![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/09\/Jesus61.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Protestant anti-Catholic apologist and polemicist Jason Engwer follows the standard theologically liberal take that Jesus had literal blood brothers \/ siblings. This was not <\/em><\/strong>Martin Luther\u2019s<\/a> or John Calvin\u2019s<\/a> view. It didn\u2019t come from classic, original Protestantism, but from skeptical theological liberalism hundreds of years later.<\/p>\n Jason wrote an article entitled, \u201cSome Undesigned Coincidences Related To Peter\u2019s Names\u201d<\/a> (9-19-21) that presupposed the existence of siblings of Jesus. His words will be in blue<\/span>:<\/p>\n [T]wo of the gospels report that Jesus had a brother named Simon (Matthew 13:55,\u00a0Mark 6:3), . . . the two gospels that name Jesus\u2019 brothers. Even in Matthew and Mark, the reference to a brother named Simon is brief and occurs in passing, and that brother didn\u2019t have the sort of later prominence that James and Jude had.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n . . . both Jesus and James were drawing a connection to the name of one of their brothers, . . . Simon was their\u00a0youngest<\/i> brother. . . . Youngest children often get treated differently because of their status as the youngest. Jesus may have had more affection for his brother Simon accordingly. . . . The angel didn\u2019t have a brother named Simon, as Jesus and James did.<\/span><\/p>\n Okay. Why don\u2019t we take a look at the two passages he cites, and cross-reference them to other<\/em> related ones, to see if it makes any sense to believe that all four persons mentioned were Jesus\u2019 literal siblings. Protestants always want the Bible first and foremost. I\u2019m happy to bring up much more<\/em> of it (relevant to the topic) than Jason does.<\/p>\n Matthew 13:55-56<\/strong> (RSV) \u00a0Is not this the carpenter\u2019s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers<\/span> James and Joseph and Simon and Judas<\/span>? [56] And are not all his sisters<\/span> with us? . . .<\/p>\n Mark 6:3<\/strong> \u201cIs not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon<\/span>, and are not his<\/span> sisters<\/span> here with us?\u201d . . .<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Matthew 27:55-56<\/strong> There were also many women there [at the crucifixion], looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; \u00a0[56]among whom were Mary Mag\u2019dalene<\/span>, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph<\/span>, . . .<\/p>\n Mark 15:40-41<\/strong> There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag\u2019dalene<\/span>, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses<\/span>, and Salo\u2019me, [41] who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; . . .<\/p>\n John 19:25<\/strong> . . . standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother\u2019s sister,<\/span> Mary the wife of Clopas<\/span>, and Mary Mag\u2019dalene<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Therefore, \u201cbrothers\u201d James and Joseph are the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Our Lady\u2019s adelphe <\/em>[Greek for brother or sister or more distant relative, kin, friend, etc.] in John 19:25.\u00a0 Assuming that there are not two women named \u201cMary\u201d in one family (which seems reasonable!), they cold then be Jesus\u2019 \u201ccousins\u201d (beyond first cousin) or more distant relatives. Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and \u201csisters\u201d along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi<\/em>.<\/p>\n The most plausible interpretation of all this related data is a use of\u00a0adelphos\u00a0<\/em>as \u201ccousins\u201d rather than \u201csiblings.\u201d We know for sure, from the above information, that James and Joseph were not Jesus\u2019 siblings.<\/p>\n But there is another option, too. Eusebius, in his History of the Church<\/em> (III, 2), documents Hegesippus<\/a> (c. 110 \u2013 c. 180) stating that Clopas (husband of Mary\u2019s sister) was the brother of Joseph, her husband. That would make this \u201cother Mary\u201d the Blessed Virgin Mary\u2019s sister-in-law<\/em>, and her sons (James and Joseph named), Jesus\u2019 first cousins.<\/p>\n Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic have words for \u201ccousin.\u201d The New Testament was written in Greek, which does have such a word (sungenis<\/em>), but Jesus and His disciples spoke Aramaic (a late version of Hebrew), and the Hebrew word\u00a0ach\u00a0<\/em>is literally translated as\u00a0adelphos,\u00a0<\/em>the literal equivalent of the English \u201cbrother.\u201d In the Bible, it has a very wide range of meanings beyond \u201csibling\u201d: just as \u201cbrother\u201d does in English. Thus, it is routinely used in the New Testament to describe cousins or kinsmen, etc.<\/p>\n It\u2019s true that sungenis <\/em>and its cognate\u00a0sungenia\u00a0<\/em>appear in the New Testament fifteen times (sungenia<\/em>: Lk 1:61; Acts 7:3, 14;\u00a0sungenis<\/em>: Mk 6:4; Lk 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21).\u00a0\u00a0But they are usually translated\u00a0kinsmen<\/em>,\u00a0kinsfolk<\/em>, or\u00a0kindred\u00a0<\/em>in KJV: that is, in a sense wider than\u00a0cousin<\/em>: often referring to the entire nation of Hebrews.\u00a0Thus, the eminent Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, in his\u00a0Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words<\/em>, lists\u00a0sungenis\u00a0<\/em>not only under \u201cCousin\u201d but also under \u201cKin, Kinsfolk, Kinsman, Kinswoman.