I have to say that I disagree with Bart’s assessment when he says that it is almost certain that Jesus’ brothers and sisters mentioned in the gospels are indeed the sons and daughters of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Bart’s argument is that there is nothing in the gospels to suggest otherwise, and that the word “adelphoi” almost certainly refers to them being the sons and daughters of Mary. I disagree with both points.
- First of all, the gospels do not give enough context to determine this. For example, from the Gospel of Mark (Mark 6:3), it seems that Jesus has at the very least about 6 siblings (if not more)… Now go to the Gospel of Luke (Luke 1:26-38), where Mary is told by the Angel that she will conceive a child, and she is astonished at the very insinuation that she will conceive. If Luke had in mind that Mary would ordinarily give birth to 6 more children at least, what is the point of her astonishment? Next, why doesn’t Luke account for the many siblings when Jesus is lost in the temple at the age of 12(Luke 2:41-52)? Regardless of whether you believe these stories are historical or not, obviously their creator should have accounted for 6 siblings he believed Jesus had. Now, Bart may argue that these chapters were not original to Luke. Unfortunately for him, the oddities continue. Aside from the fact that the gospels never refer to the brothers and sisters as the sons of Mary, when they do with Jesus… Gospel of John contains an interesting story. When Jesus is crucified, Jesus takes the time to find a place for his bereaved mother. He entrusts her to the beloved disciple so that she may not be alone (John 19:25-29). Once again, completely leaving the many supposed children of Mary completely unaccounted for.
- Secondly, is the issue that “brothers of the Lord” may have evolved into a title in the early Church to collectively denote the people who were close to Jesus before his ministry, or in some way related. This idea can be supported by how Paul refers to James as the brother of the Lord to denote his standing in the Church in Galatians (Galatians 1:19), and also by how the “brothers of the Lord” particularly James, and according to later traditions, Jude too, held high positions in the early Church. This idea is all the more supported by the fact that the earliest followers of Jesus spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, the term “brother” can refer to cousins and distant relatives in general. Now, Bart objects to this by saying that the New Testament was not written Aramaic, but this objection is simply illogical. The New Testament does NOT have to be written in Aramaic to translate an Aramaic title. The term “Christ” is a translation of Aramaic “Messiah”. The name “Peter” is a translation of Aramaic “Cephas.” If in the early Church, a group of people who either grew up with Jesus or were related to Jesus somehow, came to be called collectively “brothers of the Lord” which is VERY likely due to the fact that in Aramaic calling close relatives “brothers” is very common… then… why is it unlikely that this term was simply translated into Greek?
- Third and final argument is that Bart is imply wrong. The term “adelphoi” can and does refer to close relatives, not necessarily full blood brothers. In the Septuagint, the translation that almost all early Christians used, in Genesis 14:14, Lot is said to be “adelphoi” of Abraham, despite the fact that there is another Greek word for “nephew”.
So… What do you think? Have I made my case strong enough to warrant a response from Bart? Do share your thoughts. Thank you all so much. And thanks to Bart for inspiring us to discuss these fun topics.
I’m not qualified to speak about Greek and Hebrew (nor do I assume you are), but I do question how accurate a translation the Septuagint is. Matthew uses the Septuagint’s translation of what he believes is a Messianic prophecy in his gospel, referring to a virgin giving birth to a son. However, the Septuagint uses ‘parthenos’–meaning virgin–when the original Hebrew word, ‘almah’ refers only to a young woman who has reached puberty.
If you were an unmarried teenage girl who never had sex and an angel told you you would conceive, you wouldn’t be astonished? (The teenagers I know get astonished if I tell them about the days before the internet.) I see no implication there that Mary never expected to have children. Why would she expect that? Why would Joseph be marrying her, if she is somehow known to be infertile? And shouldn’t all this be explained, given how much Matthew and Luke seem to know about what happened then? And isn’t it odd how much they disagree about what happened then? Almost like these are mythical stories being created around Jesus, rather than legitimate memories of his past.
Mark clearly is referring to Jesus’ blood family. If they are his spiritual brothers and sisters (ie, followers of his) then why are they concerned for his sanity? The point of that story is precisely that Jesus’ blood family has failed to understand who he is. They are his siblings, and there is no indication that they had a different mother, since they are with Mary, who is clearly seen as the mother of all of them by the locals, and Joseph (who may have died by this point) is seen as his blood father. There is no sign people in Nazareth remember anything controversial about his origins.
