Did Jesus Have Brothers?

Asiaprod

Can anyone explain the following for me as I find it quite confusing?

When researching sources of Jesus in non-Christian texts for something I am doing, I found that one of the most often quoted passages comes from the "Jewish Antiquities," completed in A.D. 93 by Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.
The passage cites the execution in A.D. 62 of "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, James by name."

This has me baffled as I thought that Jesus was Christ and it is still not 100% sure that he even had a brother. When I dug further I found Jesus’ siblings 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. Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Jesus also had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:55-56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother pray for Him. Later in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood siblings. There is no Biblical reason to believe that these siblings are not the actual children of Mary and Joseph. They were obviously born after Jesus, because Jesus was born of a virgin (Isa 7:14; Luke 1:26-38).

Would any one like to try to clear this up for me, it is a genuine question, and not a plant for a debate. Excelsior, I am sure you have a good explanation for me, i.e. what is the official position on this
Thanks in advance to all who answer.

Excelsior

The Bishop of Durham, NT Wright, delivered a lecture in St. Patricks' Maynooth in the autumn. His topic was "Paul as Preacher: Then and Now" but he tangentially touched on many issues, taking his opportunity as an evangelical Protestant to influence the upper echelons of the Catholic hierarchy in this country.

One of the most amusing moments in a night filled with theological laughs (oh the laughter! ) was when he mentioned, while discussing the agrarian and working class roots of the early church, the recorded case of James' sons being brought before the Emperor on charges of claiming to be members of the Royal family. This was obviously some confused middle beauracrats idea of criminal prosecution because the two men successfully defended themselves by showing their hard worn labourers hands. "How", they argued, "could a member of the Emperor's family have hands like these?"

At the end of the anecdote, Wright quipped, "You may not have realised Jesus had nephews. But Jesus had nephews."

Roman Catholic theology on this issue has been bound by their adoration of Mary in the role of "perpetual virgin". To persist in holding Mary up as an idealised expression of some kind of pure motherhood, it is vital that she never had sex. The Gospel testimony shows an entirely different picture and suggests that Mary and Joseph were a normal married couple who had children.

The Catholic translation of the word that the NIV calls brother is cousin because there have been cases in greek literature where cousins were regarded as brothers. Working off the assumption that Mary never sinned and therefore never had sex (since sex is bad, dontcha know), they conclude that James must be a brother in the same way that cousins are brothers.

It doesn't hold up though. Jesus had siblings. Well, half siblings.

(It gets interesting though when you look into the evidence about the Roman church. The Pope is nothing more than the Bishop of Rome (stemming from the first couple of hundred years when the Roman Catholic church didn't yet exist) and Peter wasn't the first Bishop of Rome. James was. So Jesus' brother, Mary's son, was in fact, some would argue, the first Pope. That undermines the "Rock upon which I build my church" interpretation.)

robindch

...yeah, I was going to point out what Excelsior has just done ahead of me -- that 'brother' doesn't always mean your biological sibling, but can refer to what we call "cousins". Current usage of russian (and I'm sure plenty of other languages) has the same ambiguity.

More generally, this points up one of my old hobby horses, that the bible contains so much stuff on so many topics, that you can really read absolutely whatever you like into it, from Excelsior's relatively calm and collected "moral code", to Vangelis' vindictive sanctimoniousness.

Excelsior

I would never claim that the Bible (contained) represented a moral code Robin. The Bible is not an instruction manual for life. I don't think that Christians are sanctimonious or arrogant or narrow minded because of the Bible but that some sanctimonious, arrogant and narrow minded people become Christians, myself included.


Edited to ammend "contained" which was the initial sentence, to what was intended, "represented".

robindch

> I would never claim that the Bible contained a moral code Robin.

I was referring to this posting of yours which seemed (to me anyway) to imply that you did.

> The Bible is not an instruction manual for life.

Agreed, but many people seem to think so (even your good self, on occasion, wrt the attitude that one should have to homosexuality).

> I don't think that Christians are sanctimonious or arrogant or narrow
> minded because of the Bible but that some sanctimonious, arrogant
> and narrow minded people become Christians

Again, agreed -- we're making excellent progress! Should have this religion business cleared up before lunchtime...

