Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have no doubt in mind that Mary had other children. The only way this matters though is if you desire to worship her, in which case she would have to be a virgin forever and completely sinless.

Good point and thanks for your input. A lot of that is also discussed on the Mariology board for those brave enough to venture into it

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'm just gonna drop in and say it does not matter. I personally don't know. The Bible says Jesus had brothers, but this does not mean biological brothers (we are all brothers and sisters in Christ). That being said, maybe the Greek used is only used for biological siblings, I do not know, but irregardless, I don't see why it matters.

 

[rosenherman]

The perpetual virginity of Mary, Mary's "real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made Man", is part of the teaching of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches, as expressed in their liturgies, in which they repeatedly refer to Mary as "ever virgin". Thus, according to this teaching, Mary was ever-virgin (Greek ἀειπάρθενος, aeiparthenos) for the whole of her life, making Jesus her only biological son, whose conception and birth are held to be miraculous.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is believed as de fide, i.e. as a doctrine that is an essential part of the faith and thus has the highest degree of certainty, states that Mary was a virgin before, during and after giving birth, and so covers much more than the doctrine of her virginal conception of Jesus, often referred to as the virgin birth of Jesus. It is also distinct from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which relates to the conception of the Virgin Mary herself without any stain ("macula" in Latin) of original sin.

This common tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary is one element in the well-established theology regarding the Theotokos in both East and West, a field of study known as Mariology.

The virginity of Mary at the time of her conception of Jesus is a key topic in Roman Catholic Marian art, usually represented as the annunciation to Mary by the Archangel Gabriel that she would virginally conceive a child to be born the Son of God. Frescos depicting this scene have appeared in Roman Catholic Marian churches for centuries. Mary's virginity even after her conception of Jesus is regularly represented in the art of both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (as well as in early Western religious art) by including in Nativity scenes the figure of Salome, whom the Gospel of James presents as finding that Mary had preserved her virginity even in giving birth to her son.

In other words there is no scriptural support for this view.

 

[Sphinx777]

From the fifth century on no opposition whatever to the doctrine was expressed in either East or West until modern times. Several leaders of the Protestant Reformation believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Martin Luther believed that Mary did not have other children, and did not have any marital relations with Joseph, maintaining, that the brothers mentioned were cousins. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jaroslav Pelikan noted that the perpetual virginity of Mary was Luther's lifelong belief, and Hartmann Grisar, a Roman Catholic biographer of Luther, concurs that "Luther always believed in the virginity of Mary, even after his excommunication, though afterwards he denied her power of intercession, as well as that of the saints in general, ... and combated, as extreme and pagan, the extraordinary veneration which the [Roman] Catholic Church showed towards Mary." For this reason even a rigorously conservative Lutheran scholar like Franz Pieper (1852-1931) refuses to follow the tendency among Protestants to insist that Mary and Joseph had marital relations and children after the birth of Jesus. It is implicit in his Christian Dogmatics that belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is the older and traditional view among Lutherans.

He stated, that "we should simply hold that (Mary) remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity". He taught that "Christ, our Saviour, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that"; and that " Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers". In fact Luther held throughout his career that, "in childbirth and after childbirth, as she was a virgin before childbirth, so she remained".

Huldrych Zwingli wrote: "I firmly believe that [Mary], according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." John Calvin rejected arguments, based on the mention in Scripture of brothers of Jesus, that Mary had other children. John Wesley wrote: "I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."

Diarmaid MacCulloch, a historian of the Reformation, wrote that the reason why the magisterial reformers upheld Mary’s perpetual virginity, and why they had a "genuinely deep reverence and affection" toward Mary, was that she was "the guarantee of the Incarnation of Christ", a teaching that was being denied by the same radicals that were denying Mary’s perpetual virginity. However, the absence of clear Biblical statements expressing the doctrine, in combination with the principle of sola scriptura, kept references to the doctrine out of the Reformation creeds and, together with the tendency to associate veneration of Mary with idolatry and the rejection of clerical celibacy led to the eventual denial of this doctrine among Protestants, who, thus uncommitted to the doctrine of perpetual virginity, take the "brothers" (ἀδελφο&#943 οf Jesus mentioned in the New Testament most naturally (but not certainly) to be children of Mary and thus Jesus' half brothers, rather than his cousins or stepbrothers from a postulated previous marriage of Joseph.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In other words there is no scriptural support for this view.

Thank goodness Wiki isn't Scripture, but then, neither are the Creeds for that matter

What is a Creed?

