Eric Svendsen<\/a>\u00a0is an anti-Catholic Protestant, who was, for a time, arguably the second most influential and active anti-Catholic polemicist online, after\u00a0Bishop \u201cDr.\u201d [???] James White<\/a>. Then he suddenly vanished from the Internet in 2008. He had been indicating that he would do so as early as 2 November 2005, when he wrote on his blog that he was\u00a0\u201cpacking it in\u201d<\/span>\u00a0in large part because of\u00a0\u201cthe incorrigible and vitriolic pooling of ignorance that comes from self-styled \u2018apologists,\u2019 each promoting his own version of a false gospel.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n He wrote on 27 April 2003 on his \u201cdiscussion\u201d forum:\u00a0\u201cRC apologists will do or say just about anything\u2013true or not\u2013to advance their cause. They engage in the strategy of deception\u00a0regularly<\/i>.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Svendsen produced three anti-Catholic books with\u00a0small publishers<\/a>:\u00a0Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(Reformation Press, 1999),\u00a0Who is My Mother?\u00a0<\/a><\/em>(Calvary Press: 2001),\u00a0Upon This Slippery Rock<\/a><\/em>\u00a0(Calvary Press: 2002). This series of critiques is devoted to his doctoral dissertation from 2000:\u00a0Who is My Mother?: The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and in Roman Catholicism<\/em><\/a>. His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n See Part One: Svendsen\u2019s Dissertation on Mary: 1. Preliminaries (Including Explicit Biblical Indications or Analogies for Mary\u2019s Universal Intercession and the Notion of \u201cFittingness\u201d)<\/a><\/p>\n Svendsen cites orthodox Catholic John McHugh<\/a> (a refreshing change there!), who defends Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity in one specific manner:<\/p>\n McHugh, convinced by the NT evidence that these \u201cbrothers\u201d of Jesus must be part of his immediate family (else they would not be in constant company with Jesus\u2019 mother), contends that these \u201cbrothers\u201d of Jesus are actually cousins who were adopted by Joseph and Mary. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [S]ince Joseph was likely dead by this time we must ask the question, Why do we find the sons of Mary of Clopas (who was still alive at this time) still living with Mary the mother of Jesus instead of their own mother? There seems to be no good reason why Mary as a widow should somehow be more capable of supporting the sons of Clopas\u2019 wife than Clopas\u2019 wife herself. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n [T]hat Joseph and Mary would become the foster parents of so many sets of unrelated siblings (at least three sets, and perhaps even more if we are to account for the \u201csisters\u201d of Jesus using the same explanation) strains credulity . . .\u00a0<\/span>(pp. 44-45)<\/p>\n I think a more plausible interpretation is to examine more closely the nature of Jewish families in Israel in the first century. The Hebrew \u201chousehold\u201d (if not virtually always) often would contain extended family members. It was not like our nuclear families of today. For example, in the book,<\/span>\u00a0Families in Ancient Israel<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(Leo G. Perdue, editor; Westminster John Knox Press, 1997) we find this description:<\/span><\/p>\n The familial roles of males in the household\u2019s kinship structure included those of lineal descent and marriage \u2014 grandfather, father, son, and husband \u2014 and those lateral relationships \u2014 brother, uncle, nephew, and cousin. (pp. 179-180)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary<\/em> (edited by Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, revised edition, 1975) makes the nature of the Israelite family very clear, by noting that it could include more than one nuclear family (thus, cousins would be residing together):<\/span><\/p>\n The basic social unit, comprised of persons related by kinship and sharing a common residence. The