The point I've been making in between other posts on this board for a while is that the bible, and its various interpretations, have simply evolved to appeal to different people's basic prejudices, or basic good intentions. Unfortunately, it seems to me that people are too rarely motivated to *undirected* good deeds by the text of the bible, and far more to directed prejudice or deeds directed towards sustaining the belief system as it stands. I'm be happy to be shown to be wrong on this, but I think it unlikely.

Excelsior

I have edited the glaringly nonsenical comment I made above. Sorry for the confusion.

In the post you linked to I was arguing that the atheistic assertion that God exists only to support a moral code does not line up with the actual content of the Bible. In no way did I mean to imply that the Bible was a moral code to live by.

The Bible is certainly often used as you have described. I might even, on a controversial day, agree that religion exists as an explanation or carrier for people's prejudices.

But read the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament right through and you will see that it is not a flight of the Pauline imagination to read the Bible as one long over-arching story of a God who seeks us out. (Not to suggest for a moment that acknowledging this message means that the message is true!)

As such, the message of the Bible is anti-religious. Grace, at its core, is anti-establishment phenomenon that seeks to replace ritual and religious practice and piety with a thriving living relationship with God.

Forgive me if I have slipped into preacher mode but what I am trying to say is that I would quite appreciate you clearing the religion mess up before lunchtime because I'd be freed from the shackles of self righteous religious people obscuring the issue.

robindch

> As such, the message of the Bible is anti-religious. Grace, at its core,
> is anti-establishment phenomenon that seeks to replace ritual and
> religious practice and piety with a thriving living relationship with God.

I'll happily agree with you that Christ is occasionally portrayed in the text of the NT as an anti-establishment figure, out taking potshots at the scribes, Pharisees and assorted high priests.

However, I'll also happily assert that other than those few happy incidents, his principal legacy to humanity has been to produce far larger numbers of exactly the same kind of scribes, Pharisees and assorted high priests that he originally objected to. Which would make many suspect that the bulk of his modern-day followers are either wildly misguided, or else that Christ was simply unaware of what he was creating. Or both, of course.

> I'd be freed from the shackles of self righteous religious people
> obscuring the issue.

hmm... by accepting the perfection of their own "belief system(s)", our fundamentalist colleagues do seem to find it impossible to be anything other than cringingly self-righteous. Oh, well.

BrianCalgary

Asiaprod, I agree with Excelsiors post. I can't add anything to it. It is one of the reasons we stopped going to RC church was the Marian theology and that her ever virginity is based on the writings of a few men (Frances of Assissi being one) as opposed to the truth as written in the Bible and historical fact.

Notwithstanding that God wanted us elsewhere.

alantc

Excelsior, what are you talking about.

James was not the first bishop of Rome. James was never in Rome. He was the first bishop of Jerusalem.

Catholic bibles do not translate brother into cousin. They use either brother or brethren. A quick example is Galatians 1:19 -- "James the brother of the Lord". That quote is from the Catholic Rheims version of 1582; no Catholic conspiracy there.

The gospels do not show an "entirely different picture". Do you really think that the Church fathers (who weren't too far from Jesus in years -- Irenaeus knew Polycarp who knew John) were stupid and that we are only getting sense now? Jesus' brethren, according to Orthodox tradition, are Joseph's children from a previous marriage. Catholic tradition says they are Jesus' cousins. I have read that there was no aramaic word for cousin, which would back up the Catholic tradition. Yes, I know, the gospels were written (perhaps excluding Matthew) in Greek.

Where is the story of James's sons being brought before the emperor? It may be in Josephus, but I have never heard of it before.

Charis

Alantc, I have actually wondered about that position. If Joseph had other kids then who did he leave them with when he and Mary went to Bethlehem. It also seems curious that Mary, as his second wife, wouldn't stay home to mind the other children, if one believes there were other children from a previous marriage, instead of going to Bethlehem. I am assuming that the first wife must have died for Joseph to remarry, according to this line of thinking?

BTW, I have friends who are greek and they did confirm that you can translate it cousins as well. However the part where it mentions brothers and sisters I forgot to ask about. What about the sisters? Does anyone know how that translates?

alantc

Back in them days, Joseph's kids would only have had to be about fourteen for him to leave them behind. So he could have been 35 and Mary 15 and that would have covered that. Of course, extended family back then would have taken care of the children.