The Creeds and Confessions produced by the Christian Church over the centuries are not inspired additions to Scripture nor in any way replacements for the words of Christ and his apostles or the prophets which preceded them.

Instead these human documents are carefully considered and usually thoughtfully worded responses to various issues, heresies and historical situations that have troubled the Church and the world over the centuries.

Creeds are statements of faith that are true and authoritative insofar as they accurately reflect what Scripture teaches. Those linked here have been found useful either by the entire Church or by important segments and/or denominations of it over the ages. They are thus helpful "measuring sticks" for orthodoxy. Canons but not the canon.

 

[RND]

It can't be too difficult to both answer the poll I made and to give a reason for viewing it one way or the other whether one uses the Bible only or both the Bible and other outside sources.

Now can we move on

I don't know why getting a straight answer to a relatively straight question should be so difficult LLoJ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't know why getting a straight answer to a relatively straight question should be so difficult LLoJ.

Well, just call me "dense" then

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Yes, Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Mark 6:3

"Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?"
Seeing as Jesus was in His hometown, they would know that He had brothers and sisters.​

John 7:1-13, because it is a long passage, verses that mentions His brothers are 3, 5 and 10.

Matthew 12:46-47

While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one says to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You."...​

May I ask, is there some type of taboo for Christ to have brothers and sisters? I mean the bible tells us that Joseph didn't know Mary until she gave birth to Jesus, so I only imagine while they were having sex, she got pregnant, again and again....

 

[Sphinx777]

Mary's virginity before and in regard to her conception of Jesus is stated in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. It is disputed whether elements in the New Testament favour or contradict belief that she remained a virgin afterwards.

With regard to the identification of the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament, the 1978 book Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars reached the following agreed conclusions:

1. The continued virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus is not a question directly raised by the New Testament.

2. Once it was raised in subsequent church history, it was that question which focused attention on the exact relationship of the "brothers" (and "sisters") to Jesus.

3. Once that attention has been focused, it cannot be said that the New Testament identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary.

4. The solution favoured by scholars will in part depend on the authority they allot to later Church insights and dogmatic definitions, such as that at the Council of Chalcedon.

It acknowledged as consonant with Scripture the two opposing interpretations of the texts that mention Jesus' brothers and sisters: either as referring to actual siblings, or as meaning close relatives. Catholics and Orthodox usually prefer the latter interpretation, Protestants the former.

Scholars of each tradition, not having made advances since then in demonstrating the superiority of either interpretation, have become more open to acknowledging the scriptural acceptability of the opposite tradition.

At the Annunciation (Luke 1:34) Mary, told by an angel that she will conceive, responds: "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" Gregory of Nyssa understood this in support of the view that Mary had taken a lifelong vow of virginity, even in marriage:

For if Joseph had taken her to be his wife, for the purpose of having children, why would she have wondered at the announcement of maternity, since she herself would have accepted becoming a mother according to the law of nature? This view is generally followed by Orthodox and Roman Catholic scholars.

In the opinion of the writer Howard Marshall "it is impossible to see how the text can yield this meaning." He quotes the view of a certain Easton that "no writer with a knowledge of Jewish psychology could have thought of a vow of virginity on the part of a betrothed Palestinian maiden", and says that to hold that Mary constitutes a special case "will convince only those who have other reasons for adopting this interpretation of the text". However, it is known that the practice of celibacy was not unknown in Jewish society of the time, being witnessed to in particular among the Essenes.

The New Testament mentions Jesus' adelphoi (ἀδελφο&#943, which can mean either literally "brothers" or metaphorically refer to countrymen, people or believers. The Protoevangelium of James, as shown above, presented these adelphoi as Joseph's children from a previous marriage, stating that Joseph married Mary after he had become a widower; that would make these adelphoi Jesus’ stepbrothers. Victorinus argued that the adelphoi were merely kinsfolk, a view repeated by Jerome. Tertullian interpreted these passages as referring to Jesus’ siblings from both Joseph and Mary, thus excluding the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the only case that this is argued to refer to first cousins in the new testament is Jesus, whilst where ἀδελφοί is used eg. with James and John, Andrew and Peter etc., it is always assumed this refers to actual brothers. However, when cousins is meant (eg. Elizabeth and Mary), a completely different word is used. This raises the question as to whether the interpretation of adelphoi as brothers relates primarily from a theological rather than a linguistic basis.

