Were Jesus's brothers born of another woman?

[Bladerunner]

One way I know is from the evidence in post #4 that proves James the author of the Epistle of James was Jesus's cousin, as well as the apostle James of Alphaeus, James in Gal. 1:19, James the Less, James the Just, and James the bishop of Jerusalem.

you have been brainwashed.

 

[LuxMundy]

I believe he was a relative of Jesus who was the first leader of the church in Jerusalem.

Do I think the James of Gal. 1:19, the so-called "brother of the Lord," was also called James the Just? Yes. Do I think he authored the Epistle of James? Yes.

So, you agree that Jesus's kinsman/relative and apostle James in Gal. 1:19, James the first bishop of Jerusalem, James the Just, and the author of the Epistle of James were the same person.That's a good start. However, you currently don't accept that that James is also the same person as Jesus's kinsman/relative James mentioned in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, James the Less, and the apostle James of Alphaeus. Let's look at the following then:

I. "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus (Clopas), who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus (Jude/Judas), and of one Joseph." (Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD], Fragments of Papias, Frag. 10, see Jn. 19:25)

II. "[...] James the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church [...] called the Just [...]" (Bk. II, ch. 23) and "after James the Just had suffered martyrdom [...] Symeon (Simon), the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop [...] because he was a cousin of the Lord." (Bk. III, ch. 22) (Hegesippus [c. 110-180 AD], Hypomnemata)

III. James, who is called the brother of the Lord [...] as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord [...] after ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic epistles" (see Jud. 1:1) and "[...] Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother" (Jerome of Stridon [c. 347–420 CE], De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Mariae, see Jn. 19:25)

Now, compare the early Church Father writings above with the scriptural writings below:

Two accounts of the same scene:
I. "Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother called Mary, and his brothers, James, Joses (Joseph), Simon, and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55)
II. "Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses (Joseph), Judah (Jude/Judas), and Simon?" (Mk. 6:3)

[Note: One of the James of the twelve apostles, and at least one known brother of his, corresponds with Matt. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3: apostles James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3, Mk. 3:18;15:40, Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13).]

Three accounts of the same scene:
I. "Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James (the Less) and Joses (Joseph), and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Salome)." (Matt. 27:56)

II. "There were also women watching from afar, among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome (the mother of the sons of Zebedee)" (Mk. 15:40)

III. "But standing by Jesus’ cross were His Mother (Mary of Joseph), His Mother’s sister Mary the wife of Clopas (the mother of James the Less and Joseph), and Mary Magdalene." (Jn. 19:25)

Two scenes regarding the same event (Jesus's Resurrection):
I. "When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome (the mother of the sons of Zebedee), bought spices, that they might come and anoint him." (Mk. 16:1)

II. Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles." (Lk. 24:10)

According to the writings above, Jesus's kinsman/relative James in Matt. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3, James the Less, and apostle James of Alphaeus is shown to have been the same person as Jesus's kinsman/relative and apostle James in Gal. 1:19, called "the Just", the first bishop of Jerusalem, who authored the Epistle of James. In view of this, do you now accept that?

But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

First, John 7:5 says Jesus's brothers didn't believe in him, which suggests that no brothers were among the Twelve -- yet there would have to be two such brothers if James the son of Alphaeus was one of them, for Levi is also a son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14).

Firstly, nowhere in the four Gospels are the apostles James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus and apostle Levi (Matthew) of Alphaeus called brothers. Of the twelve apostles, only Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus is called James of Alphaeus's brother (Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13). More than one man named "Alphaeus" existed.

Secondly, two of Jesus's four cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus, were the brothers (kinsmen/relatives) of His who didn't believe that He was the Messiah, whereas James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus did believe.

 

[RedFan]

So, you agree that Jesus's kinsman/relative and apostle James in Gal. 1:19, James the first bishop of Jerusalem, James the Just, and the author of the Epistle of James were the same person.That's a good start.

And it will be a good finish as well. We are done. You and I are not going to agree on everything. You'll just have to accept that.

 

[Matthias]

“There has been considerable discussion within the Church as to exactly how we should understand the NT references to Jesus’ ‘brothers.’ Tertullian (c. A.D. 160-after 220), in what appears to be the standard view of his day, speaks of them as simply other sons of Joseph and Mary (Adv. Marc. 4.19; De Car 7), which view was explicitly affirmed by Helvidius of Rome about A.D. 380. So this view is called Helvedian. The Protoevangelium of James, however, whose roots may go back to about A.D. 150, takes them as sons of Joseph by a previous marriage (9:2), and this view was defended by Epiphanius (c. 315-403 in a letter subsequently incorporated into his Panarion or “Medicine Chest” (Adv. Haer. 78). So this view is called Epiphanian. In opposition to Helvidius, Jerome (c. A.D. 347-420) in A.D. 383 argued that Jesus’ ‘brothers’ were really first cousins, the sons of Alphaeus and Mary of Clopas - which Mary he inferred from John 19:25 to have been the virgin Mary’s sister (cf. Mark 15:40) - and so sought to safeguard the perpetual virginity of Mary (Adversus Helvidium de perpetua virginitate beatae Mariae). And this view is called Hieronymian. The controversy obviously has been occasioned by doctrinal interests. Apart from such polymical considerations, there appears to be no reason to regard James as anything other than Jesus’ uterine brother.”