Israelite family was an extended family known as the \u201cfather\u2019s house\u201d or \u201chousehold\u201d (Heb. \u201cbet-ab\u201d), consisting of two or more nuclear families (i.e., a married couple and their children) or composite families (an individual with multiple spouses and their offspring) . . . other kin (including grandparents), servants, concubines, and sojourners might also be reckoned part of the household (cf. Gen. 46:5-7, 26). (\u201cFamily,\u201d p. 376)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Moreover, on the next page, this reference work noted that clans also usually \u201coccupied the same or adjacent towns.\u201d Extended families stuck together. It was like a perpetual family reunion. This would account for first or second or third cousins (all referred to as \u201cbrothers\u201d in Semitic or Near Eastern culture: then and now) \u201changing around\u201d in one place.<\/span><\/p>\n This overcomes Svendsen\u2019s objection. He needs to better understand Hebrew families in this period and region, and not think in terms of the modern American and European nuclear family. Svendsen continues to \u201cpile on\u201d McHugh\u2019s belief in Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity, and plays the old \u201cspecial pleading regarding one\u2019s prior dispositions\u201d card:<\/span><\/p>\n There seems to be no reason to adopt McHugh\u2019s thesis other than to accommodate the gratuitous assumption that these \u201cbrothers\u201d of Jesus cannot be biological brothers. . . . At the end of the day, McHugh\u2019s reconstruction raises more questions than it answers, and in any case seems like a farfetched solution in explaining the identity of the brothers of Jesus. In the words of Meier: \u201cOne cannot avoid the impression that every escape hatch imaginable is being pried open because a highly unlikely position has been adopted a priori on other grounds\u201d (1992:22).<\/span><\/p>\n Actually, McHugh\u2019s and the orthodox Catholic position on this matter is based on rather solid biblical exegesis; serious, substantive, and formidable arguments:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) In comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph (mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrothers\u201d) are the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called the Blessed Virgin Mary\u2019s <\/span>adelphe\u00a0<\/em>in John 19:25. Assuming that there are not two women named \u201cMary\u201d in one family, this usage apparently means \u201ccousin\u201d or more distant relative. Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and \u201csisters\u201d along with James and Joseph, calling all\u00a0<\/span>adelphoi<\/em>. The most plausible interpretation of all this related data is a use of\u00a0<\/span>adelphos\u00a0<\/em>as \u201ccousins\u201d (or possibly, step-brothers) rather than \u201csiblings.\u201d We know for sure, from the above information, that James and Joseph were not Jesus\u2019 siblings. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n 2) Jude is called the Lord\u2019s \u201cbrother\u201d in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this 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 <\/span>was\u00a0<\/em>Jesus\u2019 blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord\u2019s own sibling (while 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\u00a0<\/span>James<\/em>\u2018 brother. \u00a0This is far too strange and implausible to believe. 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).<\/span><\/p>\n 3) Commenter Alex Lielbardis brought up this further argument:<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 6:4<\/strong>\u00a0And Jesus said to them, \u201cA prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin [(\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, \u03ad\u03c2 \/\u00a0<\/span>suggenes<\/em>)], and in his own house.\u201d (cf. Jn 7:5: \u201cFor even his brothers did not believe in him.