The Historical Jesus

[Questing Beast]

says who? and why would "they" do that? I wonder why people would ramp up Jesus if he failed in what they expected from him?

It was all about defending their faith from criticism. Moses was a real man, ditto all the prophets after him, in Judaism. Jesus the Christ became a real man, not just a god "in outer space". That's Carrier's thesis I think.

 

But we have a problem. The entire "immaculate conception" and "virgin birth" dogma arose out of criticism over Jesus' parentage, i.e. the critics accused his mother of harlotry. If Jesus was only a cosmic, "delusional" experience, why would a mortal birth ever be part of that? So Carrier has a disconnect: he asserts that Jesus was "in the beginning" merely a revealed and scriptural being, not a literal earthbound person. Yet the rebuttals to the critics are defending Jesus' birth as divinely mandated. If there is no birth to defend, why do we have such miraculous details about his birth?...

[Calm]

 The entire "immaculate conception".....arose out of criticism over Jesus' parentage, i.e. the critics accused his mother of harlotry. 

CFR please.  I am not seeing how the Immaculate Conception ties into this.

[mfbukowski]

CFR please.  I am not seeing how the Immaculate Conception ties into this.

He doesn't know that the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus.

[bcuzbcuz]

If we accept the 37 CE birthdate for Josephus, then he lived well within the time of people who would have known Jesus.

So you're saying he knew someone who had a good friend tell him that his second cousin's best friend's aunt heard that Jesus rose from the dead? Are you aware of at what age Josephus was when he wrote mentioning Jesus? Was he quoting people who actually knew Jesus? Or was he repeating stories that he had heard?

[Calm]

He doesn't know that the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus.

I was wondering if that is the case.

[Questing Beast]

Immaculate conception: Mary conceived without sexual intercourse, which was a common belief and teaching from the fourth century until refuted in the 17th century; in any case, Mary/Miriam conceived free of "original sin" and in her life free of personal sin thereby as a direct gift from God. Virgin birth: Jesus conceived without the "Immaculate Mary" being soiled by carnal intercourse. Both assertions are much later Christian apologia defending Jesus' divine nature, via his mother's purity, etc. (I do know the difference.) It resulted in early accusations of Jesus' parentage being carnal, sinful and base. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#Mother_and_father

[Robert F. Smith]

Josephus wasn't born until after Jesus' death, so he wasn't contemporaneous.

Bcuz if Jesus' life had not been cut short, he would have been a contemporary.

As it is, Jesus' brother James the Just was killed by the High Priest and Sanhedrin just before the great revolt against the Romans.  So at least James was a contemporary of Josephus.

[mfbukowski]

Immaculate conception: Mary conceived without sexual intercourse, which was a common belief and teaching from the fourth century until refuted in the 17th century; in any case, Mary/Miriam conceived free of "original sin" and in her life free of personal sin thereby as a direct gift from God. Virgin birth: Jesus conceived without the "Immaculate Mary" being soiled by carnal intercourse. Both assertions are much later Christian apologia defending Jesus' divine nature, via his mother's purity, etc. (I do know the difference.) It resulted in early accusations of Jesus' parentage being carnal, sinful and base. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#Mother_and_father

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

 

 

The doctrine of the immaculate conception (Mary being conceived free from original sin) is not to be confused with her virginal conception of her son Jesus. This misunderstanding of the term immaculate conception is frequently met in the mass media. Catholics believe that Mary was not the product of a virginal conception herself but was the daughter of a human father and mother,^[8] traditionally known by the names of Saint Joachim and Saint Anne. In 1677, the Holy See condemned the belief that Mary was virginally conceived, which had been a belief surfacing occasionally since the 4th century.^[9] The Church celebrates the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (when Mary was conceived free from original sin) on 8 December, exactly nine months before celebrating the Nativity of Mary. The feast of the Annunciation (which commemorates the virginal conception and the Incarnation of Jesus) is celebrated on 25 March, nine months before Christmas Day.^[10][11]

 

[volgadon]

So you're saying he knew someone who had a good friend tell him that his second cousin's best friend's aunt heard that Jesus rose from the dead? Are you aware of at what age Josephus was when he wrote mentioning Jesus? Was he quoting people who actually knew Jesus? Or was he repeating stories that he had heard?

