This article will follow the tweet “10 reasons how we know James was NOT the blood brother of Jesus” and address the points in order. Before you get surprised, the tweet doesn’t give 10 reasons.
This whole discussion wouldn’t even be happening if there wasn’t a prior commitment to the extra-biblical dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Noone would think twice about this.
Reason #1
First, “brother” (Greek *adelphos*, plural *adelphoi*) can mean blood brothers, an extended relative, or just a fellow Christian. Just as Abraham & Lot were called “brothers” (Gen 14:14) when they were actually uncle & nephew, the “brethren” of Jesus (Matt 12:47) and the “brethren” of believers in 1 Corinthians 15:1 are both called *adelphoi*. Jesus HIMSELF used “brothers” (*adelphoi*) in the non-literal sense, referring to His followers: “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brothers.” Matt 23:8 (AND in Matt 12:49-50, AND Mark 3:35)
This is classic what-about-ism. Yes, ‘brother’ can mean theses things, but the tweet author fails to prove that it MUST mean something other than biological brother, in the case of Jesus’ brothers.
The tweet is, at best, a half truth. While all of that is true, ‘brother’ (lit. from the same womb) can mean “fellow countryman” or “spiritual brother”, Scripture frequently uses συγγενής – syngenēs to refer to blood relatives1 (Romans 16:11; Mark 6:4; Luke 2:44; Mark 6:4; Luke 2:44; Luke 21:16; Luke 1:58; Luke 14:12; John 18:26; Acts 10:24; Revelation 16:7, 11, 21; Luke 1:36) and sometimes even fellow countrymen Romans 9:3; Romans 16:7,11,21. But it’s never, used of Jesus to his brothers.
“Brother” is reserved for particularly close bonds and Paul often uses it to refer to other believers, especially the Apostles. The tweet ignores that while Jesus did call his followers ‘brothers’ on occasion, James is specifically singled out as a brother, and others are distinguished from the other apostles and disciples.
1 Corinthians 9:5 – Don’t we have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife like the other apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas?
Three groups are mentioned here: Cephas, the Lord’s brothers, the other apostles. It is exceedingly difficult to understand ‘the Lord’s brothers’ here as referring to the apostles as a whole or general believers.
Galatians 1:19 – But I didn’t see any of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.2
Acts 1:14 – 13 When they arrived, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying: Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. 14 They all were continually united in prayer, along with the women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
It is linguistic torture understand “brother(s)” in these texts as apostles or disciples.
Moreover, John the Baptist was a ‘relative’ (συγγενής – syngenēs – G4773) according to Luke 1:36, and yet, John the Baptist is never referred to as Jesus’ brother, nor cousin.
Colossians 4:10 – Barnabus and Marcus were cousins (ἀνεψιὸς –anepsios– g431); if ‘brother’ was used in the way the tweet author claimed, it seems indeed very odd not to use it here. If the author felt it was sufficient here to distinguish the relationship, why does the same author take pains to three times to distinguish the apostles from his actual brothers?
Reason #2
Using the etymology of *adelphos* (“from the same womb”) as its definition is literally called the “etymological fallacy”: misusing a term’s linguistic ORIGIN with its actual USAGE. Our Holy Land tour guide was a man born & raised in Nazareth, who lived in Nazareth & ran his business from Nazareth. He said, “Anyone who claims the word ‘brother’ in this part of the world has EVER been restricted to “blood brother” is an idiot. I personally have 500 brothers.”
It is incredibly unlikely that the tour guide was familiar with New Testament Greek. A unnamed “tour guide” is an appeal to authority, and an incredibly unreliable one at that. It is a worse fallacy to confuse today’s use with usage in a different culture 2000 years ago. One should have followed up and asked what he calls his biological brothers, and how does he distinguish them from non-biological brothers.
Most likely he will state that they are the sons of his mother, which is exactly what Scripture does.