\u201d)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n He added:<\/span><\/p>\n The plural Greek word used refers to kinsfolk, relatives, or fellow countrymen. This same word is used by Luke in his account of the Annunciation which in the singular form specifically means a cousin: \u201cAnd behold, your kinswoman [\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c2 \/<\/span>\u00a0syngenis<\/em>] Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren\u201d (Luke 1:36). Thus, Jesus apparently replies with his cousins (relatives or kin) in mind, in response to what was said by those who were offended at him.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The context of this incident was His preaching in His hometown of Nazareth. Both Mark (6:3) and the parallel text in Matthew (13:55-56), in the immediate context mention four \u201cbrothers\u201d of Jesus\u201d and also, unnamed \u201csisters.\u201d Jesus was catching flak from these relatives in His hometown. Both Matthew and Mark record Jesus as saying in response that a \u201cprophet\u201d is not honored \u201cin his own house.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 4) Luke 2:41-51 describes Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple at the age of twelve, for the required observance of Passover. Everyone agrees that He was the first child of Mary, so if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (or even one), why is there no hint of them at all in this account? I recently wrote in-depth about this<\/a><\/span>. If Jesus had brothers or sisters and He was the oldest, then He certainly would have had siblings at 12 years old, when His parents took Him to Jerusalem for the Passover (Luke 2:41-50) \u2014 particularly since Mary was estimated to have been around 16 at His birth, which would make her still only around 28 at this time. We\u2019re to believe that it makes sense that she bore her first child at 16 and then had no more from 16-28, and then more than four after that? That\u2019s not very plausible at all.<\/span><\/p>\n 5) The Blessed Virgin Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from the Cross (John 19:26-27). Jesus certainly wouldn\u2019t have done this if He had brothers (all of whom would have been younger than He was).<\/span><\/p>\n 6) Nowhere does the New Testament state that any of Jesus\u2019 \u201cbrothers\u201d (adelphoi<\/i>) are the children of Jesus\u2019 mother Mary, even when they are referenced together (cf. Mark 3:31 ff.; 6:3 ff.; John 2:12; Acts 1:14). So for example, in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55. Jesus is called \u201cthe son of Mary\u201d and \u201cthe carpenter\u2019s son\u201d and only He<\/i> is referred to in this way. The others (four \u201cbrothers\u201d named in each passage) are not. It happens again in the book of Acts:<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 1:14 <\/b>\u00a0All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n See how a distinction is made between Mary as the mother of Jesus and \u201chis brothers,\u201d who are not<\/i>\u00a0called Mary\u2019s sons? Nor is she called their mother. These verses do\u00a0not<\/i> read in a \u201csiblings\u201d way. Svendsen writes: \u201cWe further read that Jesus has \u2018brothers\u2019 and \u2018sisters\u2019 (in texts that place them with his \u2018mother\u2019), from which we infer that these are biological siblings\u201d<\/span> (p. 58), but he doesn\u2019t delve deep enough into the texts, to notice the important distinctions made, as I have above. It looks like he simply sees only what he wants<\/em> to see.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 7) In the New Testament, none of these \u201cbrothers\u201d are ever<\/em> called Joseph\u2019s children, anywhere, either.<\/span><\/p>\n 8) Much has been written about the use of adelphos<\/em> in the NT. Its range of use is almost precisely<\/em> like how it is used in the works of the first century Jewish historian Josephus (as we would expect, since he was a fellow Israelite and lived in the same period). In Antiquities<\/em>,<\/span>\u00a0Book XVIII, ch. 4, sec. 6<\/a>, Josephus refers to \u201cPhilip, Herod\u2019s brother\u201d (likely using\u00a0adelphos<\/em>\u00a0there). In\u00a0Wars of the Jews<\/em>,<\/span>\u00a0Book II, ch. 6, sec. 1<\/a>, he refers to \u201cArchelaus\u2019s brother Philip.