Matthew 1:25, states that Jesus was Mary's "firstborn son" (although Tasker says that there is strong evidence for omitting the word firstborn) and that Joseph "had no marital relations with her until (ἕως) she had borne a son." Tasker and Hill argue that this passage implies that Mary and Joseph had customary marital relations after the birth of Jesus, with Tasker quoting McNeile as saying that the Greek construction "always implies in the New Testament that the negatived action did, or will, take place after the point of time indicated". Hill comments that "if the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity had been familiar to the evangelist or to the milieu in which he wrote, he would surely have been more explicit". Debate on this point is sometimes obscured by the fact that the Greek preposition ἕως could either occur with a clausal complement in its temporal sense or with a nominal complement in a spatial sense, where it meant something like up to. John Hainsworth remarks: "'The use of 'until' in Matthew 1:25, then, is purely to indicate that Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, not conceived by Joseph and Mary, since they did not 'know' each other 'until' the birth. In this context 'until' is really synonymous with 'before'. If on the contrary it were meant in its full contemporary English sense—that is, if it really meant that Joseph and Mary's chaste relationship changed after the birth—then the stylistics present another big problem: the reader would have to believe that Matthew was actually inviting contemplation of the couple's later sexual activity. This is doubtful to say the least." Such argumentation is linguistically naive, however; as Giannakidou points out, English 'until' is ambiguous between a use occuring with negatives and one without; but Greek lexicalizes this difference, leading to much less ambiguity in the Greek than in the English translations.

One of the "brothers" of Jesus is called "Joses" in Mark 6:3 and "Joseph" in the corresponding Matthew 13:55. Since in Judaism children are rarely named after the father, it is unlikely that Jesus' "brothers" were biological children of Joseph. Besides, the only other mention of Joses in Mark (and indeed the whole New Testament) is in Mark 15:40, which pairs Joses with a James, as in Mark 6:3, and says that their mother, another woman called Mary, was present at the Crucifixion and so was then still alive.

Joseph Blinzler, in his study Die Brüder und Schwestern Jesu, concluded that the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus were cousins of his. For Simon and Jude, their relationship with Jesus came from their father Cleophas/Clopas, a brother of Joseph and thus a descendant of David. Their mother's name is unknown. The mother of James and Joses was a Mary, distinct from Jesus’ mother; she (or her husband) was related in some unspecifiable way to Jesus' family. There are indications that the father of James (and Joses) was of sacerdotal or Levitical origin and was a brother of Mary. The silence of the Gospels about Joseph after Luke 2 indicates that the putative father of Jesus died soon, after which Mary and her son joined the family of her (their?) closest relative. The children of this family (these families?), grew up with Jesus and were called his brothers and sisters, since in Aramaic there was no other term for them. The early Church kept this term even in Greek to honour in this way these relatives who had meanwhile become eminent members of the Church, and as a way of distinguishing them from the many others in the early Church that had the same names.

For more on this matter and on the quotation of Isaiah 7:14 by Matthew 1:23 in relation to Mary's virginity, at least at the time of her conception of Jesus, see Virgin birth of Jesus.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

.

I voted that I don't KNOW, thus (like ALL Denominations) I have no dogma on this. There has never been ANY denomination EVER that has had a dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs By Mary" or "Mary Had Just One Child - Jesus."

There are Scriptures that speak of brothers and sisters (even naming the brothers) but we don't know if these are via Mary and the terms are rather generic. Thus, it seems to ME, we cannot be dogmatically certain on this matter. And it seems all 50,000 denominations agree since none of them (known to me) has a dogma about this.


I wish I could ALSO have checked, "Does it matter?" because I can't think of any reason why it does.




.

When the bible tells us that David had brothers, we believe it to be his biological brothers. When we are told that David had children and that Solomon had half-brothers, we believe it too. When the bible tells us that Andrew and Peter were brothers, we never hesitated and wondered if they were from the same mother or father, and when we are told that James and John are siblings, again we don't question that, so why would we even question or dismiss the fact that Mary had children when scripture tells us that too? What would be wrong from Christ to have brothers and sisters? I don't understand that.

Interesting that the word "adelphoi" is not questioned in any other relations except for Christ. Maybe we need to figure out why that is.

 

[Sphinx777]

Many Catholic and Orthodox hymns and prayers mention Mary's perpetual virginity.

In some modern spiritual writings, Mary's virginity is cited as a counter-example to current sexual mores. In spiritual writings more generally, her virginity is cited as an expression of holiness, devotion and loving self-denial. In some of St. Augustine's writings, he gives her virginity as an example of the mystery of God. Other spiritual writings have mentioned Mary's great humility, which is connected with the sparse mention of her in Scripture and with her willingness to be virginal in order to carry out a part of God's plan. Some writers give Mary as an example of spiritual integrity, of which her virginal integrity is a sign. Over the centuries, it has been a tradition for some of the faithful to consecrate themselves to God, partly by remaining virgins, which is called the "charism of virginity" (or "gift of virginity").