(Richard N. Longenecker, Word Biblical Commentary, Galatians, Vol. 41, p. 39)

 

[LuxMundy]

We are done. You and I are not going to agree on everything.

That's fine, there's just one question towards the bottom that requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer from you.

You agree that Jesus's kinsman/relative and apostle James in Gal. 1:19, James the first bishop of Jerusalem, James the Just, and the author of the Epistle of James were the same person. However, you currently don't accept that that James is also the same person as Jesus's kinsman/relative James mentioned in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, James the Less, and the apostle James of Alphaeus. Let's look at the following then:

I. "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus (Clopas), who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus (Jude/Judas), and of one Joseph." (Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD], Fragments of Papias, Frag. 10, see Jn. 19:25)

II. "[...] James the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church [...] called the Just [...]" (Bk. II, ch. 23) and "after James the Just had suffered martyrdom [...] Symeon (Simon), the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop [...] because he was a cousin of the Lord." (Bk. III, ch. 22) (Hegesippus [c. 110-180 AD], Hypomnemata)

III. James, who is called the brother of the Lord [...] as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord [...] after ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic epistles" (see Jud. 1:1) and "[...] Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother" (Jerome of Stridon [c. 347–420 CE], De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Mariae, see Jn. 19:25)

Now, compare the early Church Father writings above with the scriptural writings below:

Two accounts of the same scene:
I. "Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother called Mary, and his brothers, James, Joses (Joseph), Simon, and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55)
II. "Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses (Joseph), Judah (Jude/Judas), and Simon?" (Mk. 6:3)

[Note: One of the two James of the twelve apostles, and at least one known brother of his, corresponds with Matt. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3: apostles James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) (Matt. 10:3, Mk. 3:18;15:40, Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13).]

Three accounts of the same scene:
I. "Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James (the Less) and Joses (Joseph), and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Salome)." (Matt. 27:56)

II. "There were also women watching from afar, among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome (the mother of the sons of Zebedee)" (Mk. 15:40)

III. "But standing by Jesus’ cross were His Mother (Mary of Joseph), His Mother’s sister Mary the wife of Clopas (the mother of James the Less and Joseph), and Mary Magdalene." (Jn. 19:25)

Two scenes regarding the same event (Jesus's Resurrection):
I. "When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome (the mother of the sons of Zebedee), bought spices, that they might come and anoint him." (Mk. 16:1)

II. Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles." (Lk. 24:10)

According to the writings above, Jesus's kinsman/relative James in Matt. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3, James the Less, and apostle James of Alphaeus is shown to have been the same person as Jesus's kinsman/relative and apostle James in Gal. 1:19, called "the Just", the first bishop of Jerusalem, who authored the Epistle of James. In view of this, do you now accept that?

But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

First, John 7:5 says Jesus's brothers didn't believe in him, which suggests that no brothers were among the Twelve -- yet there would have to be two such brothers if James the son of Alphaeus was one of them, for Levi is also a son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14).

Firstly, nowhere in the four Gospels are the apostles James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus and apostle Levi (Matthew) of Alphaeus called brothers. Of the twelve apostles, only Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus is called James of Alphaeus's brother (Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13). More than one man named "Alphaeus" existed.

Secondly, two of Jesus's four cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus, were the brothers (kinsmen/relatives) of His who didn't believe that He was the Messiah, whereas James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus did believe.

 

[RedFan]

That's fine, there's just one question towards the bottom that requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer from you.

Not even going to scroll down to read it.

 

[LuxMundy]

Not even going to scroll down to read it.

Of course you read everything, and because of what you read, that's why you refused to answer my question twice.

