Brothers and Sisters?

OSV.com ^ | 05-01-17 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Brothers and Sisters?

Q. I know that the Church believes in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but what are we to make of the passages in the Gospel that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters?

Rose, via email

A. There are a number of places in the New Testament (see Mk 3:31-34; 6:3; Mt 12:46; 13:55; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 2:12; 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; and 1 Cor 9:5) where Jesus’ kinsfolk are mentioned using terms such as “brother” (adelphos), “sister” (adelphe) or “brethren” (adelphoi). But “brother” has a wider meaning both in the Scriptures and at the time they were written. It is not restricted to our literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother in the sense of sibling.

Even in the Old Testament “brother” had a wide range of meaning. In the Book of Genesis, for example, Lot is called Abraham’s brother (see 14:14), but his father was Haran — Abraham’s brother (Gn 11:26-28). So, Lot was actually a nephew of Abraham.

The term “brother” could also refer widely to friends or mere political allies (see 2 Sm 1:26; Am 1:9). Thus, in family relationships, “brother” could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended. We use words like kinsmen and cousins today, but the ancient Jews did not.

In fact, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word meaning “cousin.” They used terms such as “brother,” “sister” or, more rarely, “kin” or “kinsfolk” (syngenis) — sometimes translated as “relative” in English.

James, for example, whom St. Paul called the “brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19), is identified by Paul as an apostle and is usually understood to be James the Younger. But James the Younger is elsewhere identified as the son of Alphaeus (also called Clopas) and his wife, Mary (see Mt 10:3; Jn 19:25). Even if James the Greater were meant by St. Paul, it is clear that he is from the Zebedee family, and not a son of Mary or a brother of Jesus (in the strict modern sense) at all.

The early Church was aware of the references to Jesus’ brethren, but was not troubled by them, teaching and handing on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This is because the terms referring to Jesus’ brethren were understood in the wider, more ancient sense. Widespread confusion about this began to occur after the 16th century with the rise of Protestantism and the loss of understanding the semantic nuances of ancient family terminology.

[Elsie]

When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

[Elsie]

Just because Scripture is silent on something, does not give anyone license to make stuff up and claim that it happened and is the truth.

Well!!

With an attitude like THIS, it is apparent that YOU will never start YOUR own religion!!

[Elsie]

‘Tis a fitting reply for a fella half-way to the... NUMBER!

[Elsie]

I didn’t promise you a rose garden!

[af_vet_1981]

I assume these are the two questions from post 188 you keep referring to and complaining that were unanswered :


1. If these were children from Joseph's prior marriage would not the Jews had referred to them as Joseph's children?
   
   
2. If you were to introduce someone as your brother/sister would people begin to ask...are they from another marriage of your dad's? Are these your cousins? etc.

These questions were already answered here:

The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty two, Protestant verses twenty three to twenty nine,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

Although groups such as the Pharisees and Mormons support your position, the Greek Orthodox do not.

A Consistent and Unbroken Tradition

The question could be inverted. Why not believe in her ever-virginity? The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.

Indeed, to suggest (a) that the tradition about her perpetual virginity could have been introduced after apostolic times, (b) that this tradition would have gone little noticed by a Church in the throes of questioning everything about what it believed in the first millennium, (c) that such a novel tradition should be considered inconsequential enough to pass without discussion before it became universally proclaimed, and (d) that such a tradition should have no discernible literary or geographical origin and yet be universally accepted from very early in the Church's history, is to form a very unlikely hypothesis.

...

The Lord's "Brothers"

There are several questions based on Scripture that are often raised by those skeptical about the doctrine of ever-virginity. The first of these involves the passages which state explicitly that the Lord had "brothers." There are nine such passages: Matthew 12:46-47 and 13:55-56; Mark 3:31-32 and 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12 and 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; and 1-Corinthians 9:5. The Greek word used in all these passages and generally translated "brother" is adelphos.

The Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by the Apostles (abbreviated LXX) includes specific words for "cousin," notably adelphinos and anepsios, but they are rarely used. The less specific word adelphos, which can mean "brother," "cousin," "kinsman," "fellow believer," or "fellow countryman," is used consistently throughout the LXX, even when cousin or kinsman is clearly the relation described (such as in Genesis 14:14, 16; 29:12; Leviticus 25:49; Jeremiah 32:8, 9, 12; Tobit 7:2; etc.). Lot, for instance, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Genesis 11:27-31), is called his brother in Genesis 13:8 and 11:14-16. The point is that the commonly used Greek word for a male relative, adelphos, can be translated "cousin" or "brother" if no specific family relation is indicated.

Is there anywhere a clear statement in the Scriptures establishing Jesus brothers as literally the children of Mary? In fact, there is not. Nowhere is Mary explicitly stated to be the mother of Jesus' brothers. The formula for speaking of the Lord's family is "His mother and His brothers." In Mark the possessive, anavtou"of Him," is inserted before both "His mother" and "His brothers," making a clear distinction. In Acts 1:14, the separation is more pronounced: "Mary the mother of Jesus, and His brothers." Some manuscripts use the conjunctive syn "along with, in company with," so that the text reads "Mary the mother of Jesus, along with His brothers." In any case, Mary is never identified as the mother of Jesus' brothers (nor they as her children), but only as the Mother of Jesus

[af_vet_1981]

Since FR rules say I should not ask you more than three times, this is the last time.
...
have you been born again?

Yes

Does your righteousness (not the righteousness of the Messiah, but your righteousness) exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees ?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses seventeen to twenty two,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[ealgeone]

You’re handling of scripture is a novelty.

[Gamecock]

What Rome is really saying, and acting out with a celibate priesthood, is that the marriage bed is somehow defiled by intimate relations by a husband and wife.