Reason #3
The Bible itself proves that “brother” in Scriptural & Semitic use is not only applied to blood brothers & step-brothers, but is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Gen. 13:8; 14:14, 16; Lev. 10:4; 1 Par. 15:5-10; 23:21, 22) or fellow believers (1 Corinthians 15:6: Christ was seen by five hundred “brethren” at once)
The tweet author assumes the use of ‘brother’ at the time of Jesus, is identical to the usage in Genesis and Leviticus, 1500 years earlier. Reason #3 is a rehashed rephrasing of Reason #1 and #2 and has been dealt with earlier.
However, to add to the certainty, the apostles had several brothers – 4 are explicitly mentioned as brothers.
- Simon Peter and Andrew (Luke 6:14)
- James and John (Matthew 4:21; 10:21 17:1)
At no point does the Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy even suggest that these are not ordinary brothers or should be regarded as relatives of some sort, they reserve the squirming about the meaning of “brother” to Jesus and his brothers.
Reason #4
James and Joseph are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3), but in the crucifixion accounts they had a different mother: “And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and *Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph*, and Salome.” (Mark 15:40)
Before we examine the claim above, we need to understand the background. We are first introduced to the idea that Jesus had four brothers (James, Joses (Joseph), Judas (Jude) and Simon) and un-named sisters in Matthew 13 and Mark 6. The people in his hometown identified them as ‘brothers’ adelphos and ‘sisters’ adelphē, not ‘relatives’ syngenēs. See Test of a Prophet on why this is important.
Mark 6:3-4
Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” So they were offended by him. 4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his household.”
Matthew 13:55-57
55 Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother called Mary, and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, aren’t they all with us? So where does he get all these things?” 57 And they were offended by him. Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his household.”
In being rejected, Jesus states that a prophet is rejected in his hometown (πατρίς –patris – G3968) , among his relatives (συγγενής- syngenēs – G4773) and his household (οἰκία – oikia – G3614). Jesus own brothers (ἀδελφοὶ – adelphos – G80) did not believe in him (John 7:5). Thus we see here, that Jesus is rejected by, his blood relatives (syngenēs), and his brothers (adelphos). Nowhere are these brothers named ever identified as syngenēs (blood relatives); these men are only ever identified as adelphos (brothers).
If they were in-fact Jesus’ actual brothers, how much clearer could Scripture be? There is no alternative to describe a biological brother.
Let us look now at the crucifixion accounts starting with Mark 15 which the tweet author cited.
Mark 15:37-41, 47-16:1
37 Jesus let out a loud cry and breathed his last. 38 Then the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39 When the centurion, who was standing opposite him, saw the way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” 40 There were also women watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger3 and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women followed him and took care of him. Many other women had come up with him to Jerusalem….47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses were watching where he was laid. 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they could go and anoint him…
James the Less/Younger should not be confused with James the Great/Elder. James the Great is the Apostle James4 and brother of John the Apostle.
Note that Mark never mentions “Mary the mother of Jesus” as being present. Mark mentions only two Marys. This is indeed very odd, because we know from John’s gospel that she was there. OR more likely, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, IS the mother of Jesus.
Reason #5-7
Reason #5 – Comparing John 19:25 with Matt. 27:56 & Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47 & 16:1), we find that Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, called the sister of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), is the same as Mary the mother of James & Joseph.
Reason #6 – James & Joseph are the sons of Mary, the wife of Clopas (Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25);
Reason #7 – Simon, according to the second-century historian Hegesippus, was also a son of Clopas; he was also from Cana (Mt. 10:4) not Nazareth.
The tweet author is being deliberately non-specific because it goes against his argument and he hopes to bamboozle you into accepting his reasoning. These are all the same argument, but he likes to count them separately to make it seem more impressive that there are 10 reasons, when there are in fact, zero. The tweet author throws verse references in, however they do not support his conclusion or in some cases even mention the claim he is making.
Let’s examine the other 3 crucifixion accounts.
Matthew 27:55-56
55 Many women who had followed Jesus from Galilee and looked after him were there, watching from a distance. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons….61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were seated there, facing the tomb….28:1After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb.
Mary the mother of James and Joseph, we assume is the Mary the wife of Clopas. However, these men are never called the sons of Clopas in Scripture. This strongly indicates that Mary is the birth mother of these men.
