Jesus' Siblings and Virgin Birth

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
41

Various points.

In the medieval Arthurian Vulgate, (aka Prose Lancelot, aka Pseudo-Map Chronicle) the perpetual virginity of Mary seems to be treated as the single most important point of Christian doctrine.

The Bible wasn’t “put together” in 397, although it was around then that Jerome translated it into Latin.

Relationship words are funny things. There is nothing remotely unlikely, a-priori, in Jesus’s cousins being called his “bothers”. We would need information about actual word usage in 1st-century Galilee to determine the likelihood.

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

42

Cecil apparently has an anti-Catholic bias. How sad. Unfortunately, his answer ignored certain facts:
[ul][li]Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin --yes, the original Protestants-- all agreed with the Catholic take on the perpetual virginity of Mary.[/li][li]Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic distinguished “brother” from “cousin” because, to a tribal people, everyone descended from the same patriarch is a “brother” (that’s why the “seemingly plain meaning of the text” isn’t as plain as it seems)[/li][li]The Bible has several examples of “brother” being used where we’d say “cousin” or “kinsmen” (what Cecil called the “brotherhood-of-man” sense of the word). Try[/li]Jer 34:9 and 1 Kings 20:32, for starters.
[li]There is no historical evidence of Mary having any children other than Jesus.[/li][li]A document from no later than A.D. 120 called The Protoevangelium of James says that Mary’s mother, Anne, had consecrated her to Temple service, which would explain the vow of virginity. For reasons having to do with ceremonial cleanliness, Mary eventually married an older widower named Joseph, who apparently was man enough to respect her vow.[/li][li]If Mary had a living husband or any other children, then Jesus would not have given her into the care of one of his disciples while he was hanging on the cross (see John 19:25-27).[/ul][/li]
As in most things, the Catholic position here makes more sense than its detractors, or poorly-informed Catholics, would have you believe.

43

Thank you for correcting my posting concerning the “putting together” of the bible. After a little more research it looks like the present canon first appeared in 367.

Having said that, it looks like the topic is dead. It was nice to see some good Catholics show up and explain the Church’s viewpoints.

44

Quote:
There is no historical evidence of Mary having any children other than Jesus.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aside from the obviously self interested claims and works of the proponents of the new religion, there is no historical evidence that Mary, or Jesus for that matter, ever existed. Citing religious tracts as proof of the truth of their own contents is circular reasoning. I’d be more impressed if the family name turned up in the census records of the time or if there was some mention of the trial and execution of Jesus in the records of the Roman Governor. The whole business sounds more like a good camp fire tale that got carried away with itself.

JB
Lex Non Favet Delictorum Votis

45

Re: Historical evidence of Jesus
This is a new topic and should probably be moved over to Great Debates, but I’d like to make a few quick comments.

First, there is no problem with using the gospels as historical documents. It is circular resoning to say “G-d must exisit because the bible says so which was written by G-d.” But it is not circular reasoning to say that the bible is a faithful representation of what the people who wrote it believed to be true. It is not so much that only historical recods of Jesus are in the bible but more that the bible was later defined as “all the historical records of Jesus.”

Second, the Letters of Paul are known to have been in circulation by 40-50 A.D., some 10 years after the death of Christ. The concensus is that the gospels were written a generation latter, while people that knew Jesus were undoubtably still alive. No one was writting about the distant past; they were writting about events that at the time could be verified.

Put this together, and the evidence seems to suggest that their was a historical Jesus. It seems more likely than the idea that a bunch of Jews got together and pulled this huge hoax. There is no particular problem with the lack of Roman records for Christ; Galilee was a serious backwater, full of messianic figures and crucifixtions. The fact that we have three distinct records of the man (Textual scholors agree Mathew, Mark, and Luke were probably all written useing a single other source; that John was written independently; and that Paul’s letters were written before any of them) is plenty. We have less evidence for many historical figures whose exisitance we take for granted.

To conclude, I will mention that I am have no particular stake in the exisitance of a historical Jesus; it’s just that the “Christianity is a sham because you can’t PROVE Jesus existed” always reminds me of the odius “Evolution is a sham because you can’t PROVE that it really happened.” We live in a messy world an we frequently can’t prove things; instead we have to weigh the avalible evidence and come to a logical conclusion. Gibbons, who hated Christians and blamed them for the fall of the Roman Empire, never argued that their was no Jesus. Peter Brown, who is probably the most renowned scholor of Late Antiquity living, never to my knowledge (If any one knows better, please tell me) doubts the historical likelihood of Jesus.