In many icons, Mary's perpetual virginity is signified by three stars that appear on her left, her right, and above her or on her head, which represent her virginity before, during and after giving birth.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

When the bible tells us that David had brothers, we believe it to be his biological brothers. When we are told that David had children and that Solomon had half-brothers, we believe it too. When the bible tells us that Andrew and Peter were brothers, we never hesitated and wondered if they were from the same mother or father, and when we are told that James and John are siblings, again we don't question that, so why would we even question or dismiss the fact that Mary had children when scripture tells us that too? What would be wrong from Christ to have brothers and sisters? I don't understand that.

Interesting that the word "adelphoi" is not questioned in any other relations except for Christ. Maybe we need to figure out why that is.

Interesting. Why is that?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Interesting. Why is that?

Can I not just ask the question and then those who know can answer it for me?

I am being sarcastic... no harm done.

 

[Thekla]

I have no doubt in mind that Mary had other children. The only way this matters though is if you desire to worship her, in which case she would have to be a virgin forever and completely sinless.

I would disagree (although I perhaps misunderstand what is meant by your statement). Would one attest that John the Baptist remained celibate so that one could worship John the baptist in place of God ? Could the same be said of the prophet Elias ?

 

[Thekla]

A note (oft repeated in Mariology) on the secular and LXX usage of the term adelphoi:

1. Hellenistic (examples):

Extant literature from the period refers to Athene and Apollo as "adelphoi". They did not share a mother ( Athene was born fully grown from the head of her father, Zeus).

Where precision is required, Plato - in his "Laws" - narrows the term "adelphoi" through the use of appropriate descriptives when the term is used in reference to siblings.

Extant literature uses the term "adelphoi" broadly; it can mean: household mate, neighbor, sibling, half sibling, fellow countryman, of like disposition, etc.

2. LXX

The term "adelphoi" is used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham.

3. NT

In the Gospel of John, the author attests that Mary had an "adelphi" named Mary.



Finally, the only fully certain way of a statement establishing 'siblingship' is through a comparative of those persons to whom the descriptive "son of, daughter of" or "mother of, father of" is made. One would need then to find all persons for whom Mary is stated to be "mother of", or all persons who are called "daughter/son of Mary" and then correspond the names (and be certain that these names refer to the same person, not different persons of the same name).


When one reads in translation from a different historical era and culture, the default understanding of one's own experience may be misapplied thus altering the sense or meaning of the text that is read. IE, what seems to be plain in English is not plainly stated in the original text which is the 'product' of a different historical, linguistic and cultural context.

 

[narnia59]

A note (oft repeated in Mariology) on the secular and LXX usage of the term adelphoi:

1. Hellenistic (examples):

Extant literature from the period refers to Athene and Apollo as "adelphoi". They did not share a mother ( Athene was born fully grown from the head of her father, Zeus).

Where precision is required, Plato - in his "Laws" - narrows the term "adelphoi" through the use of appropriate descriptives when the term is used in reference to siblings.

Extant literature uses the term "adelphoi" broadly; it can mean: household mate, neighbor, sibling, half sibling, fellow countryman, of like disposition, etc.

2. LXX

The term "adelphoi" is used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham.

3. NT

In the Gospel of John, the author attests that Mary had an "adelphi" named Mary.



Finally, the only fully certain way of a statement establishing 'siblingship' is through a comparative of those persons to whom the descriptive "son of, daughter of" or "mother of, father of" is made. One would need then to find all persons for whom Mary is stated to be "mother of", or all persons who are called "daughter/son of Mary" and then correspond the names (and be certain that these names refer to the same person, not different persons of the same name).


When one reads in translation from a different historical era and culture, the default understanding of one's own experience may be misapplied thus altering the sense or meaning of the text that is read. IE, what seems to be plain in English is not plainly stated in the original text which is the 'product' of a different historical, linguistic and cultural context.

I believe the term is also used in Acts 7:13 in regard to Joseph and his "brothers", even though Joseph only had one brother born of the same mother.

And in Mark 6:17 in regards to Herod and his brother Phillip, who were brothers not of the same mother.