The differences between Mark and Luke would tend to argue that the story was being changed, and Jesus’ younger siblings were becoming an inconvenience that had to be dealt with. Mark has no virgin birth, and there is nothing there (or in Paul) to indicate there was anything unusual about his birth. If it was widely agreed among Christians that Jesus was the son of a virgin and this was proof he was Messiah, hard to imagine both of them keeping mum about it. Even John’s gospel makes no mention of it, meaning that even by the late date that was written, Christians did not all agree about the virgin birth.
But the question here is why are they Jesus’ full siblings. And the answer is, why assume otherwise, unless you desperately need to believe that a very young betrothed woman got pregnant out of wedlock in a small Jewish community in the first century, could not explain how this had happened, was not punished in any way (even though a betrothed maiden losing her virginity to another man could be punished with death in that time). Her betrothed married her, and then agreed to never have sex with her (this wouldn’t pass the smell test even if he was old and feeble, which the gospels don’t say he was), and he was marrying this girl he wasn’t going to sleep with even though he’d been previously married and had many children to care for him in his old age.
None of this is in the gospels. It’s all inferred later on, because of the growing belief in Mary’s sacred virginity, which later extended itself to Joseph being a virgin all his life too, and Jesus’ siblings were actually his cousins. You can theoretically justify anything, but you have to work awfully hard in this case to do so.
And the only reason I can think of is a desire to make all the gospels be 100% factually accurate, which is impossible, because the gospels all disagree with each other.
godspell said
I’m not qualified to speak about Greek and Hebrew (nor do I assume you are), but I do question how accurate a translation the Septuagint is. Matthew uses the Septuagint’s translation of what he believes is a Messianic prophecy in his gospel, referring to a virgin giving birth to a son. However, the Septuagint uses ‘parthenos’–meaning virgin–when the original Hebrew word, ‘almah’ refers only to a young woman who has reached puberty.If you were an unmarried teenage girl who never had sex and an angel told you you would conceive, you wouldn’t be astonished? (The teenagers I know get astonished if I tell them about the days before the internet.) I see no implication there that Mary never expected to have children. Why would she expect that? Why would Joseph be marrying her, if she is somehow known to be infertile? And shouldn’t all this be explained, given how much Matthew and Luke seem to know about what happened then? And isn’t it odd how much they disagree about what happened then? Almost like these are mythical stories being created around Jesus, rather than legitimate memories of his past.
Mark clearly is referring to Jesus’ blood family. If they are his spiritual brothers and sisters (ie, followers of his) then why are they concerned for his sanity? The point of that story is precisely that Jesus’ blood family has failed to understand who he is. They are his siblings, and there is no indication that they had a different mother, since they are with Mary, who is clearly seen as the mother of all of them by the locals, and Joseph (who may have died by this point) is seen as his blood father. There is no sign people in Nazareth remember anything controversial about his origins.
The differences between Mark and Luke would tend to argue that the story was being changed, and Jesus’ younger siblings were becoming an inconvenience that had to be dealt with. Mark has no virgin birth, and there is nothing there (or in Paul) to indicate there was anything unusual about his birth. If it was widely agreed among Christians that Jesus was the son of a virgin and this was proof he was Messiah, hard to imagine both of them keeping mum about it. Even John’s gospel makes no mention of it, meaning that even by the late date that was written, Christians did not all agree about the virgin birth.
But the question here is why are they Jesus’ full siblings. And the answer is, why assume otherwise, unless you desperately need to believe that a very young betrothed woman got pregnant out of wedlock in a small Jewish community in the first century, could not explain how this had happened, was not punished in any way (even though a betrothed maiden losing her virginity to another man could be punished with death in that time). Her betrothed married her, and then agreed to never have sex with her (this wouldn’t pass the smell test even if he was old and feeble, which the gospels don’t say he was), and he was marrying this girl he wasn’t going to sleep with even though he’d been previously married and had many children to care for him in his old age.
None of this is in the gospels. It’s all inferred later on, because of the growing belief in Mary’s sacred virginity, which later extended itself to Joseph being a virgin all his life too, and Jesus’ siblings were actually his cousins. You can theoretically justify anything, but you have to work awfully hard in this case to do so.
And the only reason I can think of is a desire to make all the gospels be 100% factually accurate, which is impossible, because the gospels all disagree with each other.