46

My understanding is that, among modern scholars, few doubt the existence of an historical Jesus. The question of exactly where he lived, what he did, what he said, etc. is hotly debated, but there is very little debate about his existence.

Manda makes a good point in distinguishing between using the Bible as an historic document and using it as an extra-historic document. Thus, for example, no one doubts that the Bible tells us what the authors thought about biology or astronomy, but many scholars doubt that the Bible tells us about modern biology or astronomy.

There is an interesting difference between the existence of Jesus and of more ancient Biblical figures. The texts about Jesus are known to be written within a generation or two after his death (even allowing for some flexibility in exact years.) The texts about Abraham were written at the earliest about 400 years after his life (at Sinai) and possibly not for 600 years after his life (during the time King David) although based on earlier oral tradition.

Heck, there’s not even non-Biblical sources to prove the existence of King David (there is one carving that possibly mentions “House of David” but there is some dispute.)

But this is far afield from Jesus’ siblings.

47

I think this is overstating it a bit. My reading of Gibbon is that he disliked certain aspects of Christianity as it developed - monasticism, hagiography, the fruitless and vicious theological debates - but that he was quite sympathetic to the basic moral tenets of Christianity. His account of the early church, before the development of the hierarchy, reads rather favourably. He was a product of the Enlightenment, and disliked the mysticism.

48

Quote:
Put this together, and the evidence seems to suggest that their was a historical Jesus. It seems more likely than the idea that a bunch of Jews got together and pulled this huge hoax.

Not my point exactly. I think it likely that there was some wandering holy man named Joshua bar Joseph (Jesus is, I believe, the Greek version) who was promoted by Paul and the Gospel writers. My point is that there is no extrinsic, disinterested evidence of his existence, much less that of his relatives. However good their intentions (or their memories) these guys all had their own axe to grind and being close in time to the source doesn’t necessarily make them any more reliable, witness some of the more bizarre claims made for Joseph Smith by the Mormons or the Jesus-in-the-Potato that turns up once a week in Mexico (No offense intended guys, I just have a problem with reputed miracles etc. in general.)

Too many years in the legal profession to have much faith in the testimony of clearly biased witnesses, I guess.

JB
Lex Non Favet Delictorum Votis

49

Well, fair enough, JBenz, but let’s remember that it’s very difficult to find independent documentation of the existence of ANYBODY from back then. If you were a major political or historical figure, like a governor, OK, sure – your name appears on independent inscriptions. But if you’re a nobody? Forget it.

No one kept birth records or death records. Cemetary tombstones were only for the rich, and they wouldn’t record birth date/death date anyway.

Social security numbers? drivers licensing?

Letters? “Dear Aunt Martha, having a wonderful time in the Galillee, wish you were here, Love, Your Nephew, Jesus” ? In the absence of a postal system, letters were few, and often the same parchment or papyrus was erased and used again. What did exist was mostly destroyed by time and erosion; one reason the Dead Sea scrolls are of such enormous interest is that there are so few other written documents from that time.

So it is not surprising that there is no “independent” evidence of a lunatic social reformer from the rural provinces.

50

Like cgleason, I was also given the “cousin”
or “spiritual brother” explanation in parochial school. I’ve always thought this was a pretty lame answer. The Jews were very aware of their exact ties to everyone due to the strict law governing the degree of kinship allowed within marriage. The exhaustive “begat” section of the O.T. & inclusion of Jesus’ genealogy are additional indications of the minute attention given to family relationship.

I believe the Roman adoption of Christianity is responsible for most of the beliefs that distort or have no basis in the new testament. Their most admirable goddesses were virgins, & myths of virgin birth have always been wide spread. Christmas & Easter were positioned at the winter solstice & vernal equinox respectively, many other pagan symbols & practices were incorporated. This improved the appeal of Christianity to many who were in need of new faith. Remember this happened at a time when Roman society had stopped believing in their gods in any real way, this usually leads to the breakdown of a culture. The infusion of Christianity & the later interest of Mohammed are likely what has preserved the writings of the ancients for us today.

51

PS to Paddy the Irish Mexican:
What about Mary’s cousin Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist?

52

Would she have been Beth the Baptist?
… or is that Babtist?

