|
|
||
|
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me." Rev. 3: 20
There is a group of persons closely connected with the
Lord appears repeatedly in the
New
Testament under the designation "His brethren"
or "the brothers of the
Lord"
(Matt 12:46, 13:55; Mark 3:31-32, 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John
2:12, 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; I Cor 9:5).
The brothers of the Lord who mentioned in Matt 13:55 and
Mark 6:3 (where "sisters" are also referred to), namely,
James
(also mentioned Galatians 1:19), Joseph, or Joses, Simon,
and
Jude.
The
New Testament is explicit that Mary was a virgin at the
time she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Christian
tradition--later infallibly affirmed by the
Church--acknowledges that she remained a virgin
afterwards. The great majority of Christians acknowledges
this. Only the Protestant community dissents.
But
there are certain questions to be answered, such as: The meaning of the word "brother".
In
English the word "brother" usually means full
brother--a male sibling sharing both biological
parents. But the term has a broader range of meanings. It
can include half-brother (male sibling sharing one
biological parent), step-brother (male sibling
sharing one parent by marriage), and adoptive
brother (male sibling adopted into the family). It can be
given figurative meanings, such as "comrade," as when
military men are described as "a band of brothers."
Thus
far we have been discussing the English word brother
for simplicity. The Greek equivalent adelphos (adelfoV)
includes the same concepts in its range of meaning.
However, the meaning of the Aramaic word for "brother" (aho)
not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also
includes other close relations, such as cousins. But Greek
has a word for "cousin" anepsios (anepsioV).
As
it is known that the New Testament isn't ordinary Greek.
Some have suggested that parts of it if not all may be
translated from Aramaic. It is unknown if or how much of
the New Testament had an Aramaic original, but even if
none did, Aramaic had a strong influence on it. Probably
all the New Testament authors except Luke were native
Aramaic-speakers and much of the dialogue in the Gospels
originally occurred in Aramaic. Sometimes the Gospels even
tell us the original words (e.g., “ܛܠܝܬܐ
ܩܘܡܝ
Talitha qumi”
in Mark 5:41; “ܡܪܢ
ܐܬܐ
Moran Atho” 1 Cor. 16:22).
But
Greek also has a word for "cousin"
anepsios (anepsioV),
which seems to have been the normal word used when
referring to cousins. An advocate of the cousin hypothesis
would need to explain why it wasn't used if Christ’s
brethren were cousins.
The
standard explanation is that the first Christians in
Palestine, not having a word for cousin, would normally
have referred to whatever cousins Jesus had with such a
general term and, in translating their writing or speech
into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word
ܐܚܐ
aho
would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for
brother adelphos (adelfoV).
This
is important to be known that in fact, there is no word
for "cousin" in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the
cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such
as “the son of his uncle” (ܒܪ
ܕܕܐ
bar dodo). This often is too much trouble, so
broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in
particular; e.g.,
ܐܚܝܢܐ
hyono ("kinsman"),
ܩܪܝܒܐ
qariwo ("close relation"), or
ܐܢܫܐ
nosho
("relative"). One such term is
ܐܚܐ
aho, which literally means “brother” but is also
frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman,
cousin.” Semitic use generally,
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), the word furnishes no certain indication of the
exact nature of the relationship.
For
example: The word Aho did not simply mean 'blood
brother,' but used to refer to a wide variety of
relationships, for instance
“This is the genealogy of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor,
and Haran.
Haran begot Lot.” Genesis 11:27, this verse shows that
Abram is the uncle of Lot, but in another verse Abram is
called Lot’s brother “They also took Lot, Abram's
brother's son who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and
departed. Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the
Hebrew, for he dwelt by the terebinth trees of Mamre the
Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner; and they
were allies with Abram. Now when Abram heard that his
brother was taken captive, he armed his three hundred and
eighteen trained servants who were born in his own house,
and went in pursuit as far as Dan.” Genesis 14:12-14.
Similarly, the Bible tells us that Laban is Jacob’s uncle “Then it
came to pass, when Laban heard the report about Jacob his
sister's son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him
and kissed him, and brought him to his house. So he told
Laban all these things.” Genesis 29:13.