No. I disagree with you. Mark is written full 30 years later after the first church was founded. Mark’s whole point is that his FAMILY thinks he is insane. The precise relation between them is meaningless. The point is JUST AS strong if the “brothers” are just people related to Jesus in various ways. As I already said, in Aramaic, “brother” can denote a “relative”
It’s his immediate family, since they go to ‘take custody of him.’ That they are children of Mary can’t seriously be doubted, since they come with her. Stepchildren? You’d think that would be mentioned, no? If they were from a previous marriage, and there’s that many of them, wouldn’t some be as old or older than her, given her youth at the time of her conception? No mention of that either. How would you feel if your middle-aged father married a girl in her early teens, she got pregnant out of wedlock, and he married her anyway, brought her into your home, treated her presumed bastard as his son and heir? Clearly they are either there out of concern for their brother, or deference to her.
And you are missing a vital point many trying to make this argument miss–if Mary wasn’t their mother, and Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ blood father, they are not his half-siblings either. Are you arguing Joseph was Jesus’ blood father, and the divine conception didn’t happen? While this would agree with the genealogy that linked Jesus to David through Joseph’s line, that then eliminates the only reason to claim Mary had no other children after Jesus. Because the only reason for that is to claim Mary never lost her virginity. (Which of course would have been lost anyway when she gave birth, but Lapsed Catholic that I am, I know there’s a belief that it was magically restored afterwards. Mary was at times even more revered than Jesus in the Middle Ages.)
In English, ‘brother’ can also have variant meanings–it can simply mean a very close friend, a fellow union member, (or a fellow African American). Words nearly always have variant meanings but they also have primary meanings, that are assumed by readers/listeners when the context strongly indicates that is the correct meaning.
When no additional information is provided, don’t people always assume ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ refer to people with the same parents as the person who whom they are being connected in a sentence? Mark wasn’t stupid. He knew his readers would make that assumption in the context of the story, and he clearly intended them to do so–this is the meaning of the story he’s telling–his own flesh and blood have rejected him. “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family.”
Yes, it’s several decades later–but the doctrine of Mary being a virgin all her life and Joseph strangely agreeing to live as a celibate (please remember, they were betrothed before Mary became pregnant), was arrived at several centuries later. Which is more likely to be accurate? Why did none of the later gospels contradict Mark? Why did Paul say he had met Peter and “James the brother of our Lord” if he didn’t mean to indicate there was a direct familial relationship between Jesus and James that did not exist with Peter?
In Mark, we’re told Jesus has brothers and sisters. They are clearly attached to Mary as if she was their mother, and she is clearly older than them. The meaning of the story is unequivocal. These are the other sons of Mary, born after Jesus. She performed her marital duties with Joseph, and became pregnant naturally (as she did with Jesus, something only two gospels contradict, and each gives very different stories). Not even the gospels that talk about the virgin birth claim Mary remained virginal all her life. Nobody claimed this until long after all members of that family had died.
godspell said
It’s his immediate family, since they go to ‘take custody of him.’ That they are children of Mary can’t seriously be doubted, since they come with her. Stepchildren? You’d think that would be mentioned, no? If they were from a previous marriage, and there’s that many of them, wouldn’t some be as old or older than her, given her youth at the time of her conception? No mention of that either. How would you feel if your middle-aged father married a girl in her early teens, she got pregnant out of wedlock, and he married her anyway, brought her into your home, treated her presumed bastard as his son and heir? Clearly they are either there out of concern for their brother, or deference to her.And you are missing a vital point many trying to make this argument miss–if Mary wasn’t their mother, and Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ blood father, they are not his half-siblings either. Are you arguing Joseph was Jesus’ blood father, and the divine conception didn’t happen? While this would agree with the genealogy that linked Jesus to David through Joseph’s line, that then eliminates the only reason to claim Mary had no other children after Jesus. Because the only reason for that is to claim Mary never lost her virginity. (Which of course would have been lost anyway when she gave birth, but Lapsed Catholic that I am, I know there’s a belief that it was magically restored afterwards. Mary was at times even more revered than Jesus in the Middle Ages.)
In English, ‘brother’ can also have variant meanings–it can simply mean a very close friend, a fellow union member, (or a fellow African American). Words nearly always have variant meanings but they also have primary meanings, that are assumed by readers/listeners when the context strongly indicates that is the correct meaning.