53

Note that I raised six points in defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary, and no one on the board has refuted even one of them. Instead, m anderson introduces Mary’s cousin Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, to the playing field. Elizabeth’s relationship to Mary is not directly related to the question of whether Jesus had siblings, but if the question is how we know that Mary and Elizabeth were cousins, the answer is that a preponderence of evidence suggests this.

The Catholic view of the Matthew text we first discussed only “sounds pretty lame” to people who are unfamiliar with the original Biblical languages and the nearly 2,000 year-old tradition of the church. Ignoring the realities of translation might even get some people to think that John “the Baptist” was a prototype for modern American Baptists, rather than an itinerant Jewish preacher and wilderness guy who baptized people and prepared the way for Jesus.

m anderson notes (correctly) that Jewish concern for family ties is reflected in Old and New Testament geneologies, but you won’t find evidence for any siblings of Jesus in those geneologies, either. No Catholic belief “distorts” the New Testament. That some of the goddesses in the Greek and Roman pantheon were virgins does not alter Mary’s unique status as the ever-virgin Mother of God. All virgins are not created equal, as it were, because only one of them was “mom” to Jesus.

54

After quite some time, I wanted to weigh in on my take involving the interpretation of how the original language should be translated to come to the conclusion that the concept of the virgin birth is actually the correct way to translate the passages both in Isaiah 7: 14/Isaiah 8:8 and the reference to this passage in Matthew 1:23.

I believe to understand the concept of the virgin birth in translation, we must understand the significance of the title or name of the person who was to be born: Immanuel, .which in itself means ‘God with us.’

In the context of the passage in Isaiah 7, Syria and Israel (the Northern Kingdom, with its capital in Samaria, as opposed to Judah, with its capital in Jerusalem) had desired to form a coalition with Judah in order to oppose the increasing power of Assyria. Judah had vacillated, and Syria and Israel determined to punish her. Upon hearing this news, King Ahaz of Judah trembled in fear. The Lord sent the Prophet Isaiah to inform him that he had nothing to fear. The power of his enemies was about played out, and they could do him no harm. Isaiah even commanded him to ask or a sign in confirmation of the divine message. This Ahaz refused to do. Hence, in reply to the hypocritical king, Isaiah announces that the Lord will give to the people of Judah a sign. In vision the prophet beholds a virgin (‘alma’, literally “an unmarried woman,” or a “young woman,” but as I explain later, I lean towards the former as the proper translation), who is with child and about to bear a son and she will call his name Immanuel.

In interpreting this prophecy, I believe there are three factors to keep in mind:

a. The birth of the child is to be a sign. It is true that in itself a sign need not be a miracle, but in this particular context, after the command issued to Ahaz to ask for a sign deep or high one would be justified in expecting a sign such as the recession of the shadow on the sundial (see Isaiah 38: 7-8). Thus, I must respectfully disagree with Rowan’s view that this is something “ordinary.” There should be something unusual in the birth; a birth in the ordinary course of nature would not seem to meet the requirements of the sign. In this connection it must be noted that the question is made more difficult by the fact that there cannot be a local reference of the prophecy to Hezekiah (son of Ahaz, and a future King who demonstrated the character qualities of a righteous leader) , because Hezekiah had already been born. (applying this passage to Hezekiah has been how many modern scholars have tried to circumvent the whole “virgin birth” concept)

b. The mother of the child is an unmarried woman. Why did Isaiah designate her by this particular word alma? It is sometimes said that had he wished to refer to a virgin birth there was a good word at his disposal, namely, “betula.” (I know I’m not spelling these hebrew terms correctly, but just transliterating them the best I can). But an examination of the usage of the latter word in the Old Testament reveals that it was unsatisfactory, in that it would have been ambiguous. The word betula may designate a virgin, but when it does the explanatory phrase ‘and a man had not known her’ is often added (cf. Gen. 24:6). The word may also designate a betrothed virgin (cf. Dt. 22: 23). In this latter case the virgin is known as the wife (“issa”) of the man, and he as her husband (“is”) But the word “betula” may also indicate a married woman (Joel 1:8). On the basis of this latter passage a tradition arose among the Jews in which the word could clearly refer to a married woman. Had Isaiah employed this word, therefore, it would not have been clear what type of woman he had in mind, whether virgin or married. Other Hebrew. words which were at his disposal would also not be satisfactory. Had he wished to designate the mother as a young woman he would most likely have employed the common term “naara” (‘girl’). In using the word “alma” however, Isaiah employs the one word which is never applied (either in the Bible or in the other Near Eastern sources) to anyone but an unmarried woman. This unmarried woman might have been immoral, in which case the birth could hardly have been a sign. I am left then with the conclusion that the mother was a good woman and yet unmarried; in other words, the birth was supernatural. It is the presence of this word “alma” which makes an application of the passage to some local birth difficult, if not impossible.