 

No, I am saying that he wasn't much removed from the people and events in what was and is a relatively small land, so if Jesus never existed, then it stands to reason that Josephus would have heard it. Josephus was also active in the very region of the Galille from where Jesus is supposed to have hailed.

Edited September 22, 2013 by volgadon

[Abulafia]

I've now listened to pretty much all of the lecture.  It was interesting, but I have more than a few problems with this guys approach.

1) He, from the beginning sets up a 'false trichotomy' (can you say that?  it sounds good  )     

 

He only allows for one type of Christian, with one type of belief about Jesus. In reality the history of christianity is far more complex. With the early Jesus followers and the resultant communities expressing a very large and diverse set of opinions and beliefs around the nature of the movement(s).   Movement(s) which were adopted by various groups and adapted to their own worldview, which would have been influenced by Hellenistic, Jewish, Roman beliefs and so forth.  What these movements have in common is that they accepted the historicity of Jesus even if they then had to claim (Docetists for instance) that he only 'appeared' as a man.  That they do this stems, by my understanding, from a theological conundrum rather than the historicity of Jesus' in terms of his existence in the 'real' world.

 

 

2) He interprets texts in a very particular way to suit his own agenda (which is fair enough, but his interpretations in some cases ie Hebrews,  and within the genuine letters of Paul, are interesting to say the least).

3) He disregards any evidence from the texts (including Paul's earliest/genuine letters) that posit a real human Jesus that walked the earth as a man.  Paul pays respect to those Jerusalem Apostles because they walked with the human Jesus, in fact he has to fight his case against them in terms of him also being an apostle because he saw the 'resurrected Jesus'.  The implications of this are entirely missed..

4) He misses the mark on the contemporary tensions (all mixed up I would assume) on christology and some of the extreme views at both ends of the spectrum - from Jesus being a man and only a man, to explanations about his nature in terms of his Divinity and its implications within a developing monotheistic worldview.   1 Clement, which he mentions, clearly views the Jerusalem Apostles as a fixed unit based on their interaction with the living Jesus and are respected as such.  

5) He oversteps the mark in terms of the 'name' Jesus.  Jehoshua/Joshua were not uncommon names at the time. That this was Jesus' name may be entirely coincidental.

6) He fails to (apologies to those who feel it has already been debunked) mention the implications of the Talpiot Tomb and the associated Garden Tomb for a human Jesus.


Found this on Patheos which makes some interesting comments.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/09/problematizing-richard-carriers-treatment-of-the-historical-jesus.html

 

http://www.richardcarrier.info/Historicity_of_Jesus.pdf

Edited September 22, 2013 by Abulafia

[Questing Beast]

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Ah, I see I was unclear: "Mary WAS conceived without sexual intercourse, a common belief beginning c. the 4th century". It persists to this day, thus your call on the confusion. I hear it all the time, "immaculate conception", taken to be the virgin conception of Mary with Jesus, even by Catholics. It's a lot like Mormons believing in the Trinity without understanding the differences between "One Substance" and "one in purpose". God is not responsible for the ignorance of his people....

[Questing Beast]

I've now listened to pretty much all of the lecture.  It was interesting, but I have more than a few problems with this guys approach.

1) He, from the beginning sets up a 'false trichotomy' (can you say that?  it sounds good  )     

 

He only allows for one type of Christian, with one type of belief about Jesus. In reality the history of christianity is far more complex. With the early Jesus followers and the resultant communities expressing a very large and diverse set of opinions and beliefs around the nature of the movement(s).   Movement(s) which were adopted by various groups and adapted to their own worldview, which would have been influenced by Hellenistic, Jewish, Roman beliefs and so forth.  What these movements have in common is that they accepted the historicity of Jesus even if they then had to claim (Docetists for instance) that he only 'appeared' as a man.  That they do this stems, by my understanding, from a theological conundrum rather than the historicity of Jesus' in terms of his existence in the 'real' world.

