I was going to write to Eastern Catholic Life to: "Ask Father," but I believe this will do also. Questions are always asked about this chapter in the gospel and I understand what the teenagers are asking. The question is: did Joseph know Mary in a sexual way? Quote: Matthew Chapter 2 vs. 25: "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." This is quoted from the New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, I don't mean to offend anyone, but with my son and so many of his friends reading it to imply there were relations, what type of relations is the writer of the gospel talking about? I want to give a good, solid answer and for three years I have been wondering why it is worded this way that causes so much confusion among teenagers I know and myself included as I can see how they (teens) are reading it. Thanks to all in advance.

Dear Seraphim41,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The struggle you have is not with the word “relations”. You should focus on the word “until”.

Consider the statement: “I never swam in the river until the stream went dry”. Does that mean I swam in the river AFTER the stream went dry? Of course not.

It is good to seek spiritual answers to questions. A good spiritual director could also help here.

May prayers are with you for a most blessed Holy Week.

Deacon El

Dear friend,

I appreciate your concern in finding information on the correct understanding of this verse. This was one of the verses in my Protestant/"anti-Catholic" days that I would bring up to discount the Church's teaching regarding the Blessed Mother and hence attempt to undermine the Church's other teachings.

Rather than just restate what others have already written (I'm lazy), here are a few links - Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, etc (there are many) that I have found very helpful:

Why Do We Believe Mary Was "Ever-Virgin"?
http://www.sspeterandpaulonline.com/virginfaq.html

Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/evervirgin.aspx

The Perpetual Virginity Of Blessed Mary by St. Jerome (Against Helvidius)
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-06/treatise/mary.htm

The Blessed Virgin Mary
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VIII

Mary (see " Ever-Virgin" about midway through this excellent article)
http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/mary.html

Coptic/Pope Shenouda: Comparative Theology, Part II, Veneration Of The Virgin St. Mary
(see "did not know her til…" under Summary of Opposing Opinions)
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/comptheo.pdf

Hope this helps a little.

In Christ's love,

Woody

P.S. I think you meant St. Matthew 1:25

Thanks Woody! Good nite!

In a 'nutshell' Seraphim...this might help:

Misunderstanding about Matthew 1:25 (Joseph knew her "not until")
Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool." Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - "up to the point that I come," attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing "until after" I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won't leave Jacob "up to the point that" he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but "up to the point of today" no one knows Moses' burial place. This does not mean that "they did not know place until today."

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul's daughter Micah was childless "up to the point" [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain "up to the point that" they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.


In His Holy Name,
Your poor brother in the Lord,
+Fr. Gregory

Dear Father Gregory, your blessing and prayers for me. I wanted to thank you for your comments, I am pretty sure I have what I need now to clear up the question with my teenage son and his friends and also myself. Different translations "suggest" other things and often mis-interpreted. Thank you again!

"Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus."

Fr Gregory,

I think you stop short of saying that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus, her first-born, was born. Did God give her all her children in the same way God gave her Jesus? Or did she and Joseph have conjugal relations after Jesus was born?

For me, as an ecumenical Christian in the protestant tradition, Mary doesn't need to remain a virgin after Jesus was born. Are James and Jude sons of Joseph or sons of God?

Or do we hear little of Joseph after the Temple incident because that many years without conjugal relations got the better of him? Everybody knows that the Jews are sex-positive folk and always have been (the 'this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' speaks very loudly and boldly in this direction); wouldn't it have been highly unlikely that Mary and Joseph had not enjoyed conjugal relations?

Thanks a lot, wg

Every so often, somebody shows up on a Catholic message board trying to take issue with the ancient Church teaching about the Holy Mother of God.

Anyone who would think that St. Joseph could have even considered to enter the womb where the Holy Spirit dwelled is just plain crazy.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Holy Theotokos gave birth to any more children. Some aspects of Protestantism have been trying to dispute this for around 500 years and have always failed.

If Maria had borne other children, then Jesus would not have handed her care over to the disciple he loved while He was dying on the Cross.

"Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Holy Theotokos gave birth to any more children."

Respectfully jw10631,

The Scriptures do not focus on Mary or her other sons and or daughters. The NT is focused upon Christ Jesus. Had any author of any NT book thought is important to prove that Mary had given birth, they would have done so. The verses below are ample indication that Mary had other children and that Jesus had siblings:

Mark 3:32 - And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." (some manuscripts include 'sisters' as well)

Luke 8:20 - And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you."

The apocryphal gospel of Peter (140-150 C.E.) has the idea that Joseph had other children by a former wife. That's not Scrpiture. (Much other traditional material also denies the clear words of Scripture, all of which comes from an historical period far removed from the first third of the first Christian century.)