c. There is also the force of the term for the child to be born: “Immanuel.” A natural reading of the passage would lead us to expect that the presence of God is to be seen in the birth of the child himself. This interpretation, however, is seriously disputed, and vigorously rejected by most modern scholars when interpreting this passage. My undergraduate religion professors offered that the “presence of God” announced by Immanuel is found not in the birth of a living person, but rather, in the deliverance of Judah from her two northern enemies. The infancy of the child is made the measure of time that would elapse until the two enemies are removed. Such a period of time would be short – a child learns the difference between good and evil at a tender age. Hence, within, say, two years, or possibly even less, Judah would have nothing to fear from Syria and Israel. In this deliverance the presence of God would be manifested, and as a token or pledge of this deliverance some mother would call her child Immanuel.

This interpretation poses other problems which it does not answer. What reason would a mother have for naming her particular child Immanuel? How could she know that her own child and no other would be a sign that in two years or so the presence of God would be manifested in the deliverance of Judah from Syria and Israel? Furthermore, how would Israel itself know that a particular child had been born in answer to the prophecy and that the birth of this particular child would be the promised sign? It would seem that, if the prophecy refers to a local birth, the child to be born must be someone prominent. The most prominent person, namely Hezekiah, is ruled out, and therefore we must assume that it is a child of Isaiah or some other child of Ahaz. But this is also ruled out by the word , alma. Neither the wife of Ahaz nor the wife of Isaiah could properly be designated an “alma:, for the obvious reason that both were married women.

Also, if this was to truly be a “sign,” it would not have been terribly significant if it was merely contemporary to the situation at hand for Ahaz, in that within another two generations, the power of the Babylonian empire would swallow Judah whole.

It seems best, then, to apply the name Immanuel to the Child Himself. In His birth the presence of God is to be found. God has come to His people in a little Child, that very Child whomi Isaiah later names ‘Mighty God’ (“el gibbor”) This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that Isaiah is seeking to dissuade men from. trusting the Assyrian king. The nation’s help rests not in Assyria but in God. In this dark moment God is with His people. He is found in the birth of a Child.

The fifteenth and sixteenth verses of Isaiah 7 then use the infancy of the divine Child as a measure of the time that will elapse until Ahaz is freed from the, fear of his two northern enemies. Ahaz rejects the sign of Immanuel, and turns to the king of Assyria. That king and his successors cause Judah’s downfall, but for the remnant there was given the promise of Immanuel, and in Immanuel they would find their hope and salvation. It is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus

SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”

55

Sox, it’s a nice argument, but the bottom line is still belief. We are dealing with ancient languages (Hebrew and Aramaic) that are quite sparse. And we are dealing with prophecies, which are, by their very nature, poetic and fuzzily-worded. Not one of the prophets says anything like, “In October of 1492, a man named Columbus will sail west from Portugal, in the name of the king of Spain, and find a bunch of islands not known to Europeans.”

So, it all comes down to belief. If you want to believe in virgin birth, eternal virginity, and heavenly chocolate (immaculate confection), you can interpret the texts to mean support you.

If you want to interpret the texts in a purely historic concept, you can do that too.

And there are mystics who think these texts offer insights into how to levitate. Fine by me. Whatever.

At a certain point, this becomes a Great Debate topic, with endless reiterations of the same points by the same people, based on their starting belief. And those beliefs are paramount – no amount of arguing or fine point analysis is going to change anyone’s view.

56

Well, Dex, my attempt at an explanation was an effort at looking at the passages in an historic context; the historic usage of the word “alma,” and the context (reign of King Ahaz). I think the proof of the historic context shows to translate “alma” as “virgin” is correct.

You have a point regarding belief for the application of that historic context. The concept of the virgin birth is hard for many folks to accept, some from the viewpoint of being scientific skeptics, others from the viewpoint of denying the divine nature of Christ.