However two verses later, Laban calls Jacob his "Because
you are my brother
ܐܚܝ
Oh, should you therefore serve me for nothing? Tell
me, what should your wages be?" Genesis 29:15. The
Septuagint (the old Greek translation) uses Greek “adelphos”
brother,
for Lot—who as mentioned above, was really a nephew.
In the
Book of Tobit you can find a variety of broader meanings:
'compatriot,' 'kinsman, relative,' and even a generic
usage when a speaker employs it, not really knowing (yet)
the relationship proper. The young Tobiah even calls the
Angel Raphael (in disguise), 'Brother Azariah' (6:7,
extant in Aramaic). By that he certainly did not mean
'blood brother.'” Which applies to the brethren of Christ in Scripture?
It
is unlikely that the term "brother" is being used
figuratively or mystically because all Christians are
Christ's brothers in that sense, making it pointless to
single out certain individuals for this description.
Full brother is impossible, as Protestants also
acknowledge, since Jesus was not the biological child of
Joseph. Half-brother is ruled out by the fact that
Mary remained a virgin. It is possible they were
adoptive brothers, but there does not seem to be any
evidence for this in the biblical or patristic record. Who the "brethren" or "brothers" of the Lord are?
There is some evidence for this in the writings of early
Christians. The earliest discussion of the matter that we
have in a document known as the Protoevangelium of
James (c. A.D. 120)--states that Joseph was a widower
who already had a family. In this case more plausibly, the
Brothers of the Lord were step-brothers: children
of Joseph who were Jesus' brothers by marriage. As other
sources attest (e.g., second century historian Hegisippus),
it may contain accurate traditions regarding the family
structure. The step-brother hypothesis was the most common
until St. Jerome (the turn of the fifth century), who
popularized the idea that the brethren were cousins.
Well on comparing John 19:25 with Matt 27:56, and Mark
15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that
Mary of
Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas, the sister
of
Mary the
Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the
mother of
James
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. 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 Josses, the "brethren" of the
Lord.
The Church Fathers
Some ancient heretics, like Helvidius and the
Antidicomarianites, maintained that the
"brethren" of
Jesus
were His blood-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
Fathers
and 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.
But most of the Church
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.
1) 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 connection with her supposed sons, and, in
some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to
call them her sons (Matt 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts
1:14).
2) Again,
Mary's
annual pilgrimage to
Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) 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, Matt 13:56) would be pressing heavily
upon her?
3) 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 argument is confirmed by the words with which
He recommends her: “Woman, behold your son”, with the
article before (son). It is difficult to explain how Jesus
commended Mary to the care of the disciple (John 19:26) if
there were other sons of her.
4) 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
Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of
Mary the
Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these
are not brothers of the Savior, 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 19:25), but it is uncertain
whether "sister" here means a true sister or a
sister-in-law. This would favor the view that
Mary of
Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the
Blessed
Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the
MSS. of the Peshitta version, that
Joseph
and Clopas married sisters (how could it be the same name
for two sisters?). The relationship of the other
"brethren" may have been more distant than that of the
above named four.
The
chief objection against this position is taken from Matt
1:25: "He [Joseph]
knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son";
and from Luke 2:7: "And she brought forth her firstborn
son". Hence, it is argued,
Mary
must have born other children. "Firstborn" (prototokos),
however, does not necessarily connote that other children
were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and
Ex 13:2-12 (Greek text) to which Luke refers. "Opening the
womb" is there given as the equivalent of "firstborn" (prototokos).
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.
Many
modern people assume that Joseph and Mary must have
consummated their relationship. We can’t imagine a husband
and wife not having sex. But that is just an assumption,
not evidence. “Everything I imagine must be real” is not
consistent with critical thinking. It is conceivable that
Mary and Joseph did not behave like modern people.
The
meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are
considered in connection with the virginal birth related
by the two
Evangelists. HOLY BIBLE; Commentary of the gospel, BAR SALIBI; The Brethren of the Lord, F. BECHTEL; Bad Aramaic bad easy, JIMMY AKIN; 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 frères 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 Br¨der 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).
Jesus' "Brothers" (adelphoi)) = Cousins or KinsmenLuke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin." Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers. Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew. Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations. Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children. Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin. Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin. Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin." 2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend. 2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen. 1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins. Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen." Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother." Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).
|
Links |