Two Gospels say that Jesus had (younger) brothers; one non-canonical book suggests that Joseph had had another wife before Maria-- was Joseph, in the mind of the author of the gospel of Peter, a divorced man or a widower? Something does not set well with that, in my mind.

With all due respect across denominational borders, jw, it is inapropriate to let later tradition (Maria only gave birth once) influence the clear words of Scripture: Jesus brothers (and perhaps sisters) were with his mother on this occasion, during which time they may have been concerned about his mental health.

The apocryphal, non-canonical idea cannot be, faithfully, superimposed upon the clear wording of Scripture.

Here's a good example: the Gospel of John is clear that John, the baptiser, is not the One for whom God's people had been waiting... but it hints that there were some living when John wrote who still venerated John, the baptiser. There are, to this day, folk living in Iraq and Iran who count the Baptiser as the last of their prophets-- the Mandaeans.

Just as we're not going to leave Christ to follow John the baptiser, neither should we disregard the clear words (and their meaning) of Scripture: Jesus had brothers (and perhaps sisters), hence, Maria had other sons. Hence Maria did give birth to other children.

No where in the Bible does it say that Maria had a holy womb-- Joseph would not have been hesitant to be a husband in the fullest possible sense. Jewish married men are not expected to be celibate, not even Joseph!

With every blessing, wg

Dear Wild Goose, You need to read the Scriptures in their ORIGINAL languages---then you will SEE how VERY clear it is!

My mother had a saying: "When you come into OUR HOME, you need to be respectful of our family and its traditions...if you are not, then very simply not welcome in our home."

No offense, but you're standing very close to the door right now.

In Christ Jesus Our Lord,
+Fr. Gregory

Are you certain that the tradition of Mary not having other children only exists in the non-canonical books? If the tradition existed before the creation of the New Testament scriptures, then you would be putting the cart before the horse. It seems to me that firm dates on this are hard to verify and that several opposing camps exist on this matter of dating. I would hold with Church Tradition since the Church pre-dates scripture and is a constant that has held to the tradition over time, but that is my opinion. It seems that proof is hard to come by, since even respected scholars speculate wildly and hotly debate various dating schemes. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

The teaching of the Churches (both Roman Catholic and Orthodox) is clear and definitive---no disagreement here, she is: The EVER -Virgin Mary! There is no discussion when it comes to the teaching of the Church, one either accepts it in humility or denies it and places oneself outside of her mantle.

In His Holy Name,
+Fr. Gregory

Miss post, this always happens to me....lol

Wild Goose please understand that when Sacred Scripture speaks of Jesus' brothers and sisters it doesnt mean they are Christ's blood brothers. The gospels were written in Greek but spoken in Aramaic and in that language there is no word for cousins etc as St Jerome highlights in his defence of Our Lady's perpetual virginity:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

Moreover, the unanimous tradition of the Church is that Mary was a virgin as Fr Gregory says and this has rarely been challenged. Such an idea could not have become widespread in the first place were it not true. The early Church was close knit but not a monolithic structure. The very fact all its different particular churches held to the idea of Our Lady being a virgin all her life is testimony in itself.

Had the Church wanted to they could've included the protoevangelium of James in the NT Canon and killed the debate. But they didnt because the Church's 1st interest is not in pushing any sort of agenda but in defending the truth. The Marian doctrines are defended because they are true and it would be wrong of us to concede in matters of truth. Please understand. It is not an attempt to look down on those who do not feel called to apostolic celibacy or even an attempt to call people to such a life. It is simply a matter of whether or not she was a Virgin. Since the truth is that she was indeed perpetually perfectly chaste then that truth must be protected.

PS) More good stuff for y'all http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/apologetics/mary.cfm#L4

PPS)I should've read this thread before I posted Woody's got all the good stuff down already.

Dear Wild Goose,

No offense, but your posts about the ever-Virgin Mary and Mother of our God are downright offensive!

JW is absolutely correct! Wouldn't our Lord commended his mother's care unto a brother or sister, if He had one, rather than a disciple?

The problem with folks that like to bring modernistic twists to scripture is that they judge from today's twisted culture of morality and thought, and try to apply that limited thought and experience to the past.

Just because we are told that having sex is as healthy and basic a need as eating in today's society does NOT mean that past cultures and eras, thought the same TWISTED way!

Besides, cousins were so much a part of the family in those days, that they were referred to as brothers and sisters.

Everything you are contending about the relationship of the Blessed Mother and Joseph is nothing short of blasphemous to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions!