 

 

2) He interprets texts in a very particular way to suit his own agenda (which is fair enough, but his interpretations in some cases ie Hebrews,  and within the genuine letters of Paul, are interesting to say the least).

3) He disregards any evidence from the texts (including Paul's earliest/genuine letters) that posit a real human Jesus that walked the earth as a man.  Paul pays respect to those Jerusalem Apostles because they walked with the human Jesus, in fact he has to fight his case against them in terms of him also being an apostle because he saw the 'resurrected Jesus'.  The implications of this are entirely missed..

4) He misses the mark on the contemporary tensions (all mixed up I would assume) on christology and some of the extreme views at both ends of the spectrum - from Jesus being a man and only a man, to explanations about his nature in terms of his Divinity and its implications within a developing monotheistic worldview.   1 Clement, which he mentions, clearly views the Jerusalem Apostles as a fixed unit based on their interaction with the living Jesus and are respected as such.  

5) He oversteps the mark in terms of the 'name' Jesus.  Jehoshua/Joshua were not uncommon names at the time. That this was Jesus' name may be entirely coincidental.

6) He fails to (apologies to those who feel it has already been debunked) mention the implications of the Talpiot Tomb and the associated Garden Tomb for a human Jesus.

Found this on Patheos which makes some interesting comments.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/09/problematizing-richard-carriers-treatment-of-the-historical-jesus.html

 

http://www.richardcarrier.info/Historicity_of_Jesus.pdf

How early was the "tomb of Jesus" attested?

 

How early were the miraculous stories vis-a-vis Jesus' mother? You don't get an earthly mother for a celestial being.

 

Did I miss something? Jesus is supposed to have had siblings. I don't want to go back and listen to Carrier again.

 

Carrier is bent on championing possibly the smallest (fadingly small) group of biblical scholarship: the one that denies Jesus actuality/historicity. I don't wish him luck, because that pov is inimical to a belief in God having to do with this world....

[Abulafia]

Questing asked:

 

 

1. How early was the "tomb of Jesus" attested?

 

2. How early were the miraculous stories vis-a-vis Jesus' mother? You don't get an earthly mother for a celestial being.

 

3. Did I miss something? Jesus is supposed to have had siblings. I don't want to go back and listen to Carrier again.

 

Carrier is bent on championing possibly the smallest (fadingly small) group of biblical scholarship: the one that denies Jesus actuality/historicity. I don't wish him luck, because that pov is inimical to a belief in God having to do with this world....

 

 

 

1. I'd say that it depends on which tomb.  As far as I understand it, finding the tomb in which Jesus was laid after his crucifixion has been the goal of many folk right from Constantine's wife onwards.  

 

As for the Talpiot Tomb, it's dating can be ascertained from the use of ossuaries which occurred during a fixed time in Jewish history, the earliest being dated to about 20BC (someone can correct me on that if I am wrong), and approximately 70CE.   Even if the tomb and the associated garden tomb do not contain the family and followers of Jesus, what they do attest to is the common use (how common as a cluster is up for debate) of biblical names such as Mary, Mariamene, Jesus, Joses, Joseph, Matthew and James.  The garden tomb signifies a belief in the use of Jonah to symbolise resurrection - whether that links to the developing beliefs of the Jesus movement is, I guess, another matter.

2. Not sure, but I guess Carrier would argue that there is precedent for a Divinity having an earthly mother.

 

3. Yes, I agree that Jesus had siblings and they are mentioned in each of the synoptic gospels.
 

Mark 3:31  And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him

 

 

Matthew 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.

 

 

Luke 8:19 Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd.