 

[prodromos]

When the bible tells us that David had brothers, we believe it to be his biological brothers. When we are told that David had children and that Solomon had half-brothers, we believe it too. When the bible tells us that Andrew and Peter were brothers, we never hesitated and wondered if they were from the same mother or father, and when we are told that James and John are siblings, again we don't question that, so why would we even question or dismiss the fact that Mary had children when scripture tells us that too? What would be wrong from Christ to have brothers and sisters? I don't understand that.

Interesting that the word "adelphoi" is not questioned in any other relations except for Christ. Maybe we need to figure out why that is.

You missed the fact that Joseph and Benjamin's brothers are all from different mothers to their own mother, yet they are called brothers and not half-brothers in scripture. Also, are Solomon's half brothers referred to by scripture as brothers or half-brothers? Your post above implied the latter which I don't believe is an accurate representation.

John

 

[narnia59]

Originally Posted by daydreamergurl15

When the bible tells us that David had brothers, we believe it to be his biological brothers. When we are told that David had children and that Solomon had half-brothers, we believe it too. When the bible tells us that Andrew and Peter were brothers, we never hesitated and wondered if they were from the same mother or father, and when we are told that James and John are siblings, again we don't question that, so why would we even question or dismiss the fact that Mary had children when scripture tells us that too? What would be wrong from Christ to have brothers and sisters? I don't understand that.

Interesting that the word "adelphoi" is not questioned in any other relations except for Christ. Maybe we need to figure out why that is.
​

You missed the fact that Joseph and Benjamin's brothers are all from different mothers to their own mother, yet they are called brothers and not half-brothers in scripture. Also, are Solomon's half brothers referred to by scripture as brothers or half-brothers? Your post above implied the latter which I don't believe is an accurate representation.

John

I've never seen the term 'half-brothers' used anywhere in Scripture so I would certainly be interested to know where I've missed it.

I've often seen the term 'brothers' used in defining men who did not share a common mother.

Yet it's interesting that is accepted in all other relationships except Christ and his "brothers". Maybe we need to figure out why that is.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You missed the fact that Joseph and Benjamin's brothers are all from different mothers to their own mother, yet they are called brothers and not half-brothers in scripture. Also, are Solomon's half brothers referred to by scripture as brothers or half-brothers? Your post above implied the latter which I don't believe is an accurate representation.

John

Greetings. I have been deeply studying that Covenantle parable of the "richman/lazarus" in Luke 16 [I view that story as Covenantle]. Note vs 28 concerning the 5 brothers.

Jesus must have brought this up for a reason as He is talking to the Jews in this parable. I searched on the web to see how this was viewed by others and found a few that view those brothers as being the sons of Jacob thru Leah.

The 12 sons of Jacob/Israel were born from 4 different women but I find the ones born of Leah to be quite significant since Judah was born from her, the Tribe of which our Lord Jesus was to come thru. I am considering making a thread on this but want to study this more in depth.Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Luke 16:28"For I am having Five Brothers/adelfouV <80> that he may be testifying to them, that no also they may be coming into the place, this, of the torment".

Textus Rec.) Luke 16:28 ecw gar pente adelfouV opwV diamarturhtai autoiV ina mh kai autoi elqwsin eiV ton topon touton thV basanou

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

*snip*
.........Yielding himself to his destiny, the rich man asks one more thing of his forefather Abraham. He pleads with him to send someone to warn his brothers, so that they may escape "this place of torment" (basanou), the testing and punishment that he was undergoing.

The fact that the rich man has five brothers is a vital clue to his true symbolic identity. Judah, the progenitor of the Jews, was the son of Jacob through Leah (Gen. 29:35). He had five full-blooded brothers: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulun (Gen. 35:23).

While the significance of this seemingly pointless detail has been neglected by scholars throughout the centuries, you can be certain that it did not escape the notice of the Pharisees and scribes to which Christ was speaking. They thoroughly knew their history and were extremely proud of their heritage. Yeshua wanted those self-righteous Pharisees to know exactly who He was referring to with this parable. This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the house of Judah, the Jews!...........

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Notice also vs 26 goes from the singular "richman" to the plural "ye". This is not only a "man" but also a "people" if I am reading this right.

I am now of the view that Reve 14:11 could be symbolizing those ones in Luke 16 [which perhaps is not a "mainstream" Christian view] . Pretty interesting. Thoughts?

Luke 16:26 And upon all of these between us and ye a great chasm hath been established.............

Luke 16:28 "For I am having Five Brothers/adelfouV <80> that he may be testifying to them, that no also they may be coming into the place, this, of the torment/basanou <931> ".

Revelation 14:11 And the Smoke of the tormenting/basanismou <929> of them is ascending into Ages to-Ages.