Since it was the day before Easter, I felt the need to watch something religious and educational. There was a story about Mary of Nazareth on the History Channel, so I watched. It spoke about this story being written by the YOUNGER brother of Jesus! It was called the Infancy Gospel of James. After a little research I see that this is in question whether it was a step-brother or his younger brother indeed! Whoosh! Blew me away. Lift my chin off the floor! Being catholic, the “ever-virgin” was the theme of the last millenium or two. You seemed to respond to your questioner with quite the little tap dance, leaving one to sort it out for themselves. Since it truely can’t be a yes or no, one must go with what they WANT to believe, to hell with the scholars and theology people, full speed ahead.
Do you believe that Joseph was younger or an old man? If an old man, then would it not be possible for him to keep Mary at a distance? She was only a teenager when Christ was born. If Mary and Joseph truly did get married, was not the union eventually consumated? It would be a severe breach of Hebrew tradition, otherwise.
The Catholic Church is not all prayer and propriety, or do we so soon forget? When the Catholic Church held sway, they could say or do anything and it must be true, lest you be found guilty of blasphemy and burned at the stake, beheaded or left to rot in some cell. I’m afraid that my “Catholic” faith has been shaken long before the scandals of today.
I believe, and this is just me, that indeed, Mary was the blessed virgin that she was proclaimed to be (and free from original sin also). BUT, she was still a mortal woman, married to Joseph, a full grown man, And that marriage had to be consumated (by tradition). i.e. Jesus had younger brothers and sisters. It is only circumstantial at best, but belief, not religion…is the answer.
Hi there, rittenboo, and welcome to the SDMB. When you post a question about one of Cecil’s columns, you need to include a link back to the column, like this:
Note that we know one thing for sure about the “Infancy Gospel of James”; it’s infantile. (Pure “My God is the best God; your God sucks” stuff that any adult Christian is revolted by.) And merely to prove that there was a person known as “James the brother of the Lord”, it is unnecessary to invoke it; he’s mentioned, after all, in the canonical New Testament. And if you want to bring in yoyo “gospels” that the Church rejected long ago, there are plenty that do assert the perpetual virginity of Mary.
As to whether or not Joseph had sexual relations with Mary subsequent to the birth of Jesus, why, granted that he no doubt had the desires common to most men, and granted that Jewish tradition would normally expect it, yet if he was truly visited by an angel and was told that Jesus was the Son of God, and believed it (which the gospels do, after all, say), would he not have had a thoroughly adequate motivation to say, “Whoa!”?
There is a relevant passage in W. H. Auden’s For the Time Being that is too long to quote here, but is well worth looking up.
I was thinking about this the other night, and it occurs to me that there is Scriptural evidence for Mary not having any other children (or sons, at least). As Jesus is dying on the cross, he commits Mary and John to each others’ care:
This would not have been necessary, were Jesus not an only child. If James were his brother, Jesus could have just told him “Hey, Jimmy, look after Mom after I’m gone, OK?”. There would have been no need to “adopt”, so to speak, from outside the family.
Note that this does not at all adress the question of whether Mary and Joseph ever consummated their marriage, as it is quite possible to have sex without having children.
Thank you Ice Wolf for the link info. I am completely new to this type of forum. I don’t get on-line very often - work all day with computers from another aspect, but need intellectual/spiritual growth that I don’t get elsewhere. This is indeed food for thought. Catholicism is so one sided. I have always had my own mind about and discarded what I “felt” was self-rightousness on the Church’s part. I will have to think on this.
Chronos, the problem with the scenario you describe is Jesus’s comment about His teachings setting brother against brother and parent against child – I have a very strong feeling, from the occasional mention of “his brothers” in the Gospels, that they looked on Him as “that loony brother of ours that got religion” – until after the Resurrection, anyway. His mother, on the other hand, stuck by Him – and therefore would be “tarred with the same brush” by them, whether she was mother or stepmother to them.
There happens to have been, thanks to the James ossuary story, some extensive discussion on this over at the Pizza Parlor, complete with quotes from Orthodox and Catholic scholarship in favor of the perpetual virginity story.
John Kennedy? I think highly of Auden and don’t have any of his works available (either here or at the local library) – can you either pull out the most relevant material or link to an online source that has it?
James, brother of Jesus
In many texts and scripts of the time, children born of the same mother, but different fathers are rarely referred to as half-brother or half-sister. Whereas the father’s children from a previous marriage are technically a “half”, but generally referred to as step, yet the same father genetically speaking. So it is Mom, that denotes brother or sister hood. The bible and other theological teachings are generously used by all to sway one belief over another. It is, of course, your own belief and aligning yourself with others that believe as you do. In the case of the Roman Catholics, it has been hammered into our psyche to believe, out of fear and ignorance, of what has been handed down through the centuries. I will have to go against the grain and declare my belief that Jesus did indeed have younger siblings. But again, that is just my opinion.
rittenboo, welcome. suggestion: use the “search” function on the top right of the screen, enter “Jesus siblings” under keywords and “within last year” in the time-frame – you will get several threads in the SDMB in that time period about that subject, with discussions among us.
Just a word of advice: be prudent in these forums (except the Pit) with how you phrase your opinion of any religious affiliation. Even what may seem like “throwaway lines” can come back at ya. These boards contain a large and varied community of everything from actual clergy to hard-line “Religion is BS” types so there can be a great opportunity to really explore and expand your views – if we all get along.
Thank you, JRDelirious. It would be indeed be nice if we could all get along. Religion is indeed a “hot topic” and I wasn’t thinking globally. I really don’t wish to offend anyone, just felt I needed to express my own views and opinions. I will seek it elsewhere.
There’s an awful lot of reference to “James the brother of the Lord” for me to buy into the “perpetual virginity” line without explicit support in canonical scripture.
I’ve always felt a virgin birth was miraculous enough without the rest of the Mariology.
Haven’t you seen “Dogma”?
According to reliable Canadian sources, Jesus’ brother was named Bob.
According to Matthew 1:24-25, Joseph " knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
Seems Joseph and Mary consummated the relationship after Jesus’ birth. The theory that she maintained her viriginity throughout her life contradicts the clear statement of scripture. It is completely acceptable that she gave birth to other children.
Changelote, don’t rely too heavily upon an English attempt at the correct preposition. After all, the James Whitcomb Riley House stayed in Indiana until the day of his death. It’s also there now.
Likewise, a “brother” need not be a “full biological” brother. I know of families wherein “brothers” and “sisters” share no biological parantage, at all. Nevertheless, they are “brothers” and “sisters” to each other, if not biologically.
The term “half brother” appears nowhere in Scripture. Are we to then claim that there were NO half brothers AT ALL in the times that the books are set in?
Every single argument I’ve seen on this issue is backwards. Those who begin their “investigation” wanting to deny the ever-virginity of the Theotokos manage to “prove” their denial. Those who want to accept the ever-virginity of the Theotokos manage to “prove” their belief.
To throw a monkey wrench into the matter–where in Scripture does it state that only “the books of the Bible” are to be used in order to determine such matters? If one insists upon using only that as a source, then there is no statement within that source to do so. If one steps outside of that source, then one gets into a very complicated set of “my hermeneutic is bigger than your hermeneutic” arguments.