\u201d<\/p>\n Jesus Himself uses \u201cbrethren\u201d (adelphos<\/em>) in the non-sibling sense. In Matthew 23:8 (cf. 12:49-50), He calls, for example, the \u201ccrowds\u201d and His \u201cdisciples\u201d (23:1) \u201cbrethren.\u201d In other words, they are\u00a0each\u00a0<\/em>other\u2019s <\/em>\u201cbrothers\u201d: the brotherhood of Christians.<\/p>\n Luke was a Greek Gentile. Paul, though Jewish, was raised in the very cosmopolitan, culturally Greek town of Tarsus. But even so, both still clearly used\u00a0adelphos\u00a0<\/em>many times with the meaning of non-sibling:<\/p>\n Strikingly, it looks like\u00a0every\u00a0<\/em>time St. Paul uses\u00a0adelphos\u00a0<\/em>(unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way. Yet we often hear about Galatians 1:19: \u201cJames the Lord\u2019s brother.\u201d 137 other times, Paul means non-sibling, yet amazingly enough, here he\u00a0must <\/em>mean sibling, because (so we are told) he uses the word\u00a0adelphos<\/em>? That doesn\u2019t make any sense.<\/p>\n Some folks think it is a compelling argument that\u00a0sungenis\u00a0<\/em>isn\u2019t used to describe the brothers of Jesus. But they need to examine the following passage, where sungenis\u00a0<\/em>appears:<\/p>\n Mark 6:4<\/strong> And Jesus said to them, \u201cA prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin<\/em><\/span>, and in his own house.\u201d (cf. Jn 7:5: \u201cFor even his brothers did not believe in him\u201d)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What is the context? Let\u2019s look at the preceding verse, where the people in \u201chis own country\u201d (6:1) exclaimed:<\/p>\n Mark 6:3<\/strong> \u201cIs not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?\u201d And they took offense at him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If Jude (Mt 13:55 and Mk 6:3 above) is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself \u201ca servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James\u201d (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was\u00a0<\/em>Jesus\u2019 blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord\u2019s own sibling (we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James<\/em>\u2018 brother.<\/p>\n This is far too strange and implausible to believe. Now that we have seen that James is Jesus\u2019 cousin (either first or more distant), then if Jude is his sibling (assuming that is the meaning of Jude 1:1), then he is also Jesus\u2019 cousin (the same sort of cousin as James).<\/p>\n Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus\u2019 brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: \u201cservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ\u201d): even though St. Paul calls him \u201cthe Lord\u2019s brother\u201d (Gal 1:19).<\/p>\n This is serious <\/em>and [what we used to call as evangelicals] \u201cmeaty\u201d Bible study, not the highly selective, \u201cmilky\u201d and surfacey fluff of Jason Engwer. He wouldn\u2019t know in-depth Bible study if it hit him on the head. And he (knowing better, from past experience, including leaving right in the middle of a widely advertised written debate) won\u2019t interact with this, because he ignores every reply I make to his arguments, and (can\u2019t be too safe!) I am banned on his Tribalblogue<\/em> site (not one of the \u201ctribe\u201d!).<\/p>\n We have, then, either compelling or very good, plausible biblical arguments showing that neither James, Joseph, nor Jude are Jesus\u2019 siblings. The only named \u201cbrother\u201d left to explain is the fourth one named Simon: the one Jason Engwer blithely assumes is Jesus\u2019 sibling in his remarks above. In his case, we only have indirect deduction from the biblical data, as to his exact relation to Jesus (analogy to James and Joseph). But we have strong early Christian tradition, from the best historian in the early Church: Eusebius, who, in the same passage cited above, wrote:<\/p>\n After the martyrdom of James and the capture of Jerusalem which instantly followed, there is a firm tradition that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord who were still alive assembled from all parts together with those who, humanly speaking, were\u00a0kinsmen of the Lord<\/span>\u00a0\u2013 for most of them were still living. Then they all discussed together whom they should choose as a fit person to succeed James, and voted unanimously that\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>Symeon, son of the Clopas <\/span>mentioned in the gospel narrative [note: Jn 19:25; perhaps Lk 24:18], was a fit person to occupy the throne of the Jerusalem see. He was, so it is said, a\u00a0cousin of the Saviour<\/span>, for Hegesippus tells us that\u00a0Clopas was Joseph\u2019s brother<\/span>.\u00a0(The History of the Church<\/i>, translated by G.A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965, 123-124)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It turns out, then, that early tradition, from the second-century historian Hegesippus (whom we have no reason to doubt in his non-theological reporting of relationships) tells us that \u201cSymeon\u201d is also a son of Clopas. Thus, he is another first cousin, not a blood brother. That would identify three of these four named \u201cbrothers\u201d as cousins, based on clear biblical evidence (James and Joseph) and a combination of sound early historical tradition and the Bible (Simon or Symeon). Jude, by other biblical evidence (see above) and plausible extrapolation is very likely no different.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n