When no additional information is provided, don’t people always assume ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ refer to people with the same parents as the person who whom they are being connected in a sentence? Mark wasn’t stupid. He knew his readers would make that assumption in the context of the story, and he clearly intended them to do so–this is the meaning of the story he’s telling–his own flesh and blood have rejected him. “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family.”
Yes, it’s several decades later–but the doctrine of Mary being a virgin all her life and Joseph strangely agreeing to live as a celibate (please remember, they were betrothed before Mary became pregnant), was arrived at several centuries later. Which is more likely to be accurate? Why did none of the later gospels contradict Mark? Why did Paul say he had met Peter and “James the brother of our Lord” if he didn’t mean to indicate there was a direct familial relationship between Jesus and James that did not exist with Peter?
In Mark, we’re told Jesus has brothers and sisters. They are clearly attached to Mary as if she was their mother, and she is clearly older than them. The meaning of the story is unequivocal. These are the other sons of Mary, born after Jesus. She performed her marital duties with Joseph, and became pregnant naturally (as she did with Jesus, something only two gospels contradict, and each gives very different stories). Not even the gospels that talk about the virgin birth claim Mary remained virginal all her life. Nobody claimed this until long after all members of that family had died.
Do you understand that what Mark is making is a point… A point that simply needs to be made by showing that people who were seen as his family thought he was mad. This point works just as fine regardless of how they were related to Jesus. And once again, not all gospels account for them in key passages. Look at how in John Jesus provides a place for his mother, by pointing her to the beloved disciple. The term “brother” can imply many kind of relations. In Genesis 14:14, as I already mentioned, Lot is called the “brother” (adelphoi) of Abraham, even though there is a separate Greek word for nephew. All I am saying is, that it is not as clear as Dr Ehrman makes it out to be. I simply think the several mentions of these people do not immediately imply that these were sons and daughters of Mary. That could be one inference. But definitely not without question.
Well, nothing is ‘without question’–some question whether Jesus existed at all. But the overwhelming probability is that he did exist, and his mother didn’t remain a virgin all her life, and she did in fact have other children, as would have been expected of her. You are asking us to believe many separate highly improbable things when you say she only had Jesus (there is certainly no indication she became infertile after having Jesus, since that would damage her totemic significance as Mother of the Church).
Bart said it’s very likely they are his full siblings– not that it was a certainty, because real historians don’t talk in terms of certainty about things that can never be proven beyond any doubt. So if you want him to acknowledge it’s not 100% out of the question they were his half-siblings, already done. (I think you want more than that.)
But the fact remains, none of the gospels state Jesus was an only child. And John’s story about Mary is pretty clearly not historical. There is no reason to believe Mary would have been in Jerusalem. That is to boost the claim that the disciple John was special to Jesus, a claim no other source verifies.
Mark is making a point, yes–I said so, did you miss that?–but the point is made much less convincingly if these are not Jesus’ true siblings. And of course the point of the later stories is that Jesus is not Joseph’s son by blood. So if Mary is not their mother, they are not related by blood at all.
Try to understand that nobody was saying this until centuries had passed, and Mary had herself been elevated to the point where Christians would pray to her for intercession. The original story was that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and was born the same way everybody else was. But as he became elevated to godhood, obviously the woman who gave birth to him had to be elevated as well.
Jesus was born because a man and a woman had sexual intercourse. Do you deny this? I can respect religious beliefs, but not if they don’t identify themselves as such. Facts and Faith don’t have to agree, but you do need to know where one leaves off and the other begins.
godspell said
Well, nothing is ‘without question’–some question whether Jesus existed at all. But the overwhelming probability is that he did exist, and his mother didn’t remain a virgin all her life, and she did in fact have other children, as would have been expected of her. You are asking us to believe many separate highly improbable things when you say she only had Jesus (there is certainly no indication she became infertile after having Jesus, since that would damage her totemic significance as Mother of the Church).Bart said it’s very likely they are his full siblings– not that it was a certainty, because real historians don’t talk in terms of certainty about things that can never be proven beyond any doubt. So if you want him to acknowledge it’s not 100% out of the question they were his half-siblings, already done. (I think you want more than that.)
But the fact remains, none of the gospels state Jesus was an only child. And John’s story about Mary is pretty clearly not historical. There is no reason to believe Mary would have been in Jerusalem. That is to boost the claim that the disciple John was special to Jesus, a claim no other source verifies.