 

[Matthias]

“There has been considerable discussion within the Church as to exactly how we should understand the NT references to Jesus’ ‘brothers.’ Tertullian (c. A.D. 160-after 220), in what appears to be the standard view of his day, speaks of them as simply other sons of Joseph and Mary (Adv. Marc. 4.19; De Car 7), which view was explicitly affirmed by Helvidius of Rome about A.D. 380. So this view is called Helvedian. The Protoevangelium of James, however, whose roots may go back to about A.D. 150, takes them as sons of Joseph by a previous marriage (9:2), and this view was defended by Epiphanius (c. 315-403 in a letter subsequently incorporated into his Panarion or “Medicine Chest” (Adv. Haer. 78). So this view is called Epiphanian. In opposition to Helvidius, Jerome (c. A.D. 347-420) in A.D. 383 argued that Jesus’ ‘brothers’ were really first cousins, the sons of Alphaeus and Mary of Clopas - which Mary he inferred from John 19:25 to have been the virgin Mary’s sister (cf. Mark 15:40) - and so sought to safeguard the perpetual virginity of Mary (Adversus Helvidium de perpetua virginitate beatae Mariae). And this view is called Hieronymian. The controversy obviously has been occasioned by doctrinal interests. Apart from such polymical considerations, there appears to be no reason to regard James as anything other than Jesus’ uterine brother.”

(Richard N. Longenecker, Word Biblical Commentary, Galatians, Vol. 41, p. 39)

For those who may be interested, a link to the Protoevangelium (Gospel) of James.

CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

 

[LuxMundy]

Welcome to the forum asoul.



What do you make of this?

His brethren?

Interesting to hear your thoughts...

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Thank you. Refer back to post #4.

 

[Matthias]

For those who may be interested, a link to the Protoevangelium (Gospel) of James.

CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

According to Wikipedia, fwiw, the Protoevangelium of James ”was a widely influential source for Christian doctrine regarding Mary. According to Bernhard Lohse, it is the earliest surviving assertion of the perpetual virginity of Mary … Its explanation of the gospels’ ‘brothers of Jesus’ (the adelphoi) as the offspring of Joseph by an earlier marriage remains the position of the Eastern church, but in the West, influential theologian Jerome asserted that Joseph himself had been a perpetual virgin, and that the adelphoi were cousins of the Lord. Jerome’s opposition to the Protoevangelium led to a diminished influence and circulation in the western, Latin church. It was condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and rejected by the Gelasian Decree around 500.”

Gospel of James - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So the earliest surviving source for the perpetual virginity of Mary - not the dogma itself - was rejected long ago by the RCC.

 

[RedFan]

Of course you read everything, and because of what you read, that's why you refused to answer my question twice.

So you are calling me a liar now? A fellow Christian? We're done. You are blocked.

 

[LuxMundy]

So you are calling me a liar now? A fellow Christian? We're done. You are blocked.

Just because you're a Christian it doesn't mean that you never lie.

 

[Bladerunner]

“There has been considerable discussion within the Church as to exactly how we should understand the NT references to Jesus’ ‘brothers.’ Tertullian (c. A.D. 160-after 220), in what appears to be the standard view of his day, speaks of them as simply other sons of Joseph and Mary (Adv. Marc. 4.19; De Car 7), which view was explicitly affirmed by Helvidius of Rome about A.D. 380. So this view is called Helvedian. The Protoevangelium of James, however, whose roots may go back to about A.D. 150, takes them as sons of Joseph by a previous marriage (9:2), and this view was defended by Epiphanius (c. 315-403 in a letter subsequently incorporated into his Panarion or “Medicine Chest” (Adv. Haer. 78). So this view is called Epiphanian. In opposition to Helvidius, Jerome (c. A.D. 347-420) in A.D. 383 argued that Jesus’ ‘brothers’ were really first cousins, the sons of Alphaeus and Mary of Clopas - which Mary he inferred from John 19:25 to have been the virgin Mary’s sister (cf. Mark 15:40) - and so sought to safeguard the perpetual virginity of Mary (Adversus Helvidium de perpetua virginitate beatae Mariae). And this view is called Hieronymian. The controversy obviously has been occasioned by doctrinal interests. Apart from such polymical considerations, there appears to be no reason to regard James as anything other than Jesus’ uterine brother.”

(Richard N. Longenecker, Word Biblical Commentary, Galatians, Vol. 41, p. 39)

Does not GOD's Word mean anything to you on this forum. Why do you keep looking for something to disrupt the Gospel as truth and light.??

 

[Matthias]

Does not GOD's Word mean anything to you on this forum. Why do you keep looking for something to disrupt the Gospel as truth and light.??

* What an absolutely bizarre comment. *

Welcome to the forum. It’s been quite a while since we’ve spoken to one another.

Among other things, I’m a retired Christian pastor and a retired professor of theology. Perhaps you don’t recall that. Or maybe you’re confusing me with someone else.

The scriptures mean more to me than anything else that I (or anyone else) could ever read. You will find me laboring diligently in the limited forums where I have posting privileges to encourage people to read the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

I’m not ever “looking for something to disrupt the Gospel as truth and light.”

In this particular thread I’m posting in support of the belief that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after Jesus was born and had children, half-brothers and sisters of Jesus, as a result. I’m writing in opposition to the Roman Catholics and using ancient writers in the church as part of that effort.

The Protestant commentary I quoted supports my position and contradicts theirs.