This last point shows that its its not just a matter of belief, but “dis-belief.” You yourself make the point to say “nice argument.” There are many who I’ve presented these points to who respond in a similar way. “Hey, some of the things you say actually make sense, but that passage in Isaiah could not have possibly been meant to apply to Christ.” We right-wing evangelicals are always the ones stereotyped as narrow minded bigots. Admittedly, there are many who fit the stereotype. But there are plenty of folks on the other side of the aisle who can be as narrow minded.

Present company excluded, of course. I just found your comments a little ironic.

SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”

57

Rabbinic commentaries, from way back (say, 100 BC and for the next few centuries), have noted that there is the pshat, the plain meaning of the text, and there are the complexities of interpretation. (In fact, accumulation of the classical midrashim [commentaries] were closed because they were straying way too far from the simple meaning of the text.

Thus with Isaiah. There is the straight-forward and simple meaning of the text, in historic context. And there are elaborations, complex interpretations, and even alien-visitors-from-another-planet interpretations. That’s why I say you make a “nice point”, Tom; and I confess, I haven’t studied it in depth because this has been a busy weekend; but I personally think it’s strained.

If you come to a poetic prophecy wanting to believe that it applies to a specific later event, you can find ways to do so. That’s why Nostradamus and the Bible Code have all those followers today. If you come to a poetic prophecy wanting to disbelieve that it applies to a specific alter event, you can find ways to do that, too (including the claim that the prophecy was written ex post facto.) We are all of us bound by our pre-set prejudices.

58

Jesus’ brothers were named Felipe and Matty. All played in the major leagues during the 1960s-70s.
Or aren’t we talking about the Alou brothers?
:slight_smile:

59

Sox may or may not have a point in a Ahaz-era V.B., but my understanding of what Isaiah was up to, based on traditional non-Evangelical interpretation, is as follows:

  1. Ahaz is nervous at the saber-rattling antics of two neighbor kings (Israel and Aram IIRC).
  2. Isaiah wants to let him know that God is with him and won’t let him down.
  3. Isaiah points to a young maiden (almah) standing nearby and comes off with the lines in question.
  4. Point in reference: like Mary later, almah was used to refer to both nubile unmarried girls and young women who had been betrothed/espoused but had not yet set up housekeeping with their husband. In Isaiah’s time, having made such vows meant they could licitly “have carnal knowledge” of their spouses.
  5. So Isaiah says, hey, this maiden is gonna conceive a boy. Before he’s old enough to know the difference between good and evil, those kings you’re worried about are going to be pushing up daisies.
  6. This is (says Isaiah) God’s doing to show he’s watching out for you. In token of which, the girl will name her kid Immanuel, meaning “God (is) with us.”
  7. Several hundred years later, Matthew, looking for OT predictions of Jesus, picks up on this and plays word-games with it. Did the Holy Spirit intend the prophecy to be used that way? Opinions differ. Most traditionalist Christians would think so.

The bottom line, however, is that Isaiah was not out to predict something 600+ years down the road; he was giving a sign for the here-and-now worries of his king. That’s clear from the text as it stands. To see it as anything else makes as much sense as to take Cecil’s dissertation on the caloric content of semen and say, “He was actually predicting the Second Coming of Jesus when he said that.”

As for Peter’s mother-in-law, he may well have been a widower. But he could equally well have been a married man. Most early church leaders were in fact married (there’s business in one of the Timothy letters about a bishop being the husband of one wife). The church simply imposed the rules they did to (a) free up their clergy from having to care for a family, (b) prevent nepotism, and (c) in keeping with the ascetic attitudes of the time. Which of these was more important varied with the times. There was, in fact, IIRC, two popes who were legitimate father and son; no snickering about illegitimate “nephews,” but the son of a married bishop elected Pope later himself being elected. (Tom or Pickman, please verify or correct; for some strange reason, my workplace doesn’t stock the Catholic Encyclopedia. :wink:

60

Well, certainly Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) had a number of sons, the most famous of which was Cesare, but Cesare never became pope; he was the despot of Romagna. Leo X had at least one nephew who became a cardinal, which was mostly to safeguard the integrity of the city of Florence, Leo’s hometown. Paul III had several sons and appointed two of his grandsons cardinals, but I don’t remember if any of them became popes. (Renaissance history was never my forte----I do much better at the Modern period! :)) Tom? Can you help us here?