Scripture says that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. That is wife. Scripture says that Mary gave birth to Jesus. That is mother. Mary was born in the Jewish faith and believed. That is child. The sister idea is only for those who do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. That is non Christian. Do you know anything about that, Iscool?

Surely when your Catholic man on the ground interviewed Mary, (cuz how else would you guys know the personal non-biblical life of Mary?) he would have asked Mary if she worshiped the Father/God...Surely she is a child of God, her Father...

That would make Mary a brother of Jesus...

Lousy point. Scripture says that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. That is wife.

You guys crack me up...So the Holy Spirit and Mary had sexual intercourse according to your religion...

I say OUTRAGEOUS...You guys have no business speaking of or commenting on Biblical things...It's clearly above your pay grade...

Two become one flesh (married) upon consumation; sexual union...

Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

God says Mary's husband was Joseph, NOT the Holy Spirit...And again, a marriage is the consumation of a couple...Again Mary and Joseph had sexual relations or God lied...

Put that bible up before you hurt yourself, or more importantly, someone else...

[Mad Dawg]

Dogmas//dogmata. I guess it depends on which language my brain thinks it's speaking. I'm just along for the ride.... But dogmata is the Gk plural of dogma.

It's a good question. I think, as so many things do, it's going to come down to ecclesiology and then to all the "penumbras and emanations" of the Incarnation.

You say "complete obedience to a dogma...". This gets my attention just because the word "obedience" catches in my throat. I would have said "assent."

I can see the idea of certain "assents" being essentially part of being "saved". For a trivial example, one would have to think that there was something one needed to be saved FROM and something to be saved TO.

In some respects, it seems the Catholic attitude is the opposite of the standard contract. With us "The small print giveth and the large print taketh away."

In the large print of various conciliar eruptions:-) we thunder Anathema Sit -- bring me my bell, book, and candle! But in the small print of, say, the Catechism, we are not quite prepared to positively rule out God's grace reaching the unbaptized and, possibly even those who have never heard of Jesus.

I have jokingly imagined that for some Purgatory would include theology classes. For some this would amply fulfill both the painful as well as the remedial aspects of purgation... Have them taught by a very tedious angel who speaks in monotone.

I most emphatically do not agree that to raise the issue is to ask for warfare. It's only if winning arguments takes precedence over winning souls that that must happen.

Even in the midst of all the flying anathemas, in the time I have been in the wars I have managed to learn a very great deal about the difference "Scholastic Realism" makes to the way we think AND I am beginning to learn that we think differently about the total meaning of the Incarnation.

We have a different "metaphysics". Unfortunately "metaphysics"is a word which has taken on a kind of new-agey spooky magical aspect. So discussing it is often ruled out at the outset.

And when one actually gets into it, it's FAR more a matter of crossing t's and dotting i's. It appeals to the kind of person who thinks that questions like "What is a 'thing', anyway?" or "What do we mean when we say 'Deed'?" are just the coolest things. Yeah, I'm guilty of that.

Anyway,I guess I think the FIRST task of this sort of conversation is to try to understand what the other person is saying well enough to be able to say it back to him in a way he accepts.

And I think in most of the Religion Forum exchanges most of us balk at that first jump. And so the whole thing explodes.

We are trying to reach some kind of agreement on the most wonderful and beautiful thing conceivable! How does it so often torn out to be so ugly? Somebody said the other day why do we ask for mercy when it has been granted? I guess I'd answer: look at the Religion Forum and tell me we don't need mercy...

[Iscool]

Actually you didn't. And I gave you the verses which say that the office was given to Peter. I might add that the example of Joseph in Genesis 21 is relevant, as is:

Isaiah 21: 20 5 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; 21 I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 6 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. 23 I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family; 24 7 On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.

Isa 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
Isa 22:21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. Isa 22:23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house. Isa 22:24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

No...You're not telling me that your religion plucked these verses out of the bible so somehow justify the office of your popery...And your Kingdom of God???

HaHaHaHaHa...

[OLD REGGIE]

Lousy point. Scripture says that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. That is wife.

When did God marry Mary? Did Mary commit bigamy when she also married Joseph?

[Iscool]

"Did Mary have other children?"

Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore no man shall enter it. Ezekial 44:1 >

You guys searched over 30,000 verses trying to find something that said Mary had no more children and this is the very best you could do...

Eze 44:1 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut.
Eze 44:2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
Eze 44:3 It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.
Eze 44:4 Then brought he me the way of the north gate before the house: and I looked, and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD: and I fell upon my face.

But what about Mary's North Gate???

HaHaHaHaHa...You guys are killing me...

[OLD REGGIE]

The Septuagint was written in Alexandria, by the way.

The Torah was translated by 72 Jewish scholars into Greek for the library of Alexandria in ---- > 300 BC <---- and that has NOTHING to do with Augustine or any of the others you mentioned .

The 70, 72, (whatever) scholars is a legend . How true is anybody's guess.

In any event there was no single Septuagint.

[Lera]

Exactly
They only translated the Torrah (first 5 books) for the library of Alexandria

Codex Alexandria is not this

[Lera]

Exactly
They only translated the Torah (first 5 books) for the library of Alexandria

Codex Alexandria is not this