Matthew only knows of two Mary’s: Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” identified as Mary the mother of James and Joseph. It seems incredibly unlikely that Matthew would have introduced a 3rd “other” Mary without some explanation regarding her identity. Luke also only mentions two Marys.
Luke 24:9-10
9 Returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven and to all the rest. 10 Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them were telling the apostles these things.
Luke only knows of two Mary’s: Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James. Luke, like the other writers seems to have forgotten the mother of Jesus – which seems unlikely in the extreme.
John 19:25-27
25 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, his mother’s sister: Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple he loved standing there, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
John is the only writer to identify Mary, the mother of Jesus. Are we to believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had a sister called Mary, who was the wife of Clopas? That would make 3 Marys. Nowhere else are three Mary’s mentioned together. All the other writers only mentioned two Marys. Why would three writers ignore Mary the mother of Jesus, and focus on a random Mary the wife of Clopas who wasn’t even the mother of any of the 12 disciples? In Catholic thought, Mary the mother of Jesus is central, so why would three writers ignore her? How can this be reconciled?
Simple.
Jesus’ mother is Mary, the wife of Clopas, and her sister-in-law (by Joseph or Clopas is unknown) is Mary Magdalene.5 John first identifies them by their relationship, and then provides their names. This reconciles the number of Mary’s across all four gospels, and it explains how James, Joseph, Jude and Simon, are Jesus’ brothers.
Perhaps a more familiar example may help:
This of course does not answer whether Mary was the birth mother of James, Joseph, Jude and Simon, or merely their step-mother.
A quick note about Reason #7. The tweet author tries to connect Simon the Zealot from Cananaean (Matthew 10:4) with Simon the brother of Jesus (Mark 6, Matthew 13), however, it’s not possible. We know that Simon the brother of Jesus, lived in Jesus hometown, and Scripture said that his own brothers did not believe, which means that Simon the Zealot was not the brother of Jesus and is not the Simon brother of Jesus listed in Mark 6 and Matthew 13, because his brothers did not believe (John 7:5).
Reason #8
Jude identifies himself at the beginning of his letter as a “brother of James” (most likely the one above, & therefore another son of Clopas). If he had been the blood brother of Jesus, he would’ve identified himself as such.
The tweet author is dishonestly misrepresenting Jude’s writing. Jude starts his epsitle: “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James…“. Jude is making it clear he considers himself firstly a servant of Jesus. His greeting in no way denies his brother relationship with Jesus, but rather he sees himself firstly as Jesus’ servant. The very fact that he mentions James the brother of Jesus, is his way of saying he is also the brother of Jesus, but firstly Jesus’ servant. Since James has been specifically recognised as Jesus’ brother as distinct from the other apostles, whatever relationship James has with Jesus is the same relationship Jude has.
No other apostle calls themselves the brother of Jesus, even though other apostles identify them as the brothers of Jesus. That is not a denial of their brotherhood, and even if they did self-identify as the brothers of Jesus, Catholics would reject the claim as biological brothers.
Eusebius writes in Church History, Book 3, Chapter 19 & 206, that Jude was family of the brother of the Lord according to the flesh.
But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.
“Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.””Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.”
Brother in the flesh, is distinct from brother by step-relation. Brother in the flesh, is almost certain to mean biological brother.
Objection 1 – Why did Jesus give his mother Mary to John, if she was the wife of Clopas and had other brothers?
If is unknown whether Clopas is the same man as Joseph, or whether Mary remarried to Clopas. Despite all the commentary above, it cannot be stated with 100% certainty that Mary is the birth mother of Jude, James, Joseph, and Simon. If seems quite likely that Joseph was the father of Joseph, as this was a common Hebraic practice to give a son your own name. But neither Joseph nor Clopas are mentioned as the father of these brothers, but Mary is mentioned several times as their mother.
Scenario 1
Assuming Jesus’ mother remarried as the wife of Clopas, and assuming the brothers of Jesus were the sons of Clopas and not Joseph, that would make Jesus the eldest and only son of Mary. It stands to reason, that Clopas was also elderly, Jesus was the responsible son for his mother.
