From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question about Joseph
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:22:28 GMT
Organization: none

The subject of the brothers of Jesus comes up often enough, with
enough misconceptions, that there really should be something in the
FTP archives about it.

For a good general presentation of the Catholic belief on this topic,
I am appending the article from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia on the
subject.  (The copyright for 1913 works expired in 1988, I believe, so
do with it as you like.)

Joe Buehler

BRETHREN OF THE LORD, THE.--A group of persons closely connected with
the Saviour appears repeatedly in the New Testament under the
designation "his brethren", or "the brethren of the Lord" (Matt., xii,
46- xiii, 55; Mark, iii, 31, 32; vi, 3; Luke, viii, 19, 20; John, ii,
12; vii, 3, 5; Acts, i, 14; I Cor., ix, 5). Four such "brethren" are
mentioned by name in the parallel texts of Matt., xiii, 55, and Mark,
vi, 3 (where "sisters" are also referred to), namely, James (also
mentioned Gal., i, 19), Joseph, or Joses Simon, and Jude; the
incidental manner in which these names are given, shows, however, that
the list lays no claim to completeness. Two questions in connexion
with these "brethren" of the Lord have long been, and are now more
than ever, the subject of controversy: (1) The identity of James,
Jude, and Simon- (2) The exact nature of the relationship between the
Saviour and his "brethren".

(1) James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts, xii, 17- xv,
13- xxi, 18- Gal., i, 19; ii, 9,12) and the author of the first
Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark, xv, 40) and
the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matt., x, 3; Mark, iii, 18),
although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered
as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Gal., i, 19: "But
other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the
brother of the Lord", St. Paul represents James as a member of the
Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes
it clear that "apostles" is to be taken strictly to designate the
Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause "saving James" be
understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another
Apostle, "James the brother of the Lord" (cf. Acts, ix, 27).  Besides,
the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts, xv,
13- Gal., ii, 9 -- in the latter text he is even named before Cephas)
could have belonged only to one of their number.  Now there were only
two Apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son
of Alpheus (Matt., x, 3- Mark, iii, 18- Luke, vi, 16; Acts, i, 13).
The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of
the events to which Acts xv, 6 sqq., and Gal., ii, 9, 12, refer (cf.
Acts, xii, 2).  James "the brother of the Lord" is therefore one with
James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the
identity of these two being generally conceded.  Again, on comparing
John, xix, 25, with Matt., xxvii, 56 and Mark, xv, 40 (cf. Mark xv,
47- xvi, 1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas
[Greek equivalent omitted --jhpb], the sister of Mary the Mother of
Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of
Joseph, or Joses.  As married women are not distinguished by the
addition of their father's name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of
Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the
names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the
order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James
and Joseph, or Joses, the "brethren" of the Lord. The existence among
the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same
names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed
without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot
well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the
two names are quite distinct. It is however, highly probable, and
commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different
transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the
" brethren" of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.

Of Joseph nothing further is known. Jude is the writer of the last of
the Catholic Epistles (Jude, i).  He is with good reason identified by
Catholic commentators with the "Judas Jacobi" ("Jude the brother of
James" in the D. V.) of Luke vi, 16, and Acts, i, 13, otherwise known
as Thaddeus (Matt.  x, 3- Mark, iii, 18). It is quite in accordance
with Greek custom for a man to be distinguished by the addition of his
brother's name instead of his father's when the brother was better
known. That such was the case with Jude is inferred from the title
"the brother of James", by which he designates himself in his Epistle.
About Simon nothing certain can be stated. He is identified by most
commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, who, according to Hegesippus,
was a son of Clopas, and succeeded James as-Bishop of Jerusalem. Some
identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matt., x, 4- Mark
iii, 18), or the Zealot (Luke, vi, 15; Acts, i, i3). The grouping
together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon after the other
Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted in the lists of the Apostles (Matt.,
x, 4, 5; Mark, iii, 18- Luke, vi, 16; Acts, i, 13) lends some
probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of
connexion between the three. Be this as it may, it is certain that at
least two of the "brethren" of Christ were among the Apostles. This is
clearly implied in I Cor., ix, 5: "Have we not the power to carry
about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles and the
brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" The mention of Cephas at the end
indicates that St. Paul after speaking of the Apostles in general,
calls special attention to the more prominent ones, the "brethren" of
the Lord and Cephas. The objection that no "brethren" of the Lord
could have been members of the Apostolic college, because six months
before Christ's death they did not believe in Him (John vii, 3, 5),
rests on a misunderstanding of the text.  His "brethren" believed in
his miraculous power and urged him to manifest it to the world. Their
unbelief was therefore relative. It was not a want of belief in His
Messiahship, but a false conception of it. They had not yet rid
themselves of the Jewish idea of a Messiah who would be a temporal
ruler.  We meet with this idea among the Apostles as late as the day
of the Ascension (Acts, i, 6). In any case the expression "his
brethren" does not necessarily include each and every "brother",
wherever it occurs. This last remark also sufficiently answers the
difficulty in Acts, i, 13, 14, where, it is said, a clear distinction
is made between the Apostles and the "brethren" of the Lord.

