Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:07:32 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      My Brother Was An Only Child

The subject line of this posting ("My Brother Was An Only Child" for
those whose mail systems do not display subject lines) comes from the
title of a humorous book by Jack Douglas who also wrote _ Never Trust
a Naked Bus Driver _.  I am using it to wrap up my discussion of the
perpetual virginity of Mary because there is a sense in which Jesus
is my brother and I believe that Joseph and Mary had no other chil-
dren.

I have a book _ Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties _ by Gleason L.
Archer.  The dust jacket blurb begins, "This encyclopedia  is intend-
ed ... for all who are troubled by apparent contradictions in the
Bible."  The reason such books exist is that there are passages in
the Bible that, at first glance, seem to contradict other passages in
the Bible and the doctrines derived from those other passages.
Therefore, all Christians, whatever their beliefs, have to explain
why certain texts do not contradict some doctrine they hold.  That is
my purpose in this posting.  I am not trying to prove that the per-
petual virginity of Mary is true.  I believe the doctrine comes from
God through Sacred Tradition.  For those who do not accept the idea
of revelation from God to the Apostles that was not explicitly re-
corded in the Bible that is the more fundamental difference, although
I am not suggesting we debate it now.  My point is to defend Catholic
(and I think Orthodox) Christians from the charge that we believe it
even though the Bible teaches otherwise.  All of the texts quoted
against the doctrine can have other meanings.  I think all three
usual objections have been mentioned, plus one less common one
(although I have seen that one before).

The less common one is Psalm 69, which is referred to in John 2:17.
Bob Weiss wrote, "I want to quote this psalm, starting from verse 7:
'For your sake I have suffered reproach; I dare not show my face for
shame. I have become a stranger to my brothers, and alien to my moth-
er's sons. Zeal for your house has consumed me; the insults aimed at
you have landed on me.' (Psalm 69:7-9 REB)."  He concluded that as
the "Zeal" clause was applied to Jesus in John 2:17 the reference to
"my mother's sons" must also apply.  James Kiefer has already called
attention to v. 5 of the same Psalm "O God, thou knowest my foolish-
ness; and my sins are not hid from thee" and pointed out another
example of the Gospels taking an apt phrase from the Old Testament
even though in its original context it says things that cannot apply
to Jesus.  I will add that in Matt 23:37 Jesus refers to the Jesus
people as the children of Jerusalem, so even ignoring James' observa-
tion one could interpret the "mother's sons" as those Jews who re-
jected Jesus.

One of the usual objections is that the Gospels refer to some men as
the brothers of Jesus in contexts that make it clear that they are
family members.  Hebrew and Aramaic did not have words for some close
relatives that we have and used "brother" to cover other relations.
For example Gen. 14:14  calls Lot Abram's brother even though v. 12
tells us he was Abram's brother's son, so we would say Lot was
Abram's nephew.  Greek did have separate words for brother and cous-
in, but, to quote Karl Keating, "In the Septuagint the Hebrew word
that includes both true brothers and cousins was translated as
_ adelphos _ which in Greek has the (usually) narrower meaning that
the English 'brother' has."  In the Western Church the brothers of
the Lord are generally understood as cousins or other close rela-
tions.  In the East, as I mentioned in referring to Church Fathers
who assert that Mary had no other children, many thought that they
were children of St. Joseph who, according to this interpretation,
was a widower.

The other two standard objections both come from Matt 1:25  "And knew
her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son"  People say
that the word "till" means that they did have sexual relations after
she brought forth her firstborn son.  However, the word "till" does
not necessarily imply a change in status after the event.  In Matt
22:44 Jesus quotes from Psalm 110:1 "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit
thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool."
Surely no one would claim that after the Father made Jesus's enemies
His footstool He would be evicted from His position at the right hand
of the Father.

People say that the term "firstborn son" implies later children, but
it does not.  Exodus 13:2 says "Sanctify unto me all the firstborn,
whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man
and of beast: it is mine"  Exodus 34:20 says the firstborn son must
be redeemed.  Luke 2:22-23 says that Joseph and Mary fulfilled this
command when Jesus was a baby, which was the customary way. They did
not wait to see if she had another son.  Even if a woman died after
giving birth to only one son he was still her "firstborn son" under
Jewish law.

There are passages that imply, although they do not say explicitly,
that the brothers of the Lord were not children of Joseph and Mary,
but I will not go into them.  They support the Church's traditional
teaching that Mary was perpetually a virgin, but, as I said, my
purpose in this posting is not to prove that the doctrine is true but
only to defend it against charges that it contradicts the Bible. All
of the verses quoted against it can legitimately be interpreted in a
sense compatible with it.

Marty Helgesen
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia