In another thread regarding the differences between the doctrines of Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth, a poster made this statement:
I’m not questioning the statement - I know that lots of people do believe that Mary was a lifelong virgin. My question is this - how do the Catholic and Orthodox churches reconcile this belief with the scriptural references to Jesus having siblings? I know there’s at least one verse in the Gospels that mentions Jesus’ “mother and brothers” speaking to him, and I know that it’s tradition (if not in fact scriptural) that the books of James and Jude are by, and named for, Jesus’ younger siblings. Can anyone explain this seeming boondoggle to me?
There’s a tradition in Orthodoxy that says that Jesus’ siblings are Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage. Catholic teaching usually is that the references to Jesus’ siblings in the Gospels really refers to his cousins, and that the word used for “brothers” is ambiguous that way.
I’m not a Catholic, but I believe this is reconciled by taking “brother” to mean the less literal sense, the same way people in church address each other as brother and sister.
Traditionally, in Roman Catholicism, Joseph is portrayed as an older man at the time of his marriage to Mary, who is portrayed as quite young. He’s also often assumed to have died sometime between Jesus’ childhood and the beginning of his public ministry, which explains why he disappears from the Christian scriptures. So although there’s no doctrinal answer, many Catholics assume the same thing as Orthodox tradition holds: Jesus’ siblings were Joseph’s children from his first marriage, perhaps raised by their stepmother after the death of their father.
Others would say that the word usually translated as “brothers” could, at that time and place, mean any close male relatives of the same generation. The men identified as brothers could have meant first cousins, or so the theory goes, who might grew up in the same village or possibly even in a single extended-family dwelling.
The primary meaning of the Greek word, adelphos (or adelphes for “sister”), is “brother” in the sense of a blood sibling. This word had a range of figurative menaing as well, just as it does in English, but its main meaning is of a blood sibling. The literal meaning of the words a delphos is “from the (same) womb.” Sometimes this was used to designate descendants of a common ancestor but such a use would be clarified by context. It could also be used (just as it is in English) to designate more symbolic relationships but a plain reading of Matthew 13:55-56 implies no such context or use. Take a look.
“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?”
If you were talking to someone in English and they said, “Hey, isn’t that Bob, the plumber’s kid? And isn’t that his mom, Mildred? And aren’t those his brothers and sisters?,” you would not assume that he was talking about lodge brothers or cousins but siblings. It’s no different in Koine. Just because something can have a symbolic meaning doesn’t mean that a symbolic meaning should be preferred over a literal meaning if context doesn’t suggest it.
Incidentally, if Matthew had meant cousins, he could have said cousins. The Greek word would have been anepsios.
Also, there is nothing in the New Testament which says that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. Matthew 1:24 even implies that Matthew did have sex with Mary after Jesus was born.
The plainest reading of the Gospels is that Jesus had literal siblings. It’s actually a stretch to read it any other way.
In India, cousins are called “brother” and “sister”. A parent’s cousins are called “aunt” and “uncle”. Eastern locutions like this inspired an Indian Catholic priest named J. C. Pillai to write a little book titled Orientalisms of the Bible, in which he interpreted passages that cause difficulty for Westerners in the light of Indian modes of expression. Pillai’s idea was that Indians are better equipped to understand the way Jesus talked, since they’re Asians like Jesus. By this logic, an Arab exegete would be even closer to Jesus’s culture than an Indian, but for some reason Pillai thought Jesus talked more like an Indian. As a Catholic, Pillai explained that the “brothers” of Jesus were really his cousins. I can vouch that this really is how they talk in India.
In India in general, families are very close-knit, and their language expresses this. I remember how confused I was when I first went to India as the guest of a family, and met a gentleman holding a small boy. He said affectionately, “This is my son.” Later I found out that he had no kids of his own, that he was the uncle of the boy’s actual father. In India, people express affection for kids by saying “This is my real son,” with emphasis on the word “real,” precisely because they aren’t the real parents. Confusing? Only to non-Indians.
I’m sure you meant the second Matthew to be “Joseph”. What’s the official stance of the Catholic Church on whether Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth?
Catholic doctrine is that Mary remained a virgin her entire life and that her hymen was not broken even by the birth of Jesus. The “bothers and sisters” are variously described as either cousins or step-siblings or “spiritual” bretheren but I don’t think there is an official Catholic position on exactly what each alleged sibling relationship was other than that they were not born from Mary.
Exactly – the Doctrine of Cecilian Infallibility is not equivalent to the Papal one but to the Biblical one so beloved of the Fundamentalists. It is an article of faith that Cecil’s original text is pristine and devoid of error. The fact that he has been caught in the occasional error is owing to Ed’s editing or printing errors; the fact that Cecil has admitted error is not to be understood as him having himself made a mistake, but the Perfect Master graciously “covering for” Ed and his assistants.
Out of curiousity, what word is used for Mary’s relationship to Elizabeth? I’ve seen them sometimes referred to as sisters, but that’s obviously not literally the case, since at the same time that Mary was just entering her childbearing years, Elizabeth was well past them and only able to conceive miraculously. For them to be sisters, Mary’s conception would have to have been likewise miraculous in her mother’s old age, and there’s no mention of that.
a. joachim and anna had one child very late in life; mary. she was given to the temple (age 3) because due to their age, j&a thought they may not live long enough to raise her.
b. elizabeth was an older cousin who was married to zachariah. she was beyond childbearing age when she had john.
c. joseph was an older man, who was a widower with children.
d. joseph had no (carnal) knowledge of mary before, during, or after her son was born.
Luke uses the word suggenes (pronounced “soon GAYN ace”) which means “relative” or “kinswoman.” So it’s not very helpful. A sibling relationship would be expected to use adelphes. Suggenes is pretty much exactly as general as saying “relative” in English.
Gah…I gave the pronunication wrong. The second vowel is an epsilon, not an eta so the accent is on the first syllable. It should be pronounced “SOON-gen-ace.” My bad.
According the The Catholic Encyclopedia, at least two of the four “brethren” named by Matthew can be identified with characters mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, who are sons of a different Mary, who may in turn be the Virgin Mary’s sister or sister-in-law.
Yes, well that’s Catholic Encyclopedia for you. A plain reading of Matthew indicates siblings. The gospels are massively contradictory, though, so even if John seems to identify those names with other parents it’s pretty clear that Mark and Matthew saw them as siblings.
What’s the official stance of the Catholic Church on whether Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth?