![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/11\/Mary41.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nJason Engwer is a Protestant and anti-Catholic apologist, who runs the Tribalblogue<\/em> site. I will be responding to his article, Are Jesus\u2019 Siblings Children From Joseph\u2019s Previous Marriage?<\/a> (1-8-17). His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n One of the most important concepts to focus on when thinking about this issue is what other options were available to the authors in question. What other language could they have used? For example, Luke refers to Jesus as Mary\u2019s \u201cfirstborn\u201d (2:7), even though elsewhere he uses a different term for \u201conly born\u201d (7:12, 9:38).<\/span><\/p>\n The Protestant Hastings Bible Dictionary<\/em> (\u201cBrethren of the Lord [2]\u201d<\/a>) offers the reply:<\/p>\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 [prototokos<\/em> \/ firstborn<\/em>] among the Jews was a technical term, meaning \u2018that which openeth the womb\u2019 (Exodus 34:19<\/a><\/span> ff.), and does not imply the birth of other offspring. . . . Dr. Mayor objects that in a purely historical passage, like\u00a0Luke 2:7<\/a><\/span>, this technical meaning is not to be thought of; but the subsequent statement \u2018they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord,\u00a0Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord<\/i>\u2019 (Luke 2:22-23<\/a><\/span>), renders it certain that it was precisely this which was in the Evangelist\u2019s mind when he called Jesus\u00a0\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u00a0(so already Jerome,\u00a0l.c.<\/i>\u00a0x.).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why would Luke use a term that seems to contradict Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity when he was aware of an alternative term that\u2019s consistent with perpetual virginity and uses it elsewhere in his gospel?<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s explained above: precisely because this was common Jewish \/ OT usage and didn\u2019t imply in and of itself further children being born of the same mother; only that there were no previous<\/em> children.<\/p>\n Similarly, why does Luke differentiate between \u201cbrothers\u201d and \u201crelatives\u201d in 21:16 if there\u2019s no significant difference between the two?<\/span><\/p>\n Luke 21:16<\/strong> (RSV) You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and kinsmen and friends, and some of you they will put to death;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cBrothers\u201d in this verse is adelphos<\/em>, which can<\/em> refer to siblings (as well as a wide range of other relatives), and may very well be Jesus\u2019 meaning in this verse. \u201cKinsmen\u201d here is the Greek sungenis<\/em> (Strong\u2019s word #4773<\/a>) and has solely a wider<\/em> application of \u201crelative.\u201d Hence, the KJV never translates it as \u201cbrother\u201d but rather, as follows, in 12 appearances: kinsman<\/a> <\/em>(7),\u00a0cousin<\/a> <\/em>(2),\u00a0kinsfolk<\/a><\/em> (2), and kin<\/a><\/em> (1). There is a difference between the two in that sungenis<\/em> is always referring to the wider application, whereas adelphos<\/em> can also include the meaning of siblings. Context and previous cultural usage is usually the determinant of more precise intended meanings.<\/p>\n In the same way, why does Hegesippus refer to Symeon as Jesus\u2019 \u201ccousin\u201d (in Eusebius, Church History<\/em>, 4:22:4), yet refer to James as Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrother\u201d (ibid<\/em>., 2:23:4) and Jude as Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrother according to the flesh\u201d (ibid<\/em>., 3:20:1)?<\/span><\/p>\n I just explained it. \u201cBrother\u201d \/ adelphos<\/em> can have a wider application of meaning beyond sibling<\/em>. Thus, there is no need to explain the above as a supposed \u201cdiscrepancy.\u201d He simply chose different words, which is perfectly kosher and not unexpected.<\/p>\n We see this over and over again with the earliest sources.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes; they use different words for stuff (sometimes for the same thing), just as we do today! Languages are very rich. They don\u2019t have only one<\/em> word for any given thing.<\/p>\n They not only use language that seems to contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, but even use different language elsewhere that\u2019s consistent with perpetual virginity, which they could have used in the passages relevant to Mary\u2026.<\/span><\/p>\n There is<\/em> no contradiction to the perpetual virginity of Mary, once all the words are correctly understood as to latitude of possible meanings. It\u2019s only Jason\u2019s and later Protestantism\u2019s false linguistic and theological premises<\/em> that bring about supposed \u201cconfusion\u201d and \u201ccontra-indications\u201d in the traditional view of Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity, which continued to be held by all the major leading figures of the initial Protestant Revolt in the 16th century.<\/p>\n Theological liberalism from two centuries later introduced this false doctrine into Protestantism. But many Protestants continue to oppose these liberal innovations and novelties to this day.<\/p>\n There are also similar sorts of \u201cwhy didn\u2019t they use these<\/em> terms?