I would trust the original Ecumenical Councils that interpreted Scripture in the original language, and were guided by the Holy Spirit, rather than the modernist revisions we encounter today.

As the Russian Orthodox priest at yesterday's vesper service said, it is because of the blood of martyrs that Christianity flourished.

It was also because of that sacrifice that the Holy Spirit allowed for the establishment of a Christian state and for the subsequent convening and enlightenment of the Ecumenical Councils that have defined Holy Tradition for Catholics and Orthodox ever since.

In Christ,
Alice

P.S. Your crude comments to Father Gregory about St. Joseph the Betrothed and guardian of our Lady, belittle the millenia of chastity and celibacy practiced by our Lord, and the holy saints, female and male monastics, and clergy who sacrificed everything of this world for the greater Kingdom of God! Your comments also belittle historical context...

-----------and, if Our Blessed Mother had other children, why was it necessary for Our Lord to give her over to the care of St. John at the foot of the Cross??? If she had other children...then THEY would naturally have taken her into their homes!

In Him Who calls us,
+Fr. Gregory

Dear Wild Goose,

Please forgive my opening statement to you in my previous post. It was not charitable.

We Orthodox get very upset when our Lady is spoken about in a disrespectful manner. Please be respectful of that.

Bowing to the image of Christ in you,
Alice

I have to keep one thing in mind, when I encounter some views that essentially originated in Protestantism. Protestants, for any practical purpose, hold that Christ came in the 16th century, and that the church and its teachings originated from often inaccurate Bible translations produced then. For some Protestants, that moves to the 19th century when their churches were established. Usually ignored is the 1500 years of Christian belief that existed before the founders of their religion came on the scene.The Church, it's teachings and traditions, as well as, the scriptures it produced existed well before the 16th century - or 19th if you prefer.

I don't give a rat's rear end that the Gospels do not say that the Holy Theotokos - or any specific part of her - is blessed.

WG - you aren't winning a lot of friends here with that kind of talk. Tread carefully.

Now, maybe, if you did a little bit of research, and would realize that in Aramaic, a Semitic language, "cousin" is indistinguishable from "brother" or "sister", then maybe, you would understand better. The ancient Isrealites lived in tribes - or clans, - large, extended families. The Syriac Catholic Church still uses Aramaic in its liturgy. Betcha didn't know that.

You discount that many Orthodox have held those Scripture passages to be interpreted as children of an earlier marriage of St. Joseph.

Maria is the New Ark of the New Covenant. She gave birth to Jesus Christ, our Lord. Maria faithfully accepted the role God had for her, and accepted all the hurts, pains, and lonelieness that went along with it. As Simeon prophesized, "Your heart will be pierced, as with a sword, so the thoughts of many will be laid bare".

You have certianly laid your thoughts bare.

jw, Amen brother! You go dude!



Your poor brother,
+Fr. Gregory

My hackles get up when someone blashphemes the Mother of Our Lord. East and West - we know, understand, and realize the Theotokos' role in Jesus´ salvific work.

It is one thing to approach from a position of misunderstanding - or even ignorance. I realize that many faithful, God-fearing Protestants simply do not understand the love we have for the Theotokos.

But, to go on rambling, and to blatantly ignore what is meant in Scripture - this is unacceptable. It was the Church - East and West - that compiled the canon of Sacred Scripture and it is the Church (Orthodox and Catholic) who is uniquely qualified to interpret Sacred Scripture.

If one disagrees, one is free to leave, but don't pick a fight.

Hello,
A few months ago, reading over all the past issues of the CNEWA magazine, I came across a very good explanation of the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, which I have not seen any of you use.
Unfortunately I can't remember the details and the printed article is at home in my files, I'll only be able to find it on Thursday, but some of you may know it already.
It relates to a prophecy in the old testament, Isaiah. Describing a fortified house, a palace or a castle with several doors, the prophet goes on and on about how all the doors are closed, and cannot be entered. Then the prince will emerge from that palace/castle, and after that the doors will be sealed for ever again.
This was interpreted in the article as prophecy regarding the virginity of Mary. I don't think it's necessary to explain the metaphor! Can anybody pinpoint and better explain the passage I am referring to?