Mark is making a point, yes–I said so, did you miss that?–but the point is made much less convincingly if these are not Jesus’ true siblings. And of course the point of the later stories is that Jesus is not Joseph’s son by blood. So if Mary is not their mother, they are not related by blood at all.
Try to understand that nobody was saying this until centuries had passed, and Mary had herself been elevated to the point where Christians would pray to her for intercession. The original story was that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and was born the same way everybody else was. But as he became elevated to godhood, obviously the woman who gave birth to him had to be elevated as well.
Jesus was born because a man and a woman had sexual intercourse. Do you deny this? I can respect religious beliefs, but not if they don’t identify themselves as such. Facts and Faith don’t have to agree, but you do need to know where one leaves off and the other begins.
Notice how you are the one who brings religion into this. I never mentioned the doctrine of perpetual virginity. Neither did I set out to demonstrate that Jesus was the only child of Mary. Bart said that it is almost certain that all of the people mentioned in the New Testament as “brothers” of the Lord were the children of Mary, I disagreed with this. Why is it unlikely that these people were related to Jesus in various ways and colloquially came to be called “brothers of the Lord”? What makes this extremely unlikely? Fine, let’s say Mary had other children, how can you know that ALL of those mentioned as “brothers and sisters” of the Lord were her children? Why is it unlikely that some were related to Jesus in different ways? As the reader above me already pointed out, Mark 6:4 shows that the point stands as long as his relatives, household, neighbors etc reject him. That is Mark’s point. And it works perfectly either way. Once again, I never discussed religious doctrine here, I never set out to prove Mary had no other children, or defend any dogma. You simply assumed I did.
It’s been estimated that to sustain the population in that time period, women would have needed to give birth to 4.5 to 6.5 living children on average–meaning some would have fewer (or none) and others would have more.
Going by Mark’s account, Mary had five boys, including Jesus–and at least two sisters.
Matches up pretty well.
The only reason anyone has ever argued they weren’t Jesus’ full siblings was to justify Mary’s lifelong virginity–for Protestants, this hasn’t even been an issue.
What’s your issue, Damian? Because frankly, without any evidence at all to back up the notion that Mark would use the term brother to mean several different things at once, in the same sentence, I am skeptical that you don’t have one.
Mary’s astonishment isn’t evidence of anything, since unless you believe in the Virgin Birth, that story has to be regarded as a myth concocted well after the fact.
godspell said
It’s been estimated that to sustain the population in that time period, women would have needed to give birth to 4.5 to 6.5 living children on average–meaning some would have fewer (or none) and others would have more.Going by Mark’s account, Mary had five boys, including Jesus–and at least two sisters.
Matches up pretty well.
The only reason anyone has ever argued they weren’t Jesus’ full siblings was to justify Mary’s lifelong virginity–for Protestants, this hasn’t even been an issue.
What’s your issue, Damian? Because frankly, without any evidence at all to back up the notion that Mark would use the term brother to mean several different things at once, in the same sentence, I am skeptical that you don’t have one.
Mary’s astonishment isn’t evidence of anything, since unless you believe in the Virgin Birth, that story has to be regarded as a myth concocted well after the fact.
What’s the difference? I never brought up religion. I am saying that there is no reason why these “brothers” can’t be related to Jesus in various ways. Nothing precludes that and it has to be viewed as a very viable alternative. That is all I am pushing for. Have I ever mentioned Mary’s perpetual virginity, or anything religious?
You’re on a forum to discuss Jesus, so the subject of religion can’t very well be dismissed as irrelevant. Let’s assume you have no religious motives for raising this subject–the fact remains, you have raised it, without having any argument to make other than “How can we know for sure?” to which of course the response is we can’t, but that doesn’t mean some scenarios aren’t much more probable than others.
We have no credible evidence at all that Joseph was married before, or that Mary remarried after. Zero.
We have no credible basis in the language used in Mark for concluding that the people referred to as Jesus’ brothers were anything other than his blood kin. Zero. The context clearly argues for them being related to him, and they came with Mary, indicating a connection to her. It’s not out of the question some could have been adopted–perhaps orphaned children of relatives of Joseph or Mary–but there’s no basis at all for concluding that. There is a basis for concluding they were all his brothers, sons of Joseph and Mary both. There would be nothing unusual about a family of five brothers and perhaps two sisters. (And of course there could have been other children who died).