I'm not sure if sisters was in the original, maybe that's inclusive language. But I'd say it can refer to a female relation too.

Asiaprod

This is interesting debate, I for one have never believed in the Mary issue and have actually always felt it was a cover-up to maintain the concept of the virgin birth and Mary's special status. Does not sound good having one virgin birth for the son of man only to turn around and then suddenly discover the joys of sex and breed more offspring. I firmly believe that the early church fathers deliberately covered this up. Can certainly understand their action given what they were trying to do at the time. Makes me wonder what else they did.
I am also opposed to the idea that Peter was the first Pope. From all descriptions we could not exactly call him a diplomat and he was a rather coarse character (typed with respect), was married, and the killer for me, was NEVER buried in Rome. As a matter of fact, I remember reading that there was no evidence that he ever went to Rome in the first place. His bones in St Peters in Rome have been proven to be a mixture of bones that include male bones (from 3 different individuals, female bones, cattle bones and a mouse, He is actually buried in Flavius something or other in the holy land. I can supply the links if requested.
Which brings up another issue, how about these apparitions by Mary, any takers on this one?

Asiaprod

Thats a relief, finally cleared it all up:

if the Roman terminology is correct and Mary is to be called God’s mother, then Joseph was God’s step-father, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were God’s brothers, Elizabeth was God’s aunt, John the Baptist was God’s cousin, Heli was God’s grandfather, and Adam was God’s 59th great grandfather.

Clear as day.

NewOxfordReview

The title "Mother of God" originated in an attempt to combat the Nestorian heresy. Mary wasn't the "Mother of God" in the way your mother existed before you and created you. She is the mother of Christ's humanity, which is inseperable from his divinity.

"Mother of God" is the english translation of the Greek theotokos, or God Bearer. If you deny this, you deny Jesus was God. "The Word was God ... The Word became flesh" (John 1) ... "born of a woman" (Gal 4:4).

Peter wasn't the only pope to be a bad diplomat, have relations with women and not be buried in Rome. Nevertheless, the evidence still all points to him having died in Rome. Please do provide the link. First century sources such as Clement's letter even say he went and died in Rome. Jesus said "when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and take you where you do not want to go". A reference to Peter's crucifixion?

howdareyou

Excelsior?

BrianCalgary

It's interesting to read the opinions as people compare Roman Catholic tradition to Biblical truth and then deny Christianity because the two don't match. Just my observation.

Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. After Jesus' birth her and Joseph would have produced other offspring, including James. The ever virginity of Mary was first proposed by, I think Origen (correct me if I'm wrong) and then expanded upon by St Francis of Assissi. Mary being the "Mother of God' is a misnomer as she is the Mother of Jesus' humanity, as Mother of God would indicate a pre-existence of God or a creation of Jesus at the time of conception, both positions being biblically incorrect.

Sisters aren't mentioned because being women they wouldn't have mattered, in the culture of the time. That is what alsomade Jesus so amazing was his rebellious attitude toward the culture by valuing women and welcoming them into His ministry.

Roman Catholicism has many man made traditions that is why we should test everything against scripture, which is the truthful word of God.

NewOxfordReview

>scripture, which is the truthful word of God.

How do you know this? The Catholic Church says so! And it confirmed it after Origen and Ephesus!

pchead

One of the only things I can remember from Secondary School religion is something that puzzled me greatly at the time. Having just seen the title of this thread, it has stirred my memory!!

In Luke 2:6, when describing the birth of Jesus, it is described as follows:

"...and she (Mary) gave birth to a son, her first born"

Is the term "first born" used to signify that she had never given birth before, or to indicate the first of more than one.

I never got a satisfactory answer to this quote.

BrianCalgary

NewOxfordReview wrote:

>scripture, which is the truthful word of God.

How do you know this? The Catholic Church says so! And it confirmed it after Origen and Ephesus!

It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church nor Origen. It has to do with the reliability of the New Testament.

Is our copy as it was written? Yes.

The events were never disputed by Christianities opponents at the time.

The followers of Christ were prepared to die for their claim of who Jesus is, and in some cases die horribly. This is the basis for my trust in the scriptures.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church nor Origen. It has to do with the reliability of the New Testament.

Is our copy as it was written? Yes.

The events were never disputed by Christianities opponents at the time.

