[dangus]

Actually, the changing use of the genitive is excellently demonstrated here to make the Catholic point of view.

οὐκ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων ὁ υἱὸς Μαρίας ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσῆ καὶ Ἰούδα καὶ Σίμωνος

The genitive exists before “Maria,” but not before “adelphos.”

Because while James, Josa, Juda and Simon have many brothers, Mary has only one child.

Even the Greek Orthodox who refuse to accept that adelphos is a mere translation of an Aramaic word, and so insist that James, Joseph, Judas and Simon are brothers of Christ, nonetheless they insist that Mary has only one child. The others, they reason, must be children of Joseph from a previous marriage.

[kinsman redeemer]

οὐκ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων ὁ υἱὸς Μαρίας ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσῆ καὶ Ἰούδα καὶ Σίμωνος

Ah-HA!

[Springfield Reformer]

The genitive exists before “Maria,” but not before “adelphos.”

Sorry, but the genitive being "before" Mary but "not before" brother is a serious misconstruction of the text:

 3 Oux outos estin ho tektwn, ho uios Marias, adelphos de Iakwbou kai Iwse kai Iouda kai Simwnos; Kai ouk eisin ai adelphai autou wde pros emas; kai eskandalitzonto en autw.

(my apologies for the home-made transliteration, but with the special character glitch on FR, my Greek font isn't working)

Somewhat too literally, this renders as:

[Is] not this is the carpenter, the son of Mary, brother of Jacob [James] and of Jose and of Judah and of Simon; and [are] not the sisters of him [Jesus] here with us; and they were shocked/angered by him.

Notice that adelphos ("brother") refers back to Jesus.  Position is NOT the key issue with the genitive. There is no "before" or "after."  The genitive term itself is modified (inflected) to show ownership.  The variation in form is what makes it genitive, not position.  Position just helps you figure out who owns what.

Grammatically then, the possessive structures of "son of Mary" and "brother of Jacob" are identical.  Mary is genitive to Jesus, just like Jacob and all the other brothers and sisters are  genitive in relation to Jesus.  As I said, no "before" versus "after."  That just isn't how this structure works in the Greek. Jesus is just as much a brother to His brothers as He is a son to His mother. That's the Greek. Sorry.

Speaking of adelphos, the Louw-Nida Lexicon based on semantic Domains indicates that the alleged "cousin" sense of the term, supposedly based on a Hebrew term, simply isn't attested in the Greek.  So yes, I would reject that theory for lack of evidence.

As for the opinion of the Greek Orthodox, they are a biased witness.  Their tradition is nearly as committed to erroneous Marian dogma as Rome.  I do not believe they could approach a passage such as this and accept on face value that it really is talking about brothers and sisters of Jesus, even if historically and linguistically that was the best understanding.  Therefore it would be almost be necessary for them to put forward a theory of children of Joseph from a previous marriage, despite a complete absence of Biblical evidence.

Peace,

SR