Which of course is unBiblical as well.

[ealgeone]

Try post 202.

[af_vet_1981]

But perhaps you’ll take a stab at my question I’ve asked of Mrs d and afvet. Neither is willing to answer.

Which post did you mean with the claim that I was not willing to answer ?

[af_vet_1981]

But perhaps you’ll take a stab at my question I’ve asked of Mrs d and afvet. Neither is willing to answer.

202 posted on 5/14/2017, 2:59:26 PM by ealgeone

was not addressed to me. If that is the post you meant with your comment to omegatoo, it was wrong.

[af_vet_1981]

In v46-47 the Jews have identified His mother and His brothers. They understand this is His family.

The context can only mean one understanding. The brothers mentioned here are Mary's other children.

No, it is a false assertion that the context can only mean one understanding.

There remain two other possibilities in which They understand this is His family. Perhaps you are looking through your own cultural lens when accepting A Consistent and Unbroken Tradition is the straight and narrow path. Either of these explanations fit.
1. Joseph had other children with another woman and they are Jesus' brethren.
2. Jesus' brethren are cousins and still his family.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “I’ll couch my insults more craftily hereafter.” <<

LOL!

That is the name of the game my FRiend.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “ but now; after all these centuries; the shear weight of tradition, history and practice makes it true; right?” <<

Unfortunately, that covers the preponderance of so-called “christian” doctrine:

Jer 16:19
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Protestants refer to Scripture about 80% of the time. Catholics refer to Scripture about 20% of the time.” <<

And the Notzerim refer to scripture ALL of the time!
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Uh... the NT’s original language was Greek” <<

If you read the Greek carefully, and with understanding of the OT scriptures, you will soon see that it cannot be true.

They are mostly poorly translated from Hebrew, the only language in which any the apostles were literate.

None of the apostles even spoke Greek minimally. Do you recall the Centurian in the Acts asking Paul if he could speak Greek?

The Maccabee revolt spelled the total rejection of all things Greek in Judea, centuries earlier. Jews all spoke Hebrew.

The Greek translations were probably the product of 3rd and 4th century evangelism.
.

[MHGinTN]

I've waited three days to post this response, prayed about and thought about. Gonna post it, m'Lady:

Dear One, which parent, Mary or Joseph, is in the line from David? If you see the term 'seed of the woman' in only physical perspective, how do you read Rev 12? GOD chose Israel as HIS bride. She is the 'woman' who cries out in pain at birthing the Messiah, the Messiah Who is caught up to Heaven before satan can devour Him.

My point, albeit a point apparently never addressed before, is that God would not defraud Joseph. If Mary brought an orphan child into her arms and nursed that child, and washed and clothed that child, and loved that child and raised that child, while married to Joseph, she would not be violating her marriage vows to Joseph, vows which put all her genetic future as his, not shared with another.

When Joseph took Mary to be his wife, regardless of her being pregnant by the Holy Spirit, I conclude that Joseph adopted Jesus thus Jesus is in the line of Joseph and whom Joseph is descended. By Mary taking the role of mothering Jesus, Jesus is in the line of those from whom Mary is descended. The Gospel of Luke gives us those lineages.

IF Jesus was conceived as a union of sperm and egg, that would say God inseminated Mary. That would defraud Joseph. IF God used an ovum from Mary and created Jesus without a spermatozoon, that would also defraud Joseph of his right as sole husband to Mary's genetic future. IF, on the other hand, God made the embryonic Jesus by His will, not using an ovum from Mary or a spermatozoon, then the Holy Spirit implanted the embryonic Jesus in Mary's womb, BY HER CONSENT AND JOSEPH"S AGREEMENT, then GOD has not defrauded Joseph because Mary being a surrogate Mother to the baby is an agreed adoption by both supporting parents. And we have BIBLE evidence that Mary AND Joseph took the roles of parent and were still doing so at Jesus's age of twelve, at the very least.

My point is aimed at the very specious Catholicism nature of claiming 'GOD used a genetic gamete from Mary, thus Mary is so specially touched by GOD (as HIS inseminated wife) that she obtains goddesshood!' IF an ovum from Mary was used or inseminated by God, do you see what this means regarding 'extra-human quality for Mary', and for defrauding of Joseph?

At the very base of Catholicism's Mariology is this stealthy impugning of God's character. We see the same impugning of God's character in the Catholicism eucharist, where Catholicism claims JESUS violated the commandment to not eat the blood by feeding His flesh and blood to the disciples on the night before the crucifixion! GOD is not duplicitous. GOD is not a defrauder. GOD is not a liar. God does not play trickster. Catholicism makes GOD to be a law violator (He cannot violate His own laws, but to feed a law violation to the disciples is to make them to violate HIS law against blood eating).

It is not suprising that Catholics refuse to see this. Mrs Don-o even acknowledges she sees the implications but tries to twist the reality to fit dogma by claiming Mary and Joseph consented because their marriage was an agreed chastity for life! So, God is seen as inseminating Mary as HIS wife, raising Mary to goddesshood! Don't buy the demonic impugning of God meant to give goddess status to Mary!

You are absolutely right that we do not know the particulars of HOW God made the body of Jesus, whether a spermatozoon and an ovum were used or only by God's Will the embryonic Jesus was formed, but to claim an ovum from Mary was used has implications I am trying so hard to point out to thinking people, thinking Christians!

[ealgeone]

Yet we have no record of these other children when Jospeh and Mary had to register for the taxes. The argument is dismissed.

The word for cousin or relative is not used in the passage as previously noted. The argument is dismissed.

[Luircin]

I’ll believe you when you can produce an original Hebrew manuscript that’s older than the Koine ones we have.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Placemarker