Bible Heaven/Bible Heaven.iso/misc/answers/answers.015

Text File | 1990-07-10 | 17.0 KB | 290 lines

                      Brethren of the Lord

     When Catholics call Mary the Virgin, they mean she remained
a virgin throughout her life.  When Protestants use the term,
they mean she was a virgin only until the birth of Jesus; they
believe that she and Joseph later had children, all those called
"the brethren of the Lord."  What gives rise to the disagreement
are biblical verses that use the terms "brethren," "brother," or
"sister."
     These are representative verses: "While he was still
speaking to the multitude, it chanced that his mother and his
brethren were standing without, desiring speech with him" (Matt.
12:46).  "Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother
of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon?  Do not his sisters live
here near us?" (Mark 6:3).  "For even his brethren were without
faith in him" (John 7:5).  "All these, with one mind, gave
themselves up to prayer, together with Mary the mother of Jesus,
and the rest of the women and his brethren" (Acts 1:14).  "Have
we not the right to travel about with a woman who is a sister, as
the other apostles do, as the Lord's brethren do, and Cephas?" (1
Cor. 9:5).
     The first thing to note, when trying to understand such
verses, is that the term "brother" has a wide meaning in the
Bible.  It is not restricted to brothers german or half-brothers.

(The same goes for "sister," of course, and the plural
"brethren.")  Lot is described as Abraham's "brother" (Gen.
14:14), but Lot was the son of Aran, Abraham's deceased brother
(Gen. 11:26-28), which means Lot was really Abraham's nephew.
Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15).
Cis and Eleazar were the sons of Moholi.  Cis had sons of his
own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their
"brethren," the sons of Cis.  These "brethren" were really their
cousins (1 Chron. 23:21-22).
     The terms "brethren," "brother," and "sister" did not refer
only to close relatives, as in the above examples.  Sometimes
they meant only a kinsman (Deut. 23:7, 2 Esd. 5:7, Jer. 34:9), as
in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of king Ochozias (4
Kgs. 10:13-14).  The words could mean even people apparently
unrelated, such as a friend (2 Sam. 1:26, 3 Kgs. 9:13, 3 Kgs.
20:32) or just an ally (Amos 1:9).
     Why this ambiguous usage?  Because neither Hebrew nor
Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a
special word meaning "cousin."  Speakers of those languages used
either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the
son of the sister of my father."  But using a circumlocution was
a clumsy way to speak, so they naturally enough fell to using the
word "brother."
     The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use the
Aramaic equivalent of "brethren" to mean both cousins and sons of
the same father--plus other relatives and even non-relatives.
When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators
of the Septuagint did.  (The Septuagint was the Greek version of
the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century
or two before Christ's birth and was the version of the Bible
from which most Old Testament quotations are taken in the New
Testament.)
     In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both true
brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek
has the (usually) narrow meaning that the English "brother" has.
Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin,
anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint favored adelphos,
even for true cousins.
     You might say they transliterated instead of translated.
They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for "brother"
and did not use adelphos here (for sons of the same parents),
anepsios there (for cousins).  This same usage was employed by
the writers of the New Testament and passed into English
translations of the Bible.  To determine just what "brethren" or
"brother" or "sister" means in any one verse, we have to look at
the context.  When we do that, we see that inseparable problems
arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.
     At the Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel appeared to
Mary, she asked, "How can that be, since I have no knowledge of
man?" (Luke 1:34).  From the earliest interpretations of the
Bible we see that this was taken to mean that she had made a vow
of life-long virginity, even in marriage.  If she had taken no
such vow, the question would make no sense at all.
     There is no reason to assume Mary was wholly ignorant of the
rudiments of biology.  She presumably knew the normal way in
which children are conceived.  If she anticipated having children
and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would
hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since having a
child the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed.  No, her
question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a
real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to
the angel's request.  A careful look at the New Testament shows
Mary kept her vow and never had any children other than Jesus.