Scenario 2
Assuming Jesus’ mother remarried as the wife of Clopas, and assuming the brothers of Jesus were the birth children of Mary and Clopas, that would make Jesus the eldest son, making Jesus responsible for his mother. Scripture already testified that Jesus’ brothers did not believe at that time, and Jesus will have wanted faith-filled believers to surround his mother.
Objection 2 – Why were none of his brothers mentioned in the Temple incident when Jesus was twelve?
Firstly, it’s not relevant to the account. Unless they played some part in the event, they are irrelevant. The rest of the accounts after this event however, Mary is almost always mentioned with Jesus’ brothers. The fact that Mary and Joseph didn’t notice their only son was missing for 2 days, seems doubtful. It is more likely, Mary and Joseph were preoccupied with five or six little ones. In Mark 6, and Matthew 13, Joseph isn’t mentioned, making possible that Joseph had passed.
Secondly, assuming Scripture is true that the four named brothers are Jesus’ brothers, they may have been significantly younger, or not even born at at the time of the incident. This is quite plausible of Joseph was dead and Mary had remarried Clopas after the temple incident. These brothers could well have been Mary’s natural children through remarriage to Clopas, or step-children through remarriage, making them half-brothers. Scripture makes it clear they are brothers, and they are constantly around Mary (e.g., Matthew 12:46-49; Mark 3:31-34), suggesting they are younger, and Mary is their birth-mother. Although not definitive, at least some of his sisters appear to have been married (Matthew 13:56; Mark 6:3).
Objection 3 – Paul identifies the Apostle James as Jesus’ brother. This is not possible: James the Less is not James the Great.
In Galatians 1:9, Paul identifies the Apostle James as the brother of Jesus. “But I didn’t see any of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.“
There are two possible ways to understand this:
- James the Less/Younger, the brother of Jesus, was considered an apostle beyond the 12. There is some evidence that there were additional apostles beyond the original 12. For example, Barnabas is called an Apostle in Acts 14:14, “The apostles Barnabas and Paul tore their robes when they heard this and rushed into the crowd, shouting…“. And this makes sense from Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians that the Lord’s brothers were married. Why would he mention this, if they were not relevant in the leadership of the church?
- Paul mistook James the Great/Elder, the Apostle, the son of Zebedee (not the son of Alphaeus) as Jesus’ brother James. The letter to Galatians was one of Paul’s very earliest letters and by his own admission in that letter he wasn’t familiar with the individual apostles.
At the very least, the James the Less/Younger mentioned in Mark 6 and Matthew 13 as Jesus brother is not the same person as James the Great/Elder. James the Less is the son of Mary (and possibly Clopas rather than Joseph). This would also explain why he is called James the Younger because he would have been much younger than Jesus. The wording of Acts 1:13-14 suggests that none of his brothers were apostles at that time, but that doesn’t discount that he has brothers mentioned, nor that at least one of them was recognised as an apostle and later the leader of the church in Jerusalem.
Objection 4 – The Early Church says Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Clopas are separate people.
Firstly, Scripture often has multiple names for the same person. It is entirely possible that Joseph and Clopas are the same person. Before this is dismissed out of hand, Rome argues that Clopas, Cleopas, and Alphaeus are the same person, without any evidence, but as a product of their reasoning to justify why these can’t be Jesus’ brothers.
Secondly, why mention Mary the wife of Clopas, but not Mary the mother of Jesus?
Mary the mother of Jesus can easily be the wife of Clopas, and the wife of Joseph. If Joseph died without any children of his own, under Jewish law, his brother was to marry his widow, and raise up children for his brother.
5 “When brothers live on the same property and one of them dies without a son, the wife of the dead man may not marry a stranger outside the family. Her brother-in-law is to take her as his wife, have sexual relations with her, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law for her. 6 The first son she bears will carry on the name of the dead brother, so his name will not be blotted out from Israel. – Deuteronomy 25:5-10
The book of Ruth has this as its central theme for the start, and Genesis 38 also describes this in operation.