 

 

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?  And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

 

 

Galatians 1:19   But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

 

Carrier dismisses the Gospel evidences but I fail to see why the writers who received their information from oral tradition and perhaps written records now lost, would situate Jesus within a human family.  Again, Paul writing earlier than the Gospel writers takes it for granted that Jesus is a real person with a real living brother, and I find Carrier's criticism of Paul for this (he could have been calling 'anyone' brother) extremely weak, given the context.

I must read Bart Ehrman's latest book on the historicity of Jesus, I'm sure he would detail the opposing view with great clarity and up to date scholarship.  I'd love to see the two debate each other.  I'm pretty sure Ehrman would wipe the floor with him.

 

[Questing Beast]

And Van Voorst's "Jesus Outside the New Testament" may not point out clarity outside the NT as to the historical Jesus, but it does collect a sizable body of early literature, none of which remotely supports the earliest Christians believing in a "Jesus of outer space" paradigm. In every bit of early reference to Jesus (by whatever specific name variant), they are disciples of a mortal man....

[mfbukowski]

Ah, I see I was unclear: "Mary WAS conceived without sexual intercourse, a common belief beginning c. the 4th century". It persists to this day, thus your call on the confusion. I hear it all the time, "immaculate conception", taken to be the virgin conception of Mary with Jesus, even by Catholics. It's a lot like Mormons believing in the Trinity without understanding the differences between "One Substance" and "one in purpose". God is not responsible for the ignorance of his people....

The doctrine that Mary was born without original sin so that she could be the bearer of Christ has nothing to do with the virgin birth. 

 

Also it is not Catholic doctrine that Mary was conceived by her parents without sexual intercourse, just that she did not inherit original sin.

[mfbukowski]

Questing asked:

 

 

1. I'd say that it depends on which tomb.  As far as I understand it, finding the tomb in which Jesus was laid after his crucifixion has been the goal of many folk right from Constantine's wife onwards.  

 

As for the Talpiot Tomb, it's dating can be ascertained from the use of ossuaries which occurred during a fixed time in Jewish history, the earliest being dated to about 20BC (someone can correct me on that if I am wrong), and approximately 70CE.   Even if the tomb and the associated garden tomb do not contain the family and followers of Jesus, what they do attest to is the common use (how common as a cluster is up for debate) of biblical names such as Mary, Mariamene, Jesus, Joses, Joseph, Matthew and James.  The garden tomb signifies a belief in the use of Jonah to symbolise resurrection - whether that links to the developing beliefs of the Jesus movement is, I guess, another matter.

2. Not sure, but I guess Carrier would argue that there is precedent for a Divinity having an earthly mother.

 

3. Yes, I agree that Jesus had siblings and they are mentioned in each of the synoptic gospels.

 

 

 

 

 

Carrier dismisses the Gospel evidences but I fail to see why the writers who received their information from oral tradition and perhaps written records now lost, would situate Jesus within a human family.  Again, Paul writing earlier than the Gospel writers takes it for granted that Jesus is a real person with a real living brother, and I find Carrier's criticism of Paul for this (he could have been calling 'anyone' brother) extremely weak, given the context.

I must read Bart Ehrman's latest book on the historicity of Jesus, I'm sure he would detail the opposing view with great clarity and up to date scholarship.  I'd love to see the two debate each other.  I'm pretty sure Ehrman would wipe the floor with him.

 

Not quite sure what you mean by this:

The garden tomb signifies a belief in the use of Jonah to symbolise resurrection - whether that links to the developing beliefs of the Jesus movement is, I guess, another matter.

How does the garden tomb "signify" this?  What do you mean by the "use" of Jonah?

 

I presume this means that in whatever location this is,(Is this the same location usually identified as the "Garden Tomb"- is the Talpiot tomb the same as the "garden tomb"?)  there have been found artifacts portraying the story of Jonah, and this is understood by scholars to have reference to the resurrection.