In the story of his being found in the Temple, Jesus, at age
twelve, is mentioned as, evidently, the only son of Mary (Luke
2:41-51); there is no hint of other children in the family.  The
people of Nazareth, where he grew up, refer to him as "the son of
Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary."  The Greek expression
implies he is her only son.  In fact, others in the Gospels are
never referred to as Mary's sons, not even when they are called
Jesus' "brethren."  If they were in fact her sons, this would be
strange usage.
     There is another point, perhaps a little harder for moderns,
or at least Westerners, to grasp.  It is that the attitude taken
by the "brethren of the Lord" implies they are his elders.  In
ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember,
Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but
younger never gave advice to older--it was considered
disrespectful to do so.  But we find Jesus' "brethren" saying to
him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to
Judaea so his disciples could see his doings, so he could make a
name for himself (John 7:3-4).
     Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own
benefit, saying "He must be mad" (Mark 3:21).  This kind of
behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the "brethren"
were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his
brothers german, since Jesus, we know, was Mary's "first-born."
     Consider what happened at the foot of the Cross.  When he
was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John:
"Jesus, seeing his mother there, and the disciple, too, whom he
loved, standing by, said to his mother, Woman, this is thy son.
Then he said to the disciple, This is thy mother.  And from that
hour the disciple took her into his own keeping" (John 19:26-27).

Now the Gospels mention four of his "brethren," James, Joseph,
Simon, and Jude.  It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have
disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if
these four were also her sons.
     Fundamentalists are insistent nevertheless that "brethren of
the Lord" must be interpreted in the strict sense.  They most
commonly make two arguments based on this verse: "And he knew her
not till she brought forth her first-born son" (Matt. 1:25).
They first argue that the natural inference from "till" is that
Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in
the usual sense, and had several children.  Otherwise, they ask,
bringing up their second point, why would Jesus be called "first-
born"?  Doesn't that mean there must have been at least a
"second-born," perhaps a "third-born" and "fourth-born," and so
on?
     The problem for them is that they are trying to use the
modern meaning of "till" (or "until") instead of the meaning it
had when the Bible was written.  In the Bible, it means only that
some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not
imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense
of the term.  In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the
Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.
     Consider this line: "Michol the daughter of Saul had no
children until the day of her death" (2 Kgs. 7:23).  Are we then
to assume she had children after her death?  Or how about the
raven that Noah released from the ark?  The bird "went forth and
did not return till the waters were dried up upon the earth"
(Gen. 8:7).  In fact, we know the raven never returned at all.
     And then there was the burial of Moses.  About the location
of his grave it was said that no man knows "until this present
day" (Deut. 34:6)--but we know that no one has known since that
day either.  Or how about this: "And they went up to mount Sion
with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of
them was slain till they had returned in peace" (1 Macc. 5:54).
Does this mean the soldiers were slain after they returned from
battle?
     The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea--
which is that nothing at all can be proved from the use of the
word "till" in Matt. 1:25.  Recent translations give a better
sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time
before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "he had not known
her when she bore a son" (Knox translation).
     The other argument used by fundamentalists concerns the term
"first-born."  They say Jesus could not be called Mary's "first-
born" unless there were other children that followed him.  But
this is a misunderstanding of the way the ancient Jews used the
term.  For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex.
13:2, Num. 3:12).  Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born"
son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20).  Did this mean the
parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could
call their first the "first-born"?  Hardly.  The first male child
of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out
to be the only child of the marriage.  This usage is illustrated
by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt.  The inscription
refers to a woman who died during the birth of her "first-born."
     Fundamentalists also say it would have been repugnant for
Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and yet remain virgins.  They
call married virginity an "unnatural" arrangement.  Certainly it
is unusual, but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one's
family, not as unusual as having a true virgin give birth to a
child.  The Holy Family was neither an average family nor even
one suited to be chosen as "family of the year" from among a
large number of similarly-situated families.  We should not
expect its members to act as we would.
     The Holy Family is the ideal family, but not because it is
like "regular" families in all major respects, only better.  In
some major respects it is totally unlike any other family.  The
circumstances demanded that, just as they demanded the utmost in
sacrifice on the part of Mary and Joseph.  This was a special
family, set aside for the nurture of the Son of God.  No greater
dignity could be given to marriage than that.
     Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary's
perpetual virginity is the testimony of early Christian writings.

Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius.  It was
Helvidius, writing around 380, who first brought up the notion
that the "brethren of the Lord" were children born to Mary and
Joseph after Jesus' birth.  Jerome first declined to comment on
Helvidius' remarks because they were a "novel, wicked, and a
daring affront to the faith of the whole world."  This was an
entirely new interpretation, one nobody had pushed before, and it
was beneath contempt.
     At length, though, Jerome's friends convinced him to write a
reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the
Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary.  He used not only the
scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian
writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr.

Helvidius claimed the support of two writers, Tertullian and
Victorinus, but Jerome showed this was no support at all, since
Tertullian was a heretic (a Montanist) and the passage from
Victorinus had been misinterpreted.  Helvidius was unable to come
up with a reply, and his theory was unheard of until modern
times.
     So, if it is established that the "brethren of the Lord"
were not Jesus' brothers german or half-brothers, who were they?
That they were Jesus' cousins has been the accepted view at least
from the time of Jerome until recent centuries.  (Before Jerome
the consensus was that they definitely weren't Mary's sons, but
but not necessarily that they were her nephews.)
     Of the four "brethren" who are named in the Gospels,
consider, for the sake of argument, only James.  Similar
reasoning can be used for the other three.  We know that James'
mother was named Mary.  Look at the descriptions of the women
standing beneath the Cross: "Among them were Mary Magdalen, and
Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons
of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56); "Among them were Mary Magdalen, and
Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome"
(Mark 15:40).
     Then look at what John says: "And meanwhile his [Jesus']
mother, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen had taken
their stand beside the cross of Jesus" (John 19:25).  If we
compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the Crucifixion,
we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of
Cleophas.  So far so good.
     An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere
(Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean
this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Cleophas and
Alphaeus.  One solution is that she was widowed once, then
remarried.  More probably, though, Alphaeus and Cleophas (Clopas
in Greek) are the same person, since the Aramaic name for
Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek in different ways, either as
Alphaeus or Clopas.  Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a
Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the
name Paul.
     So it is probable, anyway, that James is the son of Mary and
Cleophas.  If the testimony of Hegesippus, a second-century
historian, is believed, Cleophas was the brother of Joseph, the
foster-father of Jesus.  James would thus be Joseph's nephew and
a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph's putative son.  This
identification of the "brethren of the Lord" as Jesus' cousins is
open to legitimate question--they might even be relatives more
distantly removed--and our inability to know certainly their
status says nothing about the main point, which is that the Bible
demonstrates that they were not, anyway, the Virgin Mary's
children.
     Why are fundamentalists, particularly those most opposed to
Catholicism, so insistent that Mary was not perpetually a virgin?

There seem to be two reasons.
     One is dislike of celibacy for priests and nuns.  They are
aware that it is Catholic teaching that celibacy is to be highly
prized, that there is much virtue (and much common sense) in
priests and nuns giving up the privilege of marriage in order to
serve Christ better.  And they know that Catholics refer to the
example of Mary when praising consecrated virginity.  So, by
undermining her status, they hope to undermine that of priests
and nuns.  By claiming Mary did not live her life as a virgin,
they hope to make religious celibacy seem contrary to the Gospel.
     The other reason concerns Mary herself.  In the Catholic
scheme of things, she is certainly different from other women, so
much so that she is considered worthy of special devotion (not of
course of worship, latria, but of a level of honor, hyperdulia,
higher than other saints receive).  Her status accounts for the
attention paid her.  Fundamentalists think that what she gets, by
way of devotion, is necessarily taken from Christ.
     This is neither true nor logical, but they nevertheless
think devotion to Mary must be discouraged if proper devotion to
our Lord is to be maintained.  One way to diminish her status is
to show she was just like other women, more or less, and that can
be done in part by showing she had other children.  Their desire
to do this tends to make impossible fundamentalists' accurate
weighing of the facts.  Their presuppositions do not allow them
to see what the Bible really implies about the "brethren of the
Lord."

                                        --Karl Keating
                                          Catholic Answers
                                          P.O. Box 17181
                                          San Diego, CA 92117