\u201d arguments that support<\/em> perpetual virginity. For example, Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrethren\u201d in Scripture are never called the children of Mary, and Mary is never called their mother, as in the case of Jesus:<\/p>\n John 2:1<\/strong> On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;<\/p>\n John 19:25<\/strong> . . . standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother\u2019s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag\u2019dalene.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In at least two instances, these \u201cbrothers\u201d were mentioned but Mary wasn\u2019t called their<\/em> mother; only Jesus<\/em>\u2018 mother:<\/p>\n Acts 1:14<\/strong> All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.<\/p>\n Mark 6:3<\/strong> Is 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 . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Doesn\u2019t it stand to reason and common sense that if these \u201cbrothers\u201d were indeed the siblings of Jesus, that Acts 1:14 would read, instead: \u201cMary the mother of Jesus and his brothers\u201d? Then we wouldn\u2019t be having<\/em> this dispute; it would have been so clear and undeniable. A similar argument could be made for Mark 6:3. But instead, we have Jesus only being called \u201cthe son of Mary\u201d there, while \u201cson of Mary\u201d referring to someone besides<\/em> Jesus, or the phrase \u201csons of Mary\u201d never appear in Holy Scripture<\/em>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I respond below to a portion of another article, Agreement Between Matthew And Luke About Jesus\u2019 Childhood<\/a> (11-30-13):<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Jesus had siblings (Matthew 1:25,\u00a012:46-50,\u00a013:55-56,\u00a0Luke 2:7,\u00a08:19,\u00a0Acts 1:14), though they apparently weren\u2019t born until after the passages in the infancy narratives mentioned above.<\/i><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The biblical data is not conclusive in terms of asserting that Jesus had siblings (defined as brothers and sisters who were also the offspring of Mary). As I have shown in many papers (linked below), adelphos<\/em> (\u201cbrother\u201d) has a wide range of meaning; and various exegetical arguments (as well as arguments from early Christian tradition) show fairly clearly that those cited as Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrothers\u201d were not<\/em> His siblings. Above, Jason merely assumes that adelphos<\/em> means \u201csibling.\u201d It can<\/em> mean that (just as is the case with \u201cbrother\u201d in English), but it can also mean many other<\/em> things; thus context and cross-referencing (and Catholics would add: constant sacred tradition and Church teaching from the beginning) are crucial to determine which meaning applies.<\/p>\n There were no children of Joseph from a previous marriage or other siblings of Jesus during the earliest period of his childhood.<\/i><\/b>\u00a0Since Matthew and Luke claim that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, they probably would have offered an explanation of where Jesus\u2019 older siblings came from if there were such siblings to account for. No such explanation is offered.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Obviously, since Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born (and Jason and virtually all traditional Protestants agree with the virgin birth), He had no older siblings in the strictest sense of the word (from the same mother). If we assume the meaning of half-brothers and half-sisters (offspring of Joseph from a previous marriage), then that could or would be the case (as Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy generally hold). But then this has no bearing on whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not.<\/p>\n I deny that the Gospel writers would \u201cprobably\u201d<\/span> explain the existence of these half-brothers and half-sisters, if indeed this was the case. It has nothing to do with the narrative and I don\u2019t see any basis for Jason making such a claim of likelihood. What would it be<\/em>? Even if we accept Jason\u2019s scenario for the sake of argument, and this disproves the \u201chalf-brothers\u201d position (though it would be a weak argument from silence, if so), it still doesn\u2019t touch the \u201cfirst or more distant cousins or relatives\u201d opinion of western Catholicism: held by many more Christians than the other view. Many of Jason\u2019s contra-Catholic arguments (especially regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary) are of this highly speculative nature, rather than being indubitable conclusions from biblical texts.<\/p>\n Though the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke say a lot about Jesus\u2019 family and their travels, for example, no siblings of Jesus are mentioned. Rather, the family is repeatedly described by mentioning Joseph, Mary, and Jesus (Matthew 2:13-14,\u00a02:19-21,\u00a0Luke 2:4-5,\u00a02:16). One or more of the three is mentioned many times in the infancy narratives, but no sibling is mentioned aside from the allusion by means of \u201cfirstborn\u201d in\u00a0Luke 2:7.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Again, this might be construed as an argument against the \u201cprevious marriage and children of Joseph\u201d position, but if so it is only a weak objection, and doesn\u2019t touch the other (much more exegetically based) \u201ccousins\u201d view.\u00a0In Jewish culture (as shown above), \u201cfirstborn\u201d simply had no inherent or necessary meaning of \u201cfirst of many\u201d.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n
\n*<\/div>\n
\n*<\/div>\n