![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/01\/Mary11.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cIceman2525\u201d<\/a> is some sort of Protestant. His Disqus profile offers no further information about him. This exchange took place underneath my article, \u201cJesus\u2019 \u2018Brothers\u2019: Anti-Catholic Lies from a Tiny Lutheran Sect (ELS).\u201d<\/a> His words will be in blue<\/span>. I have made some slight editorial corrections or additions in his text.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n [Regarding] your first argument of Luke [2:]41-51, I don\u2019t think it should be expected that siblings would be mentioned. Jesus\u2019s siblings would have been young and hardly responsible for their brother Jesus. Mary and Joseph would have that responsibility of finding Jesus. If I found a lost child I would likely tell them that their parents have been looking for them. Even if the child had siblings I wouldn\u2019t feel the need to mention them because his parents are his caregivers.<\/span><\/p>\n Also, if you are going to take the position that when Jesus\u2019s brothers are mentioned they refer to his cousins, then that seemingly contradicts the earliest Catholic tradition of Jesus\u2019s brothers being from a prior marriage of Joseph. If Catholics trust tradition then seems like that would be the one to stick with.<\/span><\/p>\n As for the adelphos<\/em> argument, have you made a count of the occurrences in the NT where adelphos<\/em> means actual brother\/sibling versus cousin usage? My point is that if adelphos<\/em> is used for sibling<\/em> say 98% of the time, then the usage for cousin would be a rare one. Relying on an uncommon usage of a word doesn\u2019t give much confidence for that argument. We already know NT writers use words for cousin. I am a Protestant but I\u2019m just respectfully offering my insight. Thank you.<\/span><\/p>\n Thanks for your reply. So you think Mary bore no children between Jesus\u2019 birth and about age 28, and then proceeded to have four or more? You think that\u2019s likely? [these questions were never replied to]<\/p>\n Whether you talked to siblings of a lost and found child is irrelevant. What\u2019s relevant is what Mary said, which confirms (in a probabilistic fashion) that Jesus was an only child.<\/p>\n There are two early traditions: the theory you mention (held by Orthodox and eastern Catholics) and St. Jerome\u2019s cousins theory (held mostly by Catholics). In cases like that I look to Scripture to see which theory it seems to favor, and in my opinion, it favors the cousin theory.<\/p>\n I have looked into relative numbers of terms. Adelphos<\/em> is used for a broad range of relational terms. And that\u2019s because it is reflecting Hebrew \/ Aramaic, which didn\u2019t have a term for cousin<\/em>. Sungenis<\/em> and anepsios<\/em> (\u201ccousin\u201d in Greek) appear 12 times and once (Col 4:10), respectively, in the NT. Adephos<\/em> and its cognates appear 346 times. So between the three terms, adelphos<\/em>, etc. is used 96% of the time.<\/p>\n Recently I wrote about Josephus\u2019 use of adelphos<\/em><\/a> and it mirrored almost exactly the NT pattern. So does LXX [the Septuagint], which has adelphos<\/em> 649 times, anepsios<\/em> once, and sungenis<\/em> five times. So that\u2019s a 99% usage of adelphos<\/em> and its cognates for relatives.<\/p>\n Thank you.<\/span><\/p>\n If the popular tradition before Jerome was that Jesus\u2019s brothers were from Joseph\u2019s prior marriage, then I find it odd for Catholics to support any other theory\/tradition that would come later from Jerome.<\/span><\/p>\n I know you said you looked at Scripture to see which tradition looks more favorable but still this raises a question. If Catholics put so much trust in tradition, how can one choose an alternative theory over the earlier most dominant tradition that the brothers were from Joseph\u2019s previous marriage? If you can\u2019t have confidence in early tradition in this case, then how can you have complete confidence in other accepted traditions? If early church fathers can be wrong here then they can be wrong in anything else even if the tradition is widely believed. Either these were Joseph\u2019s sons from a previous marriage or the brothers were actually cousins. At least one tradition is wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n As for \u201cadelphos\u201d I must not have been clear enough of what I was meaning. I\u2019m asking how many times in the NT does adelphos<\/em> mean cousin compared to how many times adelphos<\/em> is used to mean an actual brother as a sibling. My point is that if adelphos<\/em> is used to refer to an actual brother a few hundred times or whatever compared to only a handful of times adelphos<\/em> is used to refer to a cousin then I don\u2019t see that as a strong argument for your side. Depending on an uncommon word usage to fit your belied just stretches it a bit. Especially when the NT writers used other words for cousin such as