Are James and Joseph the Brothers of Jesus?

We read in Matthew 13:55-56
Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?
Protestants will point to this verse and say that this proves that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is false. Is that so?

It is true that the most natural reading of the Greek word for "brothers" and "sisters" is read to mean blood brothers. As many good Catholics have already pointed out, while the word does encompass the blood brother understanding, it is by no means limited to it. And plenty of early church witnesses testify that they are his cousins. The early church is by no means unanimous, some think they are his blood brothers, others think they are cousins, while some others think they are St. Joseph's children from a previous marriage before he married Mary. But my point is that the early church does provide precedent for the belief that Mary had no other children.

Scripture itself may indicate that James and Joseph were not the blood brothers of Jesus, however, since it later identifies them in Matthew 27:55-56

Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
We know that these are the same James and Joseph because the Bible doesn't differentiate them from the earlier James and Joseph. When there are multiple Marys, Sacred Scripture gives them certain distinguishing features, like this one is Magdalene, this one was Mother of so and so, etc. So, in the absence of any differentiating property, we safely presume they are the same James and Joseph.

Now we ask, is Mary mother of God also the mother of James and Joseph? Probably not. Matthew 27:61 reads
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.
So Matthew tells us there are two Marys at the crucifixion. We already know Mary Magdalene. But here, we read Matthew call who we are supposed to think is Mary mother of God as, "the other Mary". This seems improbable. It is further improbable that Mary would be at a distance when in Johns gospel, she is described as being at the foot of the cross. It is also improbable that the mother of Jesus would be denoted with the title of "Mother of James and Joseph" when the main character of the entire gospels is Jesus. So the mother of James and Joseph is also probably not the mother of Jesus, and so James and Joseph are probably not the blood brothers of Jesus.

A knock out case? No, but it should at least establish that reading "brothers" and "sisters" in the most natural way to mean blood brothers and sisters can no longer be presumed.

For a more detailed explanation of the passages, see Dr. Brant Pitre's excellent study here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe...
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is...
Read more