This explains entirely that these were the brothers of Jesus, and why some of the early church said that Clopas was Jesus’ uncle and that the “brothers” were cousins. They would have been both his brothers and his cousins. This reconciles all 4 gospel accounts and explains why 3 of the gospel accounts don’t mention Mary the mother of Jesus at the crucifixion and tomb/resurrection, but do mention a different random Mary who isn’t the mother of any of the 12 disciples. Of course, the prior commitment to Mary’s perpetual virginity makes this difficult to swallow for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
It explains why one of the brothers of Jesus is called ‘Joseph’, because the law commanded the first-born son, to carry on the first brother’s name. It also allows for the possibility of a vow of virginity (although I think it is unlikely). But, Mary cannot make a vow to disobey the law. The law said the brother must marry the widow, and must have sexual relations and have children for his brother. While Joseph and Mary may have had an agreement, Mary’s vow could not permit disobedience of the law.
The early church writings (aka the New Testament) were focused primarily on doctrine, not the genealogy of the apostles. The Greeks and the Latins disagree on how to understand these, so their reasoning from any established “tradition” seems unhelpful seeing they come to different conclusions. By the fall of Jerusalem in AD.70, none of the Apostles (except John) were alive. The vast majority of the church was scattered around the Roman world and the central truth of the faith was the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus; even the earliest writers like Polycarp and Ignatius didn’t meet any of Jesus’ brothers or other Apostles, and since it wasn’t a concern of the church (doctrine was). The lack of knowledge of the early life of Jesus was filled by the ‘Proto-evangelium of James’ filled with mystical nonsense about Jesus’ early life. It was eventually condemned and rejected by the church, but not before its teachings had permeated dogma, especially about Mary. It was used to interpret Scripture, rather than the other way around. The effects are still felt today in dogmas of Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Claims that these brethren were merely cousins, even in the early church is a novel idea. Firstly we are told over and over by Catholics that the term ‘brother’, includes such people and ‘cousin” wasn’t a developed concept. But why then, a mere two hundred years later is the same language being used to attempt to redefine them as ‘cousins’7 in church writings, rather than the ‘brothers’ Scripture testifies to? Secondly, Catholics claim this literalism of ‘brother’ is a new protestant innovation “unknown for 1500 years”. Why then, does the early church writing in the same language of the gospels, suddenly use the same language to make the distinction between brother and cousin? Because even then it was understood by the overwhelming number of Greek speakers didn’t understand ‘brother’ to be a euphemistic or holistic term, when “relative” (syngenēs) or “cousin” (ἀνεψιὸς –anepsios– G431) were readily available. It should be noted, that even Catholicism recognises that the Greek-speaking church fathers believed Jesus had biological brothers (albeit by Joseph because a prior commitment to the perpetual virginity of Mary first promulgated by the ‘Protoevangelium of James’).8 While the Latins – excluding fathers such as St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours – understood these to be cousins via Clopas. Both use the texts of the New Testament tommake their case. It can only be because the dogma introduced by heretical works such as the ‘Proto-evangelium of James’, had already permeated the church teaching.
Being brothers makes more sense than cousins via Clopas. Firstly, because Scripture calls them brothers over and over, rather than relatives or counsins. Secondly, because these children are hanging around Mary the mother of Jesus, not Mary the wife of Clopas (as indicated by the text when they are introduced and when they come to do an intervention and in Acts 1).
Thirdly, we are introduced to them as a family unit, only to later read they are the sons of Mary, the wife of Clopas. They are not introduced as the sons of Clopas. This makes sense if Mary remarried.
Fourthly, the language of John’s gospel, could possibly be understood that Mary the wife of Clopas, can be the sister of Mary (John 19:25) the mother of Jesus (we have shown why this is unlikely). There are only a couple of possible ways to understand it, none of which are very plausible, except the last.
