brothers of Christ?

The "Brothers" of Jesus: A Fresh Look at the Evidence from Catholic Productions on Vimeo.
from comment 95 & 96 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/04/ancient-marian-devotion/#comment-84187

 In Galatians Paul goes up to Jerusalem to see the Lord’s brother and Apostle James. There were two among the 12 called James, the brother of John, son of Zebedee and the other, or Lesser James, the son of Alphaeus. Josephus tells us James was the first the Bishop of Jerusalem and that the Apostle Simeon was his kinsman,brother and successor in that see. He says they were Levites. We do know Mary had Levite kin ( Zachary and Elizabeth ) So that explains two of the Lord’s Brothers.

Next, we can look at Jude’s identification with James in his (Jude’s) epistle where they have a brother/brother bond ( no mention of the more famous Jesus being a brother!) and Luke twice saying Jude and James have a father/son bond proving brother =kinsman and not necessarily brother =brother..

That leaves only Joses in the famous list of James, Joses, Simon and Jude being the “Lord’s Brothers”. To settle that, check out chapters 15 of Mark where another Mary is said to be Mother of Joses and James the Lesser, ( only in the 12 Apostles do we find 2 and only 2 men named James ). She is also called the “mother of James” and the mother of “Joses” alternatively in chapter 15 and 16 proving that all sons need not be named in every listing.
This jives with the 3 listings of the 12 Apostles we have. They appear to be grouped according to blood ties ( Andrew and Peter, John and James of Zebedee, James, Simon and Jude ).
One last point; Simon is called the Canaanite in one list of the 12. Mary and Jesus were at the wedding of Cana and seem to have more prominence than ordinary guests as the order the servants about. Perhaps they had kin there.

An interesting little morsel from tradition says that the reason Judas was to kiss Jesus in the Garden of Olives was an agreed upon signal to the Jewish soldiers so they wouldn’t accidentally seize James by mistake as they looked alike. From the 4 Gospel accounts it is unclear if all 12 were present or just Peter, John and James of Zebedee ( not Alphaeus/Cleophas ) so I won’t say for sure. Let the reader decide.

&

I should mention that at Calvary, the mother of James and John of Zebedee ( Salome ) was present. So was the mother of James the lesser and Joses. She is called Mary and is the sister of the Virgin Mary. Two uterine sisters with the same name? It is possible ( I live in Portugal where most women have Maria incorporated into their names, Maria do Carmo, Maria de Concecao, Maria de Lourdes, Maria Fatima, etc. However, they usually go by their 2nd name, Carmo, Concecao or Lourdes or Fatima ) but not likely they would both be called the same name.

So, sister =kinswoman and not necessarily sister.
Since John’s own mother was present it is strange that Jesus gave her son ( John ) to the Virgin Mary. And since the mother of kinsmen James and Joses was also present, it is equally as strange that Jesus gave His own Mother to a non kinsman. Something much more than a son making last minute provision for a widowed mom is going on here!

comment 207

Catholic arguments that Mary had no other children are readily available online. If you are interested in those arguments, then here’s a couple of links:

1. This link explains what the Gospel writers meant when they referred to Jesus’s “brothers” or “brethren”. For instance, in the case of James and Joseph, (brothers of our Lord), the Gospels say explicitly that these brothers did not share the same parents as Jesus. Rather, the parents of James and Joseph are Clopas, and Mary, the wife of Clopas.

2. This link shows quotations from the Early Church Fathers indicating their belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

look at the comments here ---they too discuss the meaning of brothers  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/augustine-on-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-in-scripture/

for instance comment 23:

The named brothers belong to to Mary the wife of Clopas, identified in John’s Gospel as the Virgin Mary’s sister. This becomes apparent when the Gospel accounts are compared:

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?” (Matt.13:55, 56).

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among whom were Mary Mag′dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee” (Matt. 27:55, 56).

Immediately it may be seen from Matthew 27 that James and Joseph are actually the sons of another Mary. This means your conclusion that “When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters” is incorrect.

Clearly James and Joseph are not siblings of Jesus, even though they are called “brothers” and that in a context closely connected with Mary as mother of Jesus in Matthew 13.

Similarly the crucifixion accounts give us insight into the matter:

“There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag′dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo′me, who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem” (Mark 15:40,41).

“So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag′dalene” (John 19:25).