 

Yet would a Jewish tomb have reference to 1- the resurrection and 2- the story of Jonah, which implies not only the belief in the resurrection but also the belief in 3 days between death and resurrection?  (the 3 days of course Jonah was in the fish)

 

So if such references exist, then the implication would be that this is a Christian burial site, I would think.  If it is a Christian burial site, would it not be from a later date than Jesus' resurrection, since it would take time for the Jonah story to have been assimilated and recognized as a type for Jesus' resurrection?

 

It all just sounds a little "fishy"

 

Oh- and Catholics would contend that the translation of "brothers" is inaccurate- they believe that the given word could be translated as "cousin" or any other close relative

Edited September 23, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

 

 

So if such references exist, then the implication would be that this is a Christian burial site, I would think.  If it is a Christian burial site, would it not be from a later date than Jesus' resurrection, since it would take time for the Jonah story to have been assimilated and recognized as a type for Jesus' resurrection?

 

If it was a family site, perhaps it started out Jewish but when they converted to Christianity, shifted though I am wondering how large of a shift that would have been if it only covered about 40 years or so of the beginning years of Christianity.

 

is the Talpiot tomb the same as the "garden tomb"?

 

No.****(see add-on, the image below for the Garden Tomb is not the garden tomb apparently referred to in the discussion, but the traditional one)

 

Garden Tomb:

 

 

Talpiot:

 

Also, I don't know if anyone is claiming it here, but there seems to be some confusion that a tomb of Jesus' family would also include the tomb where Jesus was placed, but that is identified as belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, who as far as I can tell is not identified as a member of Jesus' family plus the text seems to indicate something compassionate beyond the typical for his donation of his own tomb...which would seem hardly likely if it was a family tomb that Jesus would have had claim on.  The only way that it would make sense to be the same tomb is if there were no burials in it prior to Jesus' death...at least of his own family and then because it had been used as his tomb (whether one assumes he was resurrected or not), it was given or somehow transferred to the possession of his family.

 

I wonder if the claims that this was the "lost tomb of Jesus" address this problem at all.

 

add-on:  there are apparently two "Talpiot" tombs. If I understand correctly, the "Jesus' family" names are in Tomb A and the Jonah fish symbol is in Tomb B.  Perhaps Abulifia was using "associated garden tomb" for Tomb B?   "Talpiot" means "patio" apparently.  There are some discussions identifying one as the "Patio Tomb" and the other as the "Garden Tomb" but there seems to be inconsistent usage of the names, as Abulifia identifies the associated garden tomb as the one with the Jonah symbol and this one has it the reverse:  http://talpiottomb.com/symbols.html   .....as least as far as I read it, which was I admit skimming.

Edited September 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[Questing Beast]

The doctrine that Mary was born without original sin so that she could be the bearer of Christ has nothing to do with the virgin birth. 

 

Also it is not Catholic doctrine that Mary was conceived by her parents without sexual intercourse, just that she did not inherit original sin.

That's what I said. But both immaculate conception and virgin birth were asserted to combat the enemies of Christianity who claimed that Mary was a whore. A lot of what common Catholics believe is not RCC doctrine....

[Calm]

w

hat they do attest to is the common use..... of biblical names such as Mary, Mariamene, Jesus, Joses, Joseph, Matthew and James.

 

Was this ever in doubt?

 

And wouldn't it require multiple such findings to demonstrate that it was "common" as well?

[Calm]

The Jonah image and Jewish ressurection is talked about here:

 

http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Talpiot_%20II.pdf

[mfbukowski]

The Jonah image and Jewish ressurection is talked about here:

 

http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Talpiot_%20II.pdf

Thanks, Cal for the references.

 

It would be nice, as a believer, to see this as "evidence" but honestly as a rational person, I think it takes as much faith to see the "evidence" here as it does to just go on testimony. 

 

I'll stick with that, I think! 

[Abulafia]

Not quite sure what you mean by this:

How does the garden tomb "signify" this?  What do you mean by the "use" of Jonah?