1. Mary the mother of Jesus had a sister called Mary who married Clopas. Very unlikely Mary had a sister called Mary with the same parents. Or,
2. Clopas was Mary’s brother, or
3. Mary, the wife of Clopas was Joseph’s sister, or
4. Mary the wife of Joseph, remarried Clopas (Joseph’s brother) after Joseph’s death, as commanded by the law.
If Clopas is, as the Catholics claim, the father of James the son of Alphaeus and of Simon the Zealot (or Cananaite – Matthew 10:4)9, why are these two never mentioned as brothers? If Clopas is the father of Simon the Zealot (or Cananaite – Matthew 10:4), and is the brother of Mary, this would be very unlikely given the genealogy of Mary. If Clopas is the father of Simon the Zealot, and is brother of Joseph, that would be unlikely given the genealogy of Joseph and make Joseph also a Cananaite (Matthew 10:4). Simon the Zealot cannot be the brother of Matthew 13 and Mark 6, because John 7:5 says the brothers did not believe.
The right-hot mess of disagreement in the early church about the exact relationship demonstrates that the genealogy of the apostles wasn’t the priority, and all those who could have cleared it up, were long dead. So people resorted to speculation stated confidently as assertion and, if you were Greek-speaking you sided with them being the children of Joseph, and if you were Latin-speaking, sided with them being cousins.
All of this is resolved if Mary, the wife of Clopas, is Mary the mother of Jesus who remarried after the death of Joseph as required by the law, and had children for Joseph as required by the law. It doesn’t definitively answer whether Mary is the birth mother of these brothers, but it does solve the disagreement regarding their identity and explains the inconsistency in the gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection.
The Test of a Prophet
In Mark 6 and Matthew 13, where we are first introduced to Jesus’ brothers, the context is critically important. The town elders were questioning where Jesus received his prophetic mantel. They cite that they know his lineage, his mother, his brothers, his sisters. If these were step-brothers and sisters, they would have no bearing on his prophetic credentials. These children are never mentioned as sons of Joseph or Clopas, only as the sons of Mary and brothers of Jesus.
Some might argue that they assumed they were brothers (in the vein of Luke 3:23), but Scripture doesn’t correct that alleged misunderstanding the way it does in Luke 3:23.
Conclusion
Given Scripture speaks severally and specifically about Jesus brothers (ἀδελφὸν- adelphos) rather than blood relatives/cousins (συγγενής – syngenēs), one must conclude that these brothers were not mere blood relatives, but were specifically and closely associated with Jesus. Likewise, there is no hint that these men are anything other than the biological children of Mary10. While it is possible that Mary was the step-mother to these brothers, the natural meaning of the text, without a hint to the contrary, strongly suggests they were brothers according to the flesh.
We can see that the “10 (sic) Reasons why James was not the blood brother of Jesus”, is really only three reasons, and not very persuasive ones at that. A more plausible explanation that actually reconciles the gospel accounts and explains all the other details is more credible.
How should Scripture have identified these men as biological brothers of Jesus more clearly? Over and over again they are mentioned as the brothers of Jesus, the sons of Mary. To my reasoning, the plainest and most consistent, suggests they are biological brothers.
Footnotes
- Mark 6:4; 6:4 Luke 1:36; 1:58; 2:44; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16 John 18:26 Acts 10:24 Romans 9:3; 16:7; 16:11; 16:11; 16:21 Revelation 16:7; 16:11; 16:21 ↩︎
- See Objection 3 ↩︎
- James the younger, or James the less, is the brother of Jesus. James the Great or James the Elder, is the Apostle James. These two are not the same. ↩︎
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Great ↩︎
- The idea that Mary Magdalene was the sister (in-law) is supported by some in the early church, e.g., Tatian, The Diatessaron, Section 51, paragraph 49 – https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/100251.htm ↩︎
- https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm ↩︎
- https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm, Chapter 22 ↩︎
- https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm ↩︎
- Church History (Eusebius), Book IV. – Eusebius merely mentions Simon. Some mental gymnastics is required to make this Simon the Zealot. It reflects the Latin-speaking church’s preference for the cousin narrative rather than the brother narrative of the Greek-speaking church fathers. ↩︎
- 13 When they arrived, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying: Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. 14 They all were continually united in prayer, along with the women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. – Acts 1:14 ↩︎