(2) The texts cited at the beginning of this article show beyond a
doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His
"brethren".  But as "brethren" (or "brother") is applied to
step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and
Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even
distant, relatives (Gen.  xiii, 8; xiv, 14, 16- Lev., x, 4; I Par.,
xv, 5-10; xxiii 21, 22), the word furnishes no certain indication of
the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient heretics, like
Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the "brethren"
of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This
opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most
of the Protestant exegetes.  On the orthodox side two views have long
been current. The majority of the Greek Fathers and Greek writers,
influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of apocryphal gospels,
considered the "brethren" of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first
marriage.  The Latins, on the contrary, with few exceptions (St.
Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours among the Fathers), hold
that they were the Lord's cousins. That they were not the sons of
Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of
consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual
virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New
Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This
is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion
with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have
been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matt., xii, 46- Mark,
iii, 31 -- Luke, viii, 19- Acts, i, 14). Again, Mary's annual
pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke, ii, 41) is quite incredible, except on
the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it
likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when
the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of
small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons
and of several daughters, cf. Matt., xiii, 56) would be pressing
heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus
recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in
His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it
would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she
had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His
"brethren", or between them and Mary, no plausible motive for such an
action can be imagined. This argument is confirmed by the words with
which He recommends her: [Greek omitted -- jhpb], with the article
before [Greek --jhpb] (son)- had there been other sons, [Greek --
jhpb], without the article, would have been the proper expression.

The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least
two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses,
are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the
sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are
not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument
disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the
sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the
brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude
are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of
Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states
that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's
cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's
side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be
determined with certainty.  Mary of Clopas is indeed called the
"sister" of the Blessed Virgin, (John, xix, 25), but it is uncertain
whether "sister" here means a true sister or a sister-in-law.
Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour
the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed
Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in MSS. of the Peshitta version,
that Joseph and Clopas married sisters.  The relationship of the other
"brethren" may have been more distant than that of the above named
four.

The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt.,
i, 25: "He [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn
son"; and from Luke, ii, 7: "And she brought forth her firstborn Son"
Hence, it is argued, Mary must have borne other children. "Firstborn"
([Greek omitted --jhpb]), however, does not necessarily connote that
other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke, ii,
23, and Ex., xiii, 2, 12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers.
"Opening the womb" is there given as the equivalent of "firstborn"
([Greek omitted --jhpb]).  An only child was thus no less "firstborn"
than the first of many.  Neither do the words "he knew her not till
she brought forth" imply, as St. Jerome proves conclusively against
Helvidius from parallel examples, that he knew her afterwards. The
meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are considered in
connexion with the virginal birth related by the two Evangelists.

REFERENCES

For the Cousin Theory: ST. JEROME, Adv. Helvid. in P. L., XXIII; MILL,
Pantheistic Principles, 220--316; VIGOUROUX, Les Livres saints et la
critique, V, 397-420; CORLUY, Les freres de N. S. J. C. in Etudes
(1878), I 5, 145, MEINERTZ, Der Jacobusbrief und sein Verfasser
(Freiburg im Br., 1905), 6-54; CORNELY, Introductio (Paris, 1897),
III, 592 sqq.- SCHEGG Jacobus der Brueder des Herrn (Munich, 1883);
LAGRANGE in Rev. Bibl. (1906), 504, 505.

For the Step-Brother Theory: LIGHTFOOT, Comm. on Gal., 252-291.

For the Helvidian View: HASTINGS, Dict. Bib., I, 320- ZAHN,
Forschungen, VI, Brueder und Vettern Jesu (Leipzig 1900).

(Article written by F. BECHTEL, S.J., Professor of Hebrew and Sacred
Scripture, St. Louis University, St. Louis.)