\u201d But we know that\u00a0they were\u00a0not<\/strong>\u00a0siblings<\/em>\u00a0(sons of the same mother and father). In\u00a0Wars of the Jews<\/em>,\u00a0<\/span>Book II, ch. 7, sec. 4<\/a>, Josephus mentions \u201cAlexander, who was the brother of Archelaus, . . . This Alexander was the son of Herod the king . . .\u201d Again, he likely uses\u00a0adelphos<\/em>, but is not referring to literal siblings, since we know that this<\/span>\u00a0Alexander\u2019<\/a>s mother was<\/span>\u00a0Mariamne<\/a>. Wikipedia<\/span> (\u201c<\/a>Philip the Tetrarch\u201d<\/a>)\u00a0<\/span>informs us that Philip was \u201cson of<\/span>\u00a0Herod the Great<\/a>\u00a0and his fifth wife,<\/span>\u00a0Cleopatra of Jerusalem<\/a>, . . . half-brother of<\/span>\u00a0Herod Antipas<\/a>\u00a0and<\/span>\u00a0Herod Archelaus.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0The mother of the latter two men was\u00a0<\/span>Malthace<\/a>.<\/p>\n Seemingly unaware of this evidence, Svendsen writes:<\/span> \u201cIndeed, even in the Greek literature contemporaneous to the NT there is no clear-cut example of adelphos<\/em> or adelphe<\/em> denoting a \u2018cousin\u2019 (Meier, 1992:20)\u201d<\/span> (p. 52). But as I just documented, Josephus refers to \u201cPhilip, Herod\u2019s brother\u201d and\u00a0 <\/span>\u201cArchelaus\u2019s brother Philip\u201d and \u201cAlexander, who was the brother of Archelaus\u201d even though they were not<\/em> siblings in all three cases. Meier, and Svendsen who cites him, appear not to have searched Josephus as comprehensively as I have.<\/span><\/p>\n Now I shall compare Josephus\u2019 use of terms for relatives (excluding the straightforward terms mother, father, son, daughter<\/em>), over against that of the NT.\u00a0 Adelphos<\/em> appears in the NT 346 times and syngene\u00eds<\/em> [\u201ccousin\u201d] only appears twelve times. Anepsios<\/em> [\u201ccousin\u201d] appears once (Col 4:10). Here is the breakdown of NT terms for relatives (in the RSV):<\/span><\/p>\n brethren 191<\/span> Out of these 385 instances, 374 of them (or 97%) are either\u00a0brother<\/em>,\u00a0brethren<\/em>, or\u00a0sister<\/em>. The one appearance of\u00a0cousin<\/em> is 0.26% of the whole. Likewise, in Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> and Wars of the Jews<\/em>), out of 1024 terms for relative, 867 (85%) are brother<\/em>,\u00a0brethren<\/em>, or\u00a0sister<\/em>. The thirteen appearances of\u00a0cousin<\/em> are 1.3% of the whole: remarkably similar usage to the NT, which also uses adelphos<\/em> for non-siblings.<\/span><\/p>\n 9) The same strikingly similar usage is found in the Septuagint (LXX): the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Adelphos<\/em> appears 649 times (99%), syngene\u00eds<\/em> only appears five times (0.76%), and anepsios<\/em> appears once (0.15%).<\/span><\/p>\n These are all solid, respectable, exegetical arguments (tying into contemporary or near contemporary Greek usage in other well-known sources), that can\u2019t be dismissed as of no import. Critics have to grapple with them. In any case, the traditional, Catholic and Orthodox (as well as initial Protestant) view is not merely a matter of a<\/span> \u201cgratuitous assumption\u201d and<\/span> \u201ca highly unlikely position\u201d that<\/span> \u201chas been adopted a priori on other grounds\u201d: as Svendsen and Meier rather condescendingly and disdainfully claim. They must do better than that<\/em>. We\u2019ll see if Svendsen truly grapples with these arguments. I\u2019m only near the beginning of his long dissertation. I predict that he won\u2019t.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n It will be helpful to examine the usage of adelphos<\/em> in the LXX and the NT to see if we can adduce support for this usage in the NT <\/span>texts that speak of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.<\/span> . . . not a few are references to other kinds of relationships. <\/span>(p. 47)<\/p>\n Good! Bring it on! He continues, making observations that orthodox Catholics also make regarding adelphos<\/em>:<\/p>\n Genesis 9:5 uses adelphos<\/em> to denote \u201cfellow man\u201d (also 2 Kings 7:6). In Gen 14:14-16 Lot is called the \u201cbrother\u201d of Abraham (see also 13:8), <\/span>though we know from other texts (14:12; 12:5) that Lot is the son of Abraham\u2019s biological brother. Here the meaning is simply \u201cclose relative.\u201d The meaning \u201crelative\u201d is also found in Gen 24:27 where it refers to Abraham\u2019s immediate relatives, in Gen 24:59 where it refers to Rebekah\u2019s relationship to her mother and brother, and in Gen 29:12, 15 where it refers to the relationship between Jacob the nephew and Laban his uncle (cf. also Judg 9:18 for this sense). In each case, the relationship is a close one.<\/span> (pp. 47-48)<\/p>\n The word adelphos<\/em> is also used of fellow citizens (Gen 19:7) or ethnic countrymen (Exod 2:11, 4:18; Lev 19:17). It is sometimes used to denote a fellow \u201ctribesman\u201d (distinguished from countrymen as a whole; Num 8:26, 16:10, 18:2, 6;Judg 18:8, 14; 19:23), or of the relationship between tribes 0udg 1:3, 17; 5:14; 1 Chron 9:9). On a broader scale it is used to denote the relationship between distantly related ethnic groups that share a common ancestry (e.g., the brotherhood of lsrael and Edom [Num 20:14; Deut 23:7] or Israel and Esau [Deut 2:4, 8] based on common Semitic ancestry). It may also be used to denote \u201cclose friend\u201d (as in the case of David and Jonathan, 2 Sam 1 :26), \u201cassociate\u201d (1 Chron 6:44[29]), \u201ccompanion\u201d (Prov 7:4; 18:9, 19;Job 17:14; 30:29), or simply \u201cfriend\u201d as a term of endearment (2 Sam 20:9, where Joab calls Amasa adelphos<\/em> just before killing him; see also Jer 22:18; 1 Kings 9:13; 20:32-33; 2 Kings 9:2). Tob 5:14, 17 is ambiguous and could mean either \u201cfriend\u201d or \u201crelative.\u201d In a few cases the meaning is more like \u201ccolleague\u201d (as in 1 Kings 13:30, \u201cfellow prophet\u201d). . . . Instances of \u201ccousins\u201d proper may be found in a couple of texts, including Lev 10:4 (the cousins of Nadab and Abihu) and 1 Chron 23:22 (the cousins of Eleazar\u2019s daughters).<\/span> (p. 48)<\/p>\n On page 49 Svendsen notes that out of 368 NT usages of adelphos<\/em> and its cognates, only 91<\/span> \u201ccarry the meaning \u2018sibling\u2019 (included here are the <\/span>disputed passages that mention the brothers of Jesus).\u201d Thus, less than one-fourth carry the meaning of \u201cliteral sibling\u201d that Svendsen and most Protestants insist is the case for the \u201cbrothers\u201d and \u201csisters\u201d of Jesus.\u00a0 He observes that \u201cNot surprisingly, the vast majority of instances (243) carry the meaning \u201cspiritual sibling\u201d (i.e., fellow Christian), and most of these (all but fifty-five) occur in the NT epistles.\u201d<\/span> All agree on those usages.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n [T]here are no instances of adelphos<\/em> in the NT that bear the meaning \u201crelatives,\u201d except of course where the reference is to biological siblings: <\/span>\u201cWith \u2018full brother\u2019 and \u2018half-brother\u2019 we exhaust the literal meaning of adelphos<\/em> found in the NT. \u2026 it never means stepbrother (the solution of Epiphanius), [or] cousin (the solution of Jerome\u201d (Meier, 1992:20-21).<\/span> (p. 51)<\/span><\/p>\n In similar vein, everywhere adelphos<\/em> is used in contexts in which a \u201cbrother\u201d is named it, too, always refers to a sibling.<\/span> (pp. 52-53)<\/span><\/p>\n To the contrary, in effect (as argued in my point #3 above) the named \u201cbrothers\u201d of Jesus in Mark 6:3 and its parallel text Matthew 13:55-56 are \u2014 by strong but not certain implication \u2014 called \u201ccousins\u201d (sungenis \/<\/em> \u201ckin\u201d in RSV) by Jesus Himself in Mark 6:4. Also, by inexorable deduction, two of these \u201cbrothers\u201d are described as sons of \u201cthe other Mary\u201d (see my argument in point #1 above). This being the case, when they are called \u201cbrothers\u201d elsewhere, the meaning must<\/em> be \u201cfirst cousin\u201d or more distant relative; it cannot possibly be<\/em> \u201cJesus\u2019 sibling.