 

I presume this means that in whatever location this is,(Is this the same location usually identified as the "Garden Tomb"- is the Talpiot tomb the same as the "garden tomb"?)  there have been found artifacts portraying the story of Jonah, and this is understood by scholars to have reference to the resurrection.

 

Yet would a Jewish tomb have reference to 1- the resurrection and 2- the story of Jonah, which implies not only the belief in the resurrection but also the belief in 3 days between death and resurrection?  (the 3 days of course Jonah was in the fish)

 

So if such references exist, then the implication would be that this is a Christian burial site, I would think.  If it is a Christian burial site, would it not be from a later date than Jesus' resurrection, since it would take time for the Jonah story to have been assimilated and recognized as a type for Jesus' resurrection?

 

It all just sounds a little "fishy"

 

Oh- and Catholics would contend that the translation of "brothers" is inaccurate- they believe that the given word could be translated as "cousin" or any other close relative

  

Apologies mfbukowski, when referring to the 'garden tomb' I meant the 'patio tomb'.  (My English brain sees the word Patio and automatically thinks Garden).

The controversy regarding the meaning of the symbols is set to run and run, but an update is here  http://jamestabor.com/ (if one scrolls down about half way).

As I understand it, a belief in resurrection is not uniquely found with the early Jesus communities. It was also a pharisaic belief.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees

[Abulafia]

I wonder if the claims that this was the "lost tomb of Jesus" address this problem at all.

 

Tabor addresses this issue.  http://jamestabor.com/2012/10/09/the-case-for-a-jesus-family-tomb-in-east-talpiot-a-comprehensive-summary-of-the-evidence/

[Abulafia]

mfbukowski said:

 

Oh- and Catholics would contend that the translation of "brothers" is inaccurate- they believe that the given word could be translated as "cousin" or any other close relative

 

That is an interesting point.  I did some searching within 'New Testament Text and Translation Commentary' (Philip W Comfort) to see if there were any variant readings of Galatians 1:19, and there doesn't seem to be any.

Also checked out the Greek 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=galatians+1:19&t=kjv
 

 

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

e&teron {A-ASM} de; {CONJ} tw'n {T-GPM} ajpostovlwn {N-GPM} oujk {PRT} ei\don, {V-2AAI-1S}eij {COND} mh; {PRT} #Iavkwbon {N-ASM} to;n {T-ASM} ajdelfo;n {N-ASM} tou' {T-GSM} kurivou.{N-GSM}

 

 

and cross referenced with the use of 'adelphon' in other NT passages.

Given the context, I find it highly unlikely that the passage refers to a cousin.  Luke 1:36 uses the Greek term for cousin for instance.   http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/suggenes.html

http://biblesuite.com/greek/adelphon_80.htm



 

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski said:

 

That is an interesting point.  I did some searching within 'New Testament Text and Translation Commentary' (Philip W Comfort) to see if there were any variant readings of Galatians 1:19, and there doesn't seem to be any.

Also checked out the Greek 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=galatians+1:19&t=kjv

 

 

and cross referenced with the use of 'adelphon' in other NT passages.

Given the context, I find it highly unlikely that the passage refers to a cousin.  Luke 1:36 uses the Greek term for cousin for instance.   http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/suggenes.html

http://biblesuite.com/greek/adelphon_80.htm

 

Well I have no dog in this fight, but you might be interested in this:

 

The exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren"

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 (Genesis 13:8, 14:14-16; Leviticus 10:4; 1 Chronicles 15:5-10, 23:21-22), 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. Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). 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, cf Matthew 13:56) 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 argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, 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 19:25), 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 the manuscripts 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.

 

It is quite a lengthy article in New Advent, the Catholic Encyclopedia  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm

 

Catholics take a dim view of womb-mates where Jesus is concerned since that would be proof that Mary was not always a virgin- but I have forgotten the doctrinal reason why this is important to them.  Maybe a real Catholic could comment.  3DOP?

Edited September 23, 2013 by mfbukowski