sungenis<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n Plus it shouldn\u2019t matter if Hebrew\/Aramaic didn\u2019t have a word for cousin because the NT writers wrote in Greek and I\u2019ve read evidence that many Jewish people spoke Greek or as a second language. So the NT writers had capability to differentiate words for brother<\/em> and cousin<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n You\u2019re not understanding. The Greek in the NT still reflects Hebrew culture and the then-current language of Aramaic. It didn\u2019t even have a word for cousin<\/em>, and so the word for \u201cbrother\u201d (ach<\/em>: Strong\u2019s Hebrew word #251<\/a>), would be used for a wide range of relatives and even countrymen. Jesus Himself did this, using adelphos<\/em>. The NT reflects Hebrew culture in that way, and so does the Greek LXX and someone like Josephus.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t have time to go through all the usages and determine when \u201ccousin\u201d or any other non-sibling was meant, but it surely must be a lot of times.<\/p>\n Tradition develops, and there can be a variety of sub-traditions or non-essential traditions, especially early on. The essence<\/em>\u00a0of the doctrine of Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity is that she had no other children, and that even Jesus\u2019 birth was supernatural (virgin during delivery, or \u201cin partu\u201d virginity; in biological terms that we understand today: an unbroken hymen). Both hypotheses (step-brothers or cousins) hold to Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity. As long as that is upheld (which is the tradition passed down), different ways of working it out are no problem. It\u2019s permissible diversity. The ones who really departed from the Grand Tradition on this were Protestants, 150-200 years after the Protestant Revolt, as a result of theological liberalism: which always breaks down traditions and internal orthodoxy wherever it is found.<\/p>\n Perhaps for a future article you could research how many times in NT adelphos<\/em> refers to a relative and compare that to it\u2019s more common usage meaning sibling<\/em>. I think that would help put it all into perspective.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t agree that the Greek in the NT entirely mirrors the Aramaic language, as you say. To some extent, sure, but as I said some of the NT writers used Greek words for relative so they obviously knew how to differentiate between brother and relative. For example Luke said he used firsthand accounts and [seeing] that Greek language was known and even used by the Jews at that time, I would think Luke\u2019s careful [investigations] would clarify if these were Jesus\u2019 siblings or relatives, for an accurate account. I can\u2019t prove that, but [it] makes more sense to me.<\/span><\/p>\n You say it\u2019s no problem if there [are] differing theories (step-siblings or cousins) because they both support Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity. But I think this raises an issue.<\/span><\/p>\n Since Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity is a dogma, then I assume examples of tradition were used to support this essential belief. And in that support I would imagine that the issue of Jesus\u2019 brothers, as Scripture mentions, would be necessary to be explained away. I haven\u2019t read the official complete dogma though as I\u2019m having a hard time finding it for some reason.<\/span><\/p>\n Now if you have two competing theories to explain away Jesus brothers and both are based on tradition, then at least one of the two has to be wrong. I suppose theoretically there could be some combo of the two but [that\u2019s] unlikely. If either of the widely held traditions is wrong, then how can other traditions used to support Marian dogmas be confidently trusted?<\/span><\/p>\n If the widely held idea that Jesus\u2019 brothers were actually step brothers came from a gnostic source, then it\u2019s also very plausible [that] the idea of Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity came from the same gnostic source. I realize that you believe the magisterium and Pope are Holy Spirit-guided to declare the truth from traditions, but of course I don\u2019t agree [with] that. I see how even the New Testament speaks of how quickly false doctrines quickly develop, and that\u2019s one reason I don\u2019t [think it\u2019s] wise to put so much faith in tradition.<\/span><\/p>\n You raise what you believe to be an internal inconsistency in the Catholic position. It isn\u2019t. The dogma we are required to believe in is the perpetual virginity of Mary. As I already noted, both the \u201cstep-brothers\u201d and \u201ccousins\u201d theories are perfectly consistent with that. Explanations for a dogma are different from the dogma itself<\/em>, and can be held, just as different exegetical opinions are held on Bible passages, or as there are different theories of predestination within Catholicism that are allowed to be held by Catholics, as long as one believes that the elect were predestined by God.