The reason people argue about this is generally that they want to believe Mary never had any children but Jesus. If even one of those men had the same biological parents as Jesus, Mary’s sanctified image changes for a very large number of Christians–and Jesus himself seems correspondingly more human.
Yes, there are other possibilities, but we have to conclude this is the information Mark had, and that it was widely known by the larger Christian community. Jesus’ disciples reportedly did go to Nazareth with him, they met members of Jesus’ family, who were understandably upset by the furor he was creating among their neighbors. If a sibling of yours went away for a long time, and came back saying he was on a mission from God, you might be concerned as well–times change, people don’t.
Point is, we have every reason to think the earliest followers of Jesus had some contact with his birth family, and were in a position to know how many siblings he had, and whether some of them were not the children of Joseph and Mary both. Mark doesn’t have to give us names. He doesn’t have to say that the people in Nazareth dismissed him because he is the son of a carpenter and a local girl, and therefore cannot be a prophet, or Messiah. This is all highly credible.
Matthew repeats what Mark said, indicating that he also knows this is a story Christians of that era had heard, and his belief in the virgin birth didn’t mean he thought Mary must have remained virginal forever–he has a conflict here, in that he wants to justify Jesus being Messiah through his connection to Joseph who was supposedly descended from David, so possibly he isn’t saying Joseph had nothing to do with Mary’s pregnancy–another area of confusion.
(My own guess is that Joseph got Mary pregnant while they were still betrothed, and this created a minor scandal, memories of which could have led to slanderous claims of Jesus being illegitimate, which led in turn to claims that his birth was miraculous. One can imagine other scenarios. One can imagine anything. Hey, maybe it was aliens! Can we 100% rule out aliens?)
Only Luke tells an involved story about Jesus’ family, that includes Jesus being first cousins with John the Baptist, whose birth was also miraculous–you believe that? I assume not, but that means you need to stop talking about Mary’s incredulity, since Luke’s Nativity story isn’t credible to any historian not motivated by religious beliefs. That isn’t evidence of anything but Luke trying to create a more elaborate birth story. So if your motives for bringing this up are not religious,I can’t see any reason to bring that up at all.
So what are your motives?
godspell said
You’re on a forum to discuss Jesus, so the subject of religion can’t very well be dismissed as irrelevant. Let’s assume you have no religious motives for raising this subject–the fact remains, you have raised it, without having any argument to make other than “How can we know for sure?” to which of course the response is we can’t, but that doesn’t mean some scenarios aren’t much more probable than others.We have no credible evidence at all that Joseph was married before, or that Mary remarried after. Zero.
We have no credible basis in the language used in Mark for concluding that the people referred to as Jesus’ brothers were anything other than his blood kin. Zero. The context clearly argues for them being related to him, and they came with Mary, indicating a connection to her. It’s not out of the question some could have been adopted–perhaps orphaned children of relatives of Joseph or Mary–but there’s no basis at all for concluding that. There is a basis for concluding they were all his brothers, sons of Joseph and Mary both. There would be nothing unusual about a family of five brothers and perhaps two sisters. (And of course there could have been other children who died).
The reason people argue about this is generally that they want to believe Mary never had any children but Jesus. If even one of those men had the same biological parents as Jesus, the stories Luke and Matthew told about his birth can’t be true (and in fact, those stories contradict each other on many points).
Yes, there are other possibilities, but we have to conclude this is the information Mark had, and that it was widely known by the larger Christian community. Jesus’ disciples reportedly did go to Nazareth with him, they met members of Jesus’ family, who were understandably upset by the furor he was creating among their neighbors. If a sibling of yours went away for a long time, and came back saying he was on a mission from God, you might be concerned as well–times change, people don’t.
Point is, we have every reason to think the earliest followers of Jesus had some contact with his birth family, and were in a position to know how many siblings he had, and whether some of them were not the children of Joseph and Mary both. Mark doesn’t have to give us names. He doesn’t have to say that the people in Nazareth dismissed him because he is the son of a carpenter and a local girl, and therefore cannot be a prophet, or Messiah. This is all highly credible.
Matthew repeats what Mark said, indicating that he also knows this is a story Christians of that era had heard, and his belief in the virgin birth didn’t mean he thought Mary must have remained virginal forever–he has a conflict here, in that he wants to justify Jesus being Messiah through his connection to Joseph who was supposedly descended from David, so possibly he isn’t saying Joseph had nothing to do with Mary’s pregnancy–another area of confusion.