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n In any case, \u201cthe very reason why we know that \u2026 adelphos<\/em> [in the LXX] can mean cousin, nephew, or some other relative is that the immediate context regularly makes the exact relation clear by some sort of periphrasis \u2026. No such clarification is given in the NT texts concerning the brothers of Jesus\u201d (Meier, 1992:17). (p. 52)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This is simply not true. \u201cBrothers\u201d of Jesus James and Joseph (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3) are called sons of the \u201cother Mary\u201d (Mt 27:61; 28:1), or Mary Clopas (Jn 19:25), in Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40. Mary Clopas is called the Blessed Virgin Mary\u2019s adelphe\u00a0<\/em>in John 19:25, meaning, I believe, Mary\u2019s sister-in-law (wife of Clopas, Joseph\u2019s brother), according to very early tradition, from Eusebius, citing the historian Hegesippus). This would make them Jesus\u2019 first cousins; yet they are called \u201cbrothers\u201d (adelphe<\/em>). And Jude calls himself the brother of James rather than of Jesus (Jude 1:1; #2 above). That more or less proves whose sibling he really is.<\/span><\/p>\n Yet Svendsen can only react to this scriptural data with the following obtuse, \u201cexegetically despairing\u201d statement:<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed, Meier (1992:11) may very well be correct when he says that to use Mark 15:40-or any of the \u201cwomen at the cross\u201d parallels-to attempt to<\/span> What, pray tell, is so \u201cobscure\u201d<\/span> about \u201cMary the mother of James and Joseph\u201d (Mt 27:56) and \u201cMary the mother of James the younger and of Joses\u201d (Mk 15:40)? The only remaining question to resolve is the exact identity of this Mary. I submit that it\u2019s not that difficult when we compare all of the relevant passages (and the related early traditional evidence). She\u2019s clearly not Mary the mother of Jesus, since she is called her adelphe<\/em>. Assuming for a moment that she was<\/em>, it would be absurd to describe her as the mother of these two men, but not Jesus\u2019 mother. That stretches credulity beyond the breaking point. Yet some \u201cHelvidians\u201d have desperately sought to make that very case. I\u2019ve debated them myself.<\/span><\/p>\n In fact, this is Svendsen\u2019s preferred view, as he affirms on page 63, while admitting that<\/span> \u201cit is not without its weaknesses.<\/span>\u201d And he himself provides the reason that I consider fatal to this hypothesis:<\/span> \u201cwhy the gospel writers should suddenly change the designation of Jesus\u2019 mother from \u2018the mother of Jesus\u2019 (and equivalents) to \u2018the mother of James [and Joses]\u2019 seems odd if not inexplicable. . . . perhaps it is John\u2019s \u2018Mary the wife of Clopas\u2019 who is to be equated with Matthew and Mark\u2019s \u201cMary mother of James and Joses\u201d (p. 63).\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n [T]he existence of two sisters named Mary in the same household . . . plagues this view as well, and we may reject this view on the grounds<\/span>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/02\/Mary26.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\nbrother(s) 159<\/span>
\nsister 24<\/span>
\nmother-in-law 5<\/span>
\ndaughter-in-law 3<\/span>
\nfather-in-law 1<\/span>
\ncousin 1<\/span>
\nuncle \/ aunt \/ nephew \/ niece 0<\/span>
\nson-in-law 0<\/span>
\nkin 1<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nexplain the relationship between the various Marys and those designated the \u201cbrothers\u201d of Jesus is to \u201cexplain the obscure by the still more obscure.\u201d<\/span> (p. 60) <\/span><\/p>\n