These parallel accounts indicate that the mother of James and Joseph is not Mary the mother of Jesus, but Mary the wife of Clopas, the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary.

comment 26

Martin Luther:

I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

(Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 [1539] )

John Calvin:

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.

(Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, 215; on Matthew 13:55)

Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

(Pringle, ibid., vol. I, 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] )

Ulrich Zwingli:

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.

(Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

comment 27 An alternative to the “brothers are cousins” argument is the ancient tradition that Jesus’ brothers are actually Joseph’s children from a previous marriage.

comment 30Keeping in mind that Joseph would have been a widower in that context, not a divorced-and-remarried man…,

One of the powerful pieces of information that Jesus’ “brothers” are older than he is, not younger, is the fact that these “brothers” (whether they were cousins or sons of Joseph-the-widower by his deceased wife) acted AS ELDERS: Notice that in Mark 3:21 and in John 7, these “brothers” not only don’t believe in Him but are apt to give him pushy instructions like “Go to Judea” or even to go “take charge of Him” because “He is out of His senses.”

Now even in our own society in most families we might think it a bit cheeky for a younger sibling to deal with his eldest brother in this way. But we’re talking about a Semitic society: A society in which the firstborn gets great respect. Before the Mosaic covenant, the heads-of-households were priests for their households (e.g. Abraham, Job) and the eldest brother was responsible for undertaking that priestly/head-of-household calling for the clan once the father died. There was a very strong “primogeniture” kind of tradition and attitude.

Thus Jesus’ “brothers,” if they were His younger brothers by Mary and Joseph, would not have acted in this way. They would have said, “He is our older brother and head of our family; our father Joseph is dead; what can we do about it?” and they would have only said something like that in private, IF they had been so shockingly blunt about it as to admit that they thought Jesus was doing anything inappropriate, even in private. For even that would have been viewed as a nasty act of disrespect for one’s elders.

There is also the matter of Jesus giving the care of His mother, Mary, over to His disciple John, from the cross.

What a horrendous act of disrespect for His younger brothers by Mary that would be! …if there WERE any sons of Mary around to undertake the traditional role of caring for their widowed mother after the death of both her husband and of her firstborn son. Jesus instructing John to care for her would be (in that society) a sin against His younger siblings who were also sons of Mary …IF any existed.

BUT,

It makes perfect sense that Jesus’ cousins (not sons of Mary), who were older (in human lifespan terms) than He, would “take charge” of their “little cousin” who was “going a little off the rails.”

And of course they’d want to bring along His mother on the trip as additional emotional leverage over Him. (Granted, the lady in question wasn’t saying much and certainly wasn’t helping them to “talk down” her Son, but it couldn’t hurt to haul her along.)

Now THAT explanation of the story fits with Semitic society: The elder cousins are expected to rein in the excesses of the younger cousins, and typically would have no scruples about hauling along a widowed female relative without bothering to ask her opinion of the matter. (Even relatively good men in that society might have chuckled a bit at the notion of bothering about a female relative’s opinions.)

And likewise, if Jesus had no younger siblings who were also sons of His mother, it would be perfectly normal to entrust Her to a faithful close friend (John). This would be expected, under such circumstances. But if Mary had any sons of adult age other than Jesus, it would be a horrendous breach of protocol for Jesus to commit her to the care of John.

The Bible thus tells us firmly that:

1. If Jesus did have any younger siblings by Mary, they must have all been dead by the time of the crucifixion…yet the Gospels do not record them getting killed or even dying;

2. The “brothers” of Jesus who came to “take charge of Him” were older than He was;

3. Yet, Jesus was the “firstborn” of Mary, meaning that He “opened the womb” in the Old Testament phrasing;

4. Therefore, the “brothers” of Jesus who came to “take charge of Him” were either sons of Joseph but not of Mary (stepbrothers, sons of Joseph’s deceased first wife), or they were elder cousins.

That’s what the Bible says.

But you have to read it like a first-century Jew, to know that.

from comment 218 here 

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/06/podcast-ep-17-jason-cindy-stewart-recount-their-conversion/  :

The Septuagint follows Hebrew usage and uses adelphos to designate blood relatives further removed than siblings. Imitating the Hebrew text, it tells us Lot was Abraham’s adelphos (Gn. 14:16). Other examples can be given of this broader usage. It is reasonable to assume that this custom carried over into the Gospels, especially if Matthew wrote his Gospel in his native tongue which was then translated into Greek.