(My own guess is that Joseph got Mary pregnant while they were still betrothed, and this created a minor scandal, memories of which could have led to slanderous claims of Jesus being illegitimate, which led in turn to claims that his birth was miraculous. One can imagine other scenarios. One can imagine anything. Hey, maybe it was aliens! Can we 100% rule out aliens?)
Only Luke tells an involved story about Jesus’ family, that includes Jesus being first cousins with John the Baptist, whose birth was also miraculous–you believe that? I assume not, but that means you need to stop talking about Mary’s incredulity, since Luke’s Nativity story isn’t credible to any historian not motivated by religious beliefs. That isn’t evidence of anything but Luke trying to create a more elaborate birth story. So if your motives for bringing this up are not religious,I can’t see any reason to bring that up at all.
So what are your motives?
What I am saying is that the idea that “brothers” of the Lord may refer to people related to Jesus in various ways is a viable alternative that should not be dismissed. I do not remember ever arguing for anything else. You are the one who introduced topics like, Mary’s perpetual virginity, Biblical inerrancy etc. I never mentioned these topics.
As for Luke having legendary accounts… fair enough, but if in a legendary account the Author does NOT account for Jesus’ brothers, that is still something that I will bring as an example
Mark never says “Brothers of the Lord.” Neither does Matthew. Paul, in Galatians, uses a phrase like that (never having known Jesus the man), but then how come Peter, referenced in the same sentence, isn’t a brother of the Lord as well? Who was closer to Jesus than Peter? Why would James be singled out as a brother, unless Paul meant to imply they were blood family? Which would probably have been known to many if not most of his readers–but there were other James’ who had a prominent place in early Christianity, and he wants them to know this is the one Jesus grew up with. This is the one who had the same parents as Jesus. Paul is, pardon the anachronism, geeking out over having met an actual family member of someone he only ‘met’ as a disembodied voice on the road to Damascus.
Josephus refers to James the Just as the brother of Jesus who is also called Christ. Josephus wouldn’t be using the word in any other than its literal biological sense. James was widely known to be Jesus’ brother by blood.
The first meaning of that word–the one you assume when given no reason not to–is that this is someone you share at least one parent with, probably both. We are never, at any time, in any of these passages, given any reason to think otherwise. So why do you want to think otherwise?
If you have no answer, then why bother to respond? I understand you don’t consider it a fully proven point, and fair enough, but there’s far more evidence than there will ever be for your side.
godspell said
Mark never says “Brothers of the Lord.” Neither does Matthew. Paul, in Galatians, uses a phrase like that (never having known Jesus the man), but then how come Peter, referenced in the same sentence, isn’t a brother of the Lord as well? Who was closer to Jesus than Peter? Why would James be singled out as a brother, unless Paul meant to imply they were blood family? Which would probably have been known to many if not most of his readers–but there were other James’ who had a prominent place in early Christianity, and he wants them to know this is the one Jesus grew up with. This is the one who had the same parents as Jesus. Paul is, pardon the anachronism, geeking out over having met an actual family member of someone he only ‘met’ as a disembodied voice on the road to Damascus.Josephus refers to James the Just as the brother of Jesus who is also called Christ. Josephus wouldn’t be using the word in any other than its literal biological sense. James was widely known to be Jesus’ brother by blood.
The first meaning of that word–the one you assume when given no reason not to–is that this is someone you share at least one parent with, probably both. We are never, at any time, in any of these passages, given any reason to think otherwise. So why do you want to think otherwise?
If you have no answer, then why bother to respond? I understand you don’t consider it a fully proven point, and fair enough, but there’s far more evidence than there will ever be for your side.
Because the term “brother” can refer to a close relative. That is the simple reason. Why does Genesis 14:14 refer to Lot as a brother of Abraham? Because that’s one possible meaning of that word. I am just saying that this possibility cannot be excluded. It is very viable
godspell said
One question, Damian–in your opinion, is it likely that Jesus’ mother Mary had sexual relations with at least one man during her life, leading to natural pregnancies? Yes or no.
I mean, I do NOT for religious reasons, of course. But that has nothing to do with the discussion. I have kept my religion out of it as best as I can. Have I not?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)