B
BrotherFinn
Guest
More ink has been spilled about this issue than many that are of more serious import to the Christian world. Both sides in the issue have valid points. To cut through the nonsense, we could basically say that these points boil down to:
1. Why do explicit references to the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus have to be "gotten around?" What's wrong with the idea that Mary and Joseph had a normal marital relationship resulting in children? Isn't this just another symptom of Catholic disdain for sexuality and the glorification of celibacy?
2. Doesn't the notion that Mary and Joseph had a massive brood of children seem to undermine the unique "sign" God intended to convey about Jesus in the virginal conception? Why would anyone be exceptionally inclined believe Mary's first-born was conceived without a father when she and the father obviously went on to have a whole squad of kids? Wouldn't that make the "virginal conception" of Jesus appear to be a blatant theft from the prevalent "virgin birth" pagan myths of the day? Also, Scripture says that Joseph took Mary into his home but did NOT consummate the marriage upon doing so, even though this was his lawful right and obligation. It's obvious he respectfully feared God's work in Mary. Being a Law-saturated Jew and knowing full well that Mary's child was conceived by God Himself, how could he, like his ancestors fearing the presence of God in the tabernacle and leaving it untouched, abandon his course?
Both points are very valid. The facts are:
A. Scripture speaks quite freely about "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus, and we must therefore believe that he did indeed have true "brothers" and true "sisters"... BUT we must also realize that there would have been MANY individuals in Jesus life who would have been TRULY called, known and remembered as "Brothers" and "Sisters" of Jesus. Siblings would obviously be called by the Aramaic/Hebrew "ah," but equally so would be cousins, nephews, uncles, neices, etc. If one of Jesus' Aramaic-speaking disciples were speaking to another person about a group of cousins of Jesus sitting on a log, this disciple would have historically, liguistically, and verbally said "Those are the Brothers and Sisters of the Lord over there on that log." Jesus spoke Aramaic. So did his disciples. So did the first men to record the sayings and fragmentary accounts of Jesus' life, *before* the Gospels themselves were written. Any close male relative or kinsman (kinswoman) of Jesus would have been remembered as, referred to in speech, and recorded in Aramaic writing as a "Brother or Sister" of Jesus. This is simply a fact--no matter siblings or cousins. When the authors of the Gospel narratives wrote their accounts in Greek, they knew quite obviously about a group of individuals known as the "Brothers of the Lord" and that is naturally how they described (transcribed) them in Greek. It's the same with Paul. He journeyed to Jerusalem and spoke Aramaic with the disciples of Jesus, and met those who were known, according to that tongue, as "Brothers" of the Lord. It was no stretch for him to explicitly refer to these men by their proper Aramaic titles when writing about them to his Greek-speaking readers.
B. The overwhelming majority of the early apostolic and post-apostolic churches were under the distinct impression that Jesus was Mary's only child, and that Joseph respected God's work in Mary throughout their marriage. This impression was an ancient one, folks. An early church historian (mid 100's) named Hegesippus spoke of the famed "Brothers" of the Lord who oversaw the Jerusalem Church--James, Simon, and Judas. Yet later on in his work Hegesippus clearly records that Simon was the son of Clopas, the brother of Joseph, and hence the cousin of Jesus. Contradiction? NO! We know that this cousin Simon would have been called, known, and remembered by all the Aramaic, Hebrew-speaking community as the "brother" of the Jesus--hence his description as "brother" in the Gospel narratives. Moreover, one of the "Marys" at Calvary was described as the wife of Clopas (the uncle of Jesus) (John 19:24ff), and in other Gospel narratives this same Mary is described as the "mother of James and Joses" (Mark 15:40 et al) who were elsewhere called the "brothers" of Jesus. Obviously, there was a case of confused "actual relationship identities" from the historic reality of Jesus' daily life to the decades-later composition of the Gospel narratives. Even so, the fact remains that, when the various pieces of the puzzle are put together, Scripture does not state that these individuals were born of Mary Mother of Jesus, and even indicates (Mark 15:40,etc.) that they were the offspring of another woman who was likely the wife of Jesus paternal uncle--thus making her children true Brothers of Jesus in Aramaic, but "cousins" according to our more streamlined understanding.
C. I think it's extremely telling that the only time the Scripture narratives DO address the sexual relationship of Mary and Joseph, it's to say that Joseph did NOT have sex with her!--even after taking her into his home as wife, even at the very *moment* it would have been his legal right and his obligation to do so! But he didn't. In fact, ancient Jewish law did not prohibit sexual relations during the course of a pregnancy. Highly unusual circumstances, yes, but let's not beat around the proverbial Burning Bush-- God called Joseph and Mary to a highly unusual marriage! Their own plans were put aside to favor the often perilous, always challenging care , nurturing, and raising of the Word-Made-Flesh.
1. Why do explicit references to the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus have to be "gotten around?" What's wrong with the idea that Mary and Joseph had a normal marital relationship resulting in children? Isn't this just another symptom of Catholic disdain for sexuality and the glorification of celibacy?
2. Doesn't the notion that Mary and Joseph had a massive brood of children seem to undermine the unique "sign" God intended to convey about Jesus in the virginal conception? Why would anyone be exceptionally inclined believe Mary's first-born was conceived without a father when she and the father obviously went on to have a whole squad of kids? Wouldn't that make the "virginal conception" of Jesus appear to be a blatant theft from the prevalent "virgin birth" pagan myths of the day? Also, Scripture says that Joseph took Mary into his home but did NOT consummate the marriage upon doing so, even though this was his lawful right and obligation. It's obvious he respectfully feared God's work in Mary. Being a Law-saturated Jew and knowing full well that Mary's child was conceived by God Himself, how could he, like his ancestors fearing the presence of God in the tabernacle and leaving it untouched, abandon his course?
Both points are very valid. The facts are:
A. Scripture speaks quite freely about "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus, and we must therefore believe that he did indeed have true "brothers" and true "sisters"... BUT we must also realize that there would have been MANY individuals in Jesus life who would have been TRULY called, known and remembered as "Brothers" and "Sisters" of Jesus. Siblings would obviously be called by the Aramaic/Hebrew "ah," but equally so would be cousins, nephews, uncles, neices, etc. If one of Jesus' Aramaic-speaking disciples were speaking to another person about a group of cousins of Jesus sitting on a log, this disciple would have historically, liguistically, and verbally said "Those are the Brothers and Sisters of the Lord over there on that log." Jesus spoke Aramaic. So did his disciples. So did the first men to record the sayings and fragmentary accounts of Jesus' life, *before* the Gospels themselves were written. Any close male relative or kinsman (kinswoman) of Jesus would have been remembered as, referred to in speech, and recorded in Aramaic writing as a "Brother or Sister" of Jesus. This is simply a fact--no matter siblings or cousins. When the authors of the Gospel narratives wrote their accounts in Greek, they knew quite obviously about a group of individuals known as the "Brothers of the Lord" and that is naturally how they described (transcribed) them in Greek. It's the same with Paul. He journeyed to Jerusalem and spoke Aramaic with the disciples of Jesus, and met those who were known, according to that tongue, as "Brothers" of the Lord. It was no stretch for him to explicitly refer to these men by their proper Aramaic titles when writing about them to his Greek-speaking readers.
B. The overwhelming majority of the early apostolic and post-apostolic churches were under the distinct impression that Jesus was Mary's only child, and that Joseph respected God's work in Mary throughout their marriage. This impression was an ancient one, folks. An early church historian (mid 100's) named Hegesippus spoke of the famed "Brothers" of the Lord who oversaw the Jerusalem Church--James, Simon, and Judas. Yet later on in his work Hegesippus clearly records that Simon was the son of Clopas, the brother of Joseph, and hence the cousin of Jesus. Contradiction? NO! We know that this cousin Simon would have been called, known, and remembered by all the Aramaic, Hebrew-speaking community as the "brother" of the Jesus--hence his description as "brother" in the Gospel narratives. Moreover, one of the "Marys" at Calvary was described as the wife of Clopas (the uncle of Jesus) (John 19:24ff), and in other Gospel narratives this same Mary is described as the "mother of James and Joses" (Mark 15:40 et al) who were elsewhere called the "brothers" of Jesus. Obviously, there was a case of confused "actual relationship identities" from the historic reality of Jesus' daily life to the decades-later composition of the Gospel narratives. Even so, the fact remains that, when the various pieces of the puzzle are put together, Scripture does not state that these individuals were born of Mary Mother of Jesus, and even indicates (Mark 15:40,etc.) that they were the offspring of another woman who was likely the wife of Jesus paternal uncle--thus making her children true Brothers of Jesus in Aramaic, but "cousins" according to our more streamlined understanding.
C. I think it's extremely telling that the only time the Scripture narratives DO address the sexual relationship of Mary and Joseph, it's to say that Joseph did NOT have sex with her!--even after taking her into his home as wife, even at the very *moment* it would have been his legal right and his obligation to do so! But he didn't. In fact, ancient Jewish law did not prohibit sexual relations during the course of a pregnancy. Highly unusual circumstances, yes, but let's not beat around the proverbial Burning Bush-- God called Joseph and Mary to a highly unusual marriage! Their own plans were put aside to favor the often perilous, always challenging care , nurturing, and raising of the Word-Made-Flesh.