The followers of Christ were prepared to die for their claim of who Jesus is, and in some cases die horribly. This is the basis for my trust in the scriptures.

If I'm prepared to die for my claim that pink unicorns exist, will you trust me?

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

If I'm prepared to die for my claim that pink unicorns exist, will you trust me?

No. Because you would have to come up with the unicorn performing some miracles as Jesus did. As well as raise itself from the dead. And it will all have to be done without the aid of a few pints of Guinness either.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

No. Because you would have to come up with the unicorn performing some miracles as Jesus did. As well as raise itself from the dead. And it will all have to be done without the aid of a few pints of Guinness either.

What if I got a book of accounts of it that people wrote from awhile back? So you'd never be able to see the miracles themselves, but the book would insist they had been done?

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

What if I got a book of accounts of it that people wrote from awhile back? So you'd never be able to see the miracles themselves, but the book would insist they had been done?

Then the testimonies would have to be tested for their biographical reliability.

Gaillimhtaibhse

Asiaprod wrote:

Can anyone explain the following for me as I find it quite confusing?

When researching sources of Jesus in non-Christian texts for something I am doing, I found that one of the most often quoted passages comes from the "Jewish Antiquities," completed in A.D. 93 by Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.
The passage cites the execution in A.D. 62 of "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, James by name."

This has me baffled as I thought that Jesus was Christ and it is still not 100% sure that he even had a brother.

I promised myself never to talk religion or politics on these boards...but this is my 100th post and breaking rules can sometimes be fun!

If you move from literal to metaphor, perhaps some resolution may be had? When I last read parts of the Old Testament (When on a student retreat and got trapped with lads and lasses in a monestary with nothing else to read), I found it rife with metaphors. The Benedictines I was with would debate this, but some agreed, too. That was the only way I could understand it. If I took it literally, in many cases, it made no sense at all.

Regarding non-Christian texts, have you read anything by Max Weber and his study of the Jewish faith? I believe that you may find support for the use of metaphors in his work. The Benedictines brought Weber up, to counter-balance one of our discussions. Josephus came up in this context, too, but I cannot recall specific citations, just being a babe in the woods when it comes to religious talk. They also drank increasing amounts of wine as the nights would progress... And my focus was not on theology at the time, but rather trying to obtain an "appreciation" for monastic life, so that I could play a role on the stage with some authenticity.

robindch

> It has to do with the reliability of the New Testament.
> Is our copy as it was written? Yes.

Actually, no.

Here in Dublin, you can pop down to the Chester Beatty Library and see a page or two of the earliest existing text of the Letter of Paul to the Romans, which even on this tiny section has transcription errors* from the usual Koine Greek text. A picture of this exhibit is here.

> The followers of Christ were prepared to die for their claim of who
> Jesus is, and in some cases die horribly. This is the basis for my
> trust in the scriptures.

That's not a very good reason -- what about the tens of thousands of people murdered (for example) by the Inqusition? Does that mean that you accept the beliefs of these unfortunate dead, instead of the beliefs of their christian murderers? And what about Japanese Kamikaze pilots or WTC bombers? Are these beliefs correct too, simply because some people are prepared to die?

No idea about anybody else here, but if somebody is prepared to die for an idea, then I'd suggest that this says rather more about the irrationality of the believer, rather than the inerrancy of the belief. Others clearly disagree.

(*) It could be one of the other exhibits, as it's been a couple of years since I was last in the CBL.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Actually, no.

Here in Dublin, you can pop down to the Chester Beatty Library and see a page or two of the earliest existing text of the Letter of Paul to the Romans, which even on this tiny section has transcription errors* from the usual Koine Greek text. A picture of this exhibit is here.

Since I can't read Greek or this transcript, what is the transcription error?

NewOxfordReview

Errors aside, you believe because of the martyrs. But they didn't die for the bible; it hadn't been written!

robindch

> Since I can't read Greek or this transcript, what is the transcription error?

As I said, it's been a couple of years since I was at the CBL and I can't recall if it was this text, or another one, and it's certainly not mentioned on the website which is a bit of a pity.

But when you visit the place on a guided tour, they do point out that there are transcription errors present in every ancient text, then show an example of one on one of their manuscript fragments which AFAIR, is the oldest one (which is the one I mentioned). Do check it up though, as it may be one of the other ones, though I believe I'm recalling correctly.