<\/p>\n You can rail against Catholic doctrines all you like, but I\u2019m not moved by that unless and until you grapple with my many biblical arguments supporting perpetual virginity (that were handily summarized in the article above). Feel free to do so. Many more such are listed on my Blessed Virgin Mary web page<\/a>. If you think your position is so superior to ours, then certainly you can easily refute my arguments. I look forward to it! But simply stating your position or opposition to another one is not an argument. I have appealed to Scripture (as I almost always do in arguments with Protestants, because that is their preferred ground, and what we hold in common); so I challenge you: show where my arguments went wrong.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s another argument I made elsewhere<\/a>:<\/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><\/blockquote>\n Luke 10:29 <\/strong>[RSV] But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, \u201cAnd who is my\u00a0neighbor?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Acts 3:17\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cAnd now,\u00a0brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Acts 7:23, 25-26\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cWhen he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his\u00a0brethren, the sons of Israel.. . . [25] He supposed that his\u00a0brethren\u00a0understood that God was giving them deliverance by his hand, but they did not understand. [26] And on the following day he appeared to them as they were quarreling and would have reconciled them, saying, `Men, you are\u00a0brethren, why do you wrong each other?\u2019\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Romans 1:13\u00a0<\/strong>I want you to know,\u00a0brethren,\u00a0\u00a0. . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Romans 9:3\u00a0<\/strong>For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my\u00a0brethren, my kinsmen by race.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1 Thessalonians 1:4\u00a0<\/strong>For we know,\u00a0brethren\u00a0beloved by God, that he has chosen you;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And here\u2019s yet another argument from Paul\u2019s use of language, from a different article of mine<\/a>:<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s letters were written in Greek, because they were written to Greek-speaking people. Therefore, he chose [very few times] to use a Greek word for cousin<\/em> (whereas Aramaic didn\u2019t have such a word). . . .<\/p>\n Paul could also choose to use\u00a0adelphos<\/em> . . . because it was understood in Greek to have a wide variety of meanings. Even today<\/em> we (in English, at any rate) often use \u201cbrother\u201d in the broader sense: \u201cBand of brothers\u201d, \u201cBrother Jed will preach the sermon today\u201d, \u201cBrother\u201d and \u201cSister\u201d for monks and nuns (and non-literal \u201cFather\u201d for priests), \u201cam I my brother\u2019s keeper?\u201d, Ringo Starr (an only child) calling the Beatles his \u201cbrothers\u201d etc. Therefore, this use in and of itself doesn\u2019t prove that he was referring to siblings of Jesus. It\u2019s not funny or silly; it\u2019s how language works. . . .<\/p>\n Lucas [Banzoli] denied that the Greek word suggenes<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0sungenis<\/em>\u00a0had a\u00a0\u201cbroader meaning\u201d\u00a0than cousin. He\u2019s wrong about that.\u00a0Sungenis<\/i>\u00a0(Greek for \u201ccousin\u201d) and its cognate\u00a0sungenia<\/i>\u00a0appear in the New Testament fifteen times (sungenia<\/i>: Lk 1:61; Acts 7:3, 14;\u00a0sungenis<\/i>: 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). But they are usually translated\u00a0kinsmen<\/i>,\u00a0kinsfolk<\/i>, or\u00a0kindred<\/i>\u00a0in KJV: that is, in a sense wider than\u00a0cousin<\/i>: often referring to the entire nation of Hebrews. Thus, the eminent Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, in his\u00a0Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words<\/i>, lists\u00a0sungenis<\/i>\u00a0not only under \u201cCousin\u201d but also under \u201cKin, Kinsfolk, Kinsman, Kinswoman.\u201d<\/p>\n In all but two of these occurrences, the authors were either Luke or Paul. 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<\/i>many times with the meaning of non-sibling (Lk 10:29; Acts 3:17; 7:23-26; Rom 1:7, 13; 9:3; 1 Thess 1:4). They understood what all these words meant, yet they continued to use\u00a0adelphos<\/i>\u00a0even in those instances that had a non-sibling application.<\/p>\n Strikingly, it looks like\u00a0every<\/i>\u00a0time St. Paul uses\u00a0adelphos<\/i>\u00a0(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<\/i>\u00a0mean sibling, because (so we are told) he uses the word\u00a0adelphos<\/i>? That doesn\u2019t make any sense.<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\n\n