 

[Matthias]

”There appears to be no reason to regard James as anything other than Jesus’ uterine brother.”

Do you understand what a “uterine brother” is @Bladerunner?

 

[Bladerunner]

* What an absolutely bizarre comment. *

Welcome to the forum. It’s been quite a while since we’ve spoken to one another.

Among other things, I’m a retired Christian pastor and a retired professor of theology. Perhaps you don’t recall that. Or maybe you’re confusing me with someone else.

The scriptures mean more to me than anything else that I (or anyone else) could ever read. You will find me laboring diligently in the limited forums where I have posting privileges to encourage people to read the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

I’m not ever “looking for something to disrupt the Gospel as truth and light.”

In this particular thread I’m posting in support of the belief that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after Jesus was born and had children, half-brothers and sisters of Jesus, as a result. I’m writing in opposition to the Roman Catholics and using ancient writers in the church as part of that effort.

The Protestant commentary I quoted supports my position and contradicts theirs.

Then I must apologise since you are contridicting the RCC approach to God's WORD. No, I did not remember you and am glad we get to meet again. Of course you understand why I said what I said for I thought you were on the other side. By that I mean, the side that constantly tries to find something that will place a falsehood in the Bible...Thus if a falsehood is found, than the Word of GOD is worthless. One cannot trust any part of it. Thank you again for your work in this field.

 

[Bladerunner]

”There appears to be no reason to regard James as anything other than Jesus’ uterine brother.”

Do you understand what a “uterine brother” is @Bladerunner?

about as much as I understand Heli (Mary's father) adopted Joseph as a son, as Joseph adopted Jesus Christ as a son.

 

[Matthias]

about as much as I understand Heli (Mary's father) adopted Joseph as a son, as Joseph adopted Jesus Christ as a son.

It’s “professor speak” (I tried to avoid doing it in the classroom when I was teaching) and it simply means that Jesus and James came from the same womb - Mary’s; that they were half-brothers, not cousins.

The Catholics are offering their readers an interpretation of scripture, underpinning it with tradition, and backing it with the alleged authority of the RCC (not by Christianity in general).

To his credit, @asoul provided information from ancient Christian writers early in the thread for the consideration of his readers. To his discredit, he didn’t provide his readers with information from dissenting ancient Christian writers. He thereby painted a distorted picture.

He is of the mindset that he cannot possibly be refuted. (It’s pointless to discuss it with him; a waste of our time and his.) Christianity, as Church history demonstrates and documents, doesn’t cooperate with him.

Everyone must decide for themselves. As I commented very early in the thread, I don’t find the Roman Catholic argument persuasive. (I’m certainly not alone in that.)

I’m persuaded from scripture that Mary didn’t defraud her husband in the marriage, and that Joseph didn’t defraud her. They observed their respective marital obligations, including sexual duties, to one another, as generally discussed in scripture - which is unthinkable to someone indoctrinated in Roman Catholic teaching.

I’m writing in defense of marriage (one man / male and one woman / female) in general, and in defense of the marriage of Joseph and Mary in particular.

 

[Bladerunner]

It’s “professor speak” (I tried to avoid doing it in the classroom when I was teaching) and it simply means that Jesus and James came from the same womb - Mary’s; that they were half-brothers, not cousins.

I agree

The Catholics are offering their readers an interpretation of scripture, underpinning it with tradition, and backing it with the alleged authority of the RCC (not by Christianity in general).

alleged authority of the Pope

To his credit, @asoul provided information from ancient Christian writers early in the thread for the consideration of his readers. To his discredit, he didn’t provide his readers with information from dissenting ancient Christian writers. He thereby painted a distorted picture.

He is of the mindset that he cannot possibly be refuted. (It’s pointless to discuss it with him; a waste of our time and his.) Christianity, as Church history demonstrates and documents, doesn’t cooperate with him.

Everyone must decide for themselves. As I commented very early in the thread, I don’t find the Roman Catholic argument persuasive. (I’m certainly not alone in that.)

I’m persuaded from scripture that Mary didn’t defraud her husband in the marriage, and that Joseph didn’t defraud her. They observed their respective marital obligations, including sexual duties, to one another, as generally discussed in scripture - which is unthinkable to someone indoctrinated in Roman Catholic teaching.

Both Mary and Joseph were visited by angels..and told the whole story.

I’m writing in defense of marriage (one man / male and one woman / female) in general, and in defense of the marriage of Joseph and Mary in particular.

Thank you....I have been married to one woman for 54 years. Understand what you are speaking of.....Thanks again.

 

[Matthias]

A pretty thorough and extensive treatment of the issues surrounding this topic is provided in Encyclopedia of the Bible, “Brothers of Jesus” available on Bible Gateway (link provided).

Brothers of Jesus - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com