The guide also mentioned that the transcription error(s) highlighted by this text have been rolled back in more modern editions of the Koine.

BrianCalgary

NewOxfordReview wrote:

Errors aside, you believe because of the martyrs. But they didn't die for the bible; it hadn't been written!

They didn't die for the Bible, they died because they professed Christ as the Messiah and God. It is one of the reasons I believe the events in the NT to be true.

robindch

> They didn't die for the Bible, they died because they professed Christ as
> the Messiah and God. It is one of the reasons I believe the events in the
> NT to be true.

You haven't answered the question I asked a few days ago -- if the fact of people dying for an idea is good enough to be a reason for you to believe the idea, then how do you deal with -- picking something current -- the ideas of the (alleged) thousands of people who've died for the Falun Gong idea in China? Does an idea become more acceptable if more people die for it? If not, why not? Does reason play any part in this process, or is the fact of death sufficient on its own?

Also, since you haven't commented upon the early texts from the CBL, can I assume that you accept that the usual translations of the bible contain (at least) transcription errors?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> They didn't die for the Bible, they died because they professed Christ as
> the Messiah and God. It is one of the reasons I believe the events in the
> NT to be true.

You haven't answered the question I asked a few days ago -- if the fact of people dying for an idea is good enough to be a reason for you to believe the idea, then how do you deal with -- picking something current -- the ideas of the (alleged) thousands of people who've died for the Falun Gong idea in China? Does an idea become more acceptable if more people die for it? If not, why not? Does reason play any part in this process, or is the fact of death sufficient on its own??

I did answer. It is ONE of the reasons, coupled with the fact that the events of the NT were not disputed at the time it was written. Nobody disputed the empty tomb, the miracles, or the ministry of Christ. The martyrs died as a result of their refusal to deny the Messiah-ship of Jesus of Nazareth and their testimony and witness to His resurrection.

As for the Falun Gong, I believe that they are fighting for the right to freedom of speech and religion, which I would consider a just cause. As Christians are jailed for their profession of faith in China. It also is a blend of different faiths, all of which have been devised by man. Whereas Christianity is God reaching down to man to offer a chance of redemption. He also had Himself tortured and beaten in the process.

robindch wrote:

[Also, since you haven't commented upon the early texts from the CBL, can I assume that you accept that the usual translations of the bible contain (at least) transcription errors?

Sorry, but there haven't been specifics given on the transcript mentioned. Also were does it fit with the other 24,000 manuscripts that exist of the NT.

bus77

No, he had no brothers. It's clear from the encounters he had and his dealings with others that he had the singular nature of an only-child.

Excelsior

Bus, its seems from your conclusions that you trust the veracity of the accounts in the Gospel a great deal.

Which then prompts the question why you claim him to be a lone child when it explicitly recounts his siblings pleading with him to come home.

bus77

Excelsior wrote:

Bus, its seems from your conclusions that you trust the veracity of the accounts in the Gospel a great deal.

Which then prompts the question why you claim him to be a lone child when it explicitly recounts his siblings pleading with him to come home.

Scofflaw

Just to add my two cents - although I would have to dig quite deep to find my original source!

One of the books I was reading on early Church history suggested that there was a schism in the early body of Christ's followers into those who felt the message should be promulgated only to the Jews, and the others who felt that it should be extended to the Gentiles. I believe the main proponents were Peter and Paul respectively.

As far as I recall, there was a strong element in the non-Gentile 'church' of respecting the sanctity of Christ's relatives (much as in Islam), and regarding the family of Jesus (down the lineages) as the Holy Family, in charge of the church by virtue of inheritance.

The theory suggested was that part of the 'suppression' of the non-Gentile/lineal schism involved the evolution of the cousins rather than brothers position.

I mention it because (a) no-one else has (possibly because it's utter rubbish!), and (b) because it would make the Roman Church the Pauline Church rather than the Petrine as it claims.


regards,
Scofflaw

bus77

Excelsior wrote:

Bus, its seems from your conclusions that you trust the veracity of the accounts in the Gospel a great deal.

Which then prompts the question why you claim him to be a lone child when it explicitly recounts his siblings pleading with him to come home.

I'm sorry for that delayed post earlier, and the following smiley. I was feeling a bit low when I wrote that, but the nephews calling him back bit cheered me up genuinley.