Church of the Madalene

Portions adapted from A. van den Born’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible, Second Revised Edition

There has been a lot of talk in the popular media lately about the family of Jesus Christ, particularly about his “brother” James. A few years ago a book boldly titled “The Brother of Jesus” claimed to have found a bone box (ossuary) inscribed with the name “James” with the additional inscription “brother of Jesus”. As the Israeli Antiquities Authority put it, the box is real, but the inscription is a fake. And just a few weeks ago Discovery Channel aired a movie claiming to have found more bone boxes of Jesus and some of his family members, this so-called documentary has so many factual holes, I’ll leave it to others to comment.

So did Jesus have brothers? No, he didn’t, and here is how we as Catholics can prove the point:

In the New Testament mention is made several times of the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus (Mt 12:46, 13:55, John 2:12, Acts 1:14, I Corinthians 9:5, Galatians 1:19); Four of his “brothers”—James (the Less: Mark 15:40), Joseph (or Joses: the spelling varies in the manuscripts), Simon, and Jude—are named explicitly in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, the “sisters” of Jesus are referred to, but not named.

In this question, we must distinguish between what is certain, what is probable and what is uncertain. It is certain that these people are not brothers and sisters of Jesus in the strict sense, that is, they are not children of The Virgin Mary, but they are cousins of some form or another.

It is true that the original language of the New Testament is Greek and that the words for “brother” and “sister” have about the same meaning as these words have in English—children of the same parent. However, we are justified in considering these terms as literal translations of the Semitic languages (Aramaic and Hebrew) which were used in Palestine at the time of Christ, and consequently have the same meaning in the New Testament as they do in Aramaic and Hebrew. The fact that the Semitic usage of the word “brother” (‘ah) differs from that of English and other European languages is clear from its usage in the Old Testament. For Example, Lot, who was really Abraham’s nephew, is called his “brother” (Genesis 13:8, 14:14-16) as in kinsmen, not as in brother of the same parents. Hebrew and Aramaic have no simple term for “cousin”; there is the Hebrew phrase ben-dod meaning “the son of the brother of a paternal uncle,” but for other kinds of cousins a person would have to use some extravagant , roundabout language such as “the son of the brother of his mother,” or “the son of the sister of his mother,” Therefore, the regular Semitic word for “cousins” is ‘ahÄ«m, “brothers.”

The most famous of “the brothers of Jesus” are really His cousins and can be proved from the following facts:

The four men named in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 as “the brothers of Jesus” can be shown to be of a mother other than Mary the mother of Jesus. The first two of these brothers, James and Joseph, are mentioned in Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 in connection with the Lord’s death on Calvary, and they are then called the sons of another Mary completely distinct from Mary the mother of Jesus. When an author names two brothers and repeats their names in the same brief literary work without further qualification, the presumption is that he is speaking of the same men. It follows that the third and fourth “brothers” of Jesus (Simon and Jude) of Matthew 13:55 are also merely cousins of Jesus, even though their relationship to the first two is uncertain; they were probably cousins, not brothers in the strict sense, of James and Joseph, since only these two are mentioned as brothers in the strict sense in Matthew 27:56. This “other Mary” is specifically referred to as the mother of James and Joseph (Joses) (Matthew 27:56), and the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, and wife of Clopas (sometimes referred to as Cleophas or Alpheus) (John 19:25). Since it’s easy to assume that parents would not name two daughters the same name, it is speculated that this “other Mary” is The Virgin Mary’s sister-in-law. Either way, this makes this “other Mary” an aunt to Jesus, and her children, James and Joseph, in fact, Jesus’ cousins.

These conclusions can be supported by the following facts: 1) Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth (Matthew 1:20-23, Luke 1:26-35). 2) At the age of twelve Jesus was apparently the only son of Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:41-52). 3) The “brothers” of Jesus, who appear only after his public ministry, are never called the sons of Mary and Joseph. 4) When dying, Jesus commends His mother to His Disciple John (John 19:26) which is understandable only on the assumption that she had no other children but Jesus.

Finally, if there are still doubts, take a look at Luke 2:48. If the term “brother” absolutely means true, familial sibling, then this same simple reasoning means that Joseph, not God, is the father of Jesus. No Christian can make that claim and still be considered a Christian. In fact, early Christian heretics made just that claim, based on the fact that the bible said Joseph was Jesus’ father. Now, today, we have some making the claim that Jesus had brothers based on the same simple-minded, flawed reasoning.