I think that credit can also be given to the following argument. Sexuality is a sacred thing. The sexual relationship between a husband and his wife implies the total donation of oneself to the other, leaving nothing behind, placing oneself in full carnal and spiritual unity with the other.
How could Mary give Herself fully to Joseph if she had already given herself fully, in a physical way, to God?
It's not a question of her becoming polluted or dirty should she have had sex with Joseph, it's simply that she would not be able to give herself to him the way a "normal" wife should, and therefore would not have corrupted the true sacred nature of marital sexuality by giving herself partially.
Also the constant idea of poor sex-deprived Joseph is a little old. The man had a revelation from God, the miracles and wonders he must have witnessed, the blessing he must have had from living so close to Jesus all his life, would probably have made up for a few urges here and there.
Finally, and this just occured to me. I challenge any faithfull, god-fearing and good hearted man to try to imagine himself having sex, even if with his wife, in a Church, on the altar, or in the Holy of Holies.
Ridiculous right? None of us would dare even think such a horrendous thing. Not because sex is evil, simply because there are certein things that do not belong in certein places. If we can't imagine that, why do we suppose that Joseph was so sex-driven that he would want to have sex WITH the most holy of holies?
I appologise for any nightmares you may have after these explanations.
Filipe
Filipe

Filipe, I won't have any nightmares and I understand what you are saying. I think the old argument about St. Joseph's sexual urges completely underestimates the integrity of the man. I have said on another thread that I think St. Joseph is the example of what a godly man should be.

Dear Orthodox adelphoi mou,

Neither my post nor my attitude are indicative of animosity or antagonism. As is clear by my post, I'm not Orthodox, therefore I cannot be steeped in hundreds of years of Orthodox T/tradition.

That some of you have taken offense saddens me; I cannot ask to be forgiven for something that I did not intend.

I stated what the Bible says and some of you have stated what is asserted in Orthodox T/tradition. The two seem not to agree.

For those who do read Biblical Greek, you will know what 'adelphoi autou' means. You will also know what 'suggeneis/suggenes' means; it is used 12 times in the first six books of the New Testament, excluding St Matthew.

The question remains-- no offense meant, please take none, eucharisto/thanks-- if a perfectly good word for kin, kinsmen, kinsfolk, cousin is available, why didn't the author of St Matthew employ it?

Our Lady is Our Lady; Mary belongs to the whole church, the one holy catholic and apostolic church of which I am one with you all.

I have great respect for Orthodoxy and a warm place in my heart for you all (otherwise I wouldn't be here)... it pains me to be pilloried when I place a Biblical quandary before you.

I have simply pointed out what the Greek NT says; I have not, to be sure, pointed out what Orthodoxy can't say.

Perhaps if one considers one bit of T/tradition, there is a concern that all of it could come tumbling down. That is an unwarranted concern.

I know the argument from T/tradtion about these 'brothers' being kinsfolk. On what is the argument based? When did the argument first get aired. How old is the T/tradition.

The masonry upon which a system of belief (one of the connotations of the word 'faith') is founded cannot crumble if trust in God (another meaning of the word 'faith'-- the faith of a believer/the believers) remains steady.

My trust is God is founded upon the Rock which is Christ Jesus, the Son of God, the Son of the Loveliest Mary and I've not yet ever had to believe in the ever-virginness of Our Lady.

How many millions of Christians are there on the planet who trust in Christ, yet who've never even considered the ever-virginness of Mary?

It's not worth fighting about, but it is worth talking about... civilly. I trust that there are those here who are prepared to not just defend the T/tradition, but to gently probe the deep recesses of Orthodoxy to inform and explain in depth, in kind and thoughtful presentation.

I'm here to learn, not to challenge for challenge sake. Please do not assume the latter is where I'm coming from. A disciple is one who learns (present active indicative), not one who knows it all or who's learned all there is to learn.

As fellow disciples (mathetes, mathetria) we may learn together. That is my hope. blessing to all, wg

My trust in God is founded. Oops! :-)

Hello Alice,

Your apology is accepted, thanks. wg

Just some thoughts on this subject ...

When Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to register, there is no account of them bringing other children along, which would have been necessary if there were any. That, I always thought, showed that there were no children for Joseph from a prior marriage.

When Jesus was twelve and remained in the temple while his mother and father searched for him, there is no mention of other children tagging along.

Finally, I believe that Joseph, being a righteous man would not even entertain the idea of having sexual relations with The Mother of God.

Dear Wild Goose,
Not to provoke an arguement, but I would like to share something with you. I was a former protstant myself and I would like to say that Protestants have a very superficial and shallow knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures. May I suggest #1 you examine a little more the language behind the texts and also #2 a more thorough investigation into exactly who these supposed brothers and sisters of Jesus really are. if you look closely they are not children of Mary and Joseph, they are relatives of them, these are the Children of Cleopas whos wife by the way was also named Mary, who was a sister of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (now that may sound strange to a 20th Century American but it was not at all uncommon in the middle east, nor today among Hispanics) to have more that one child with the same name.
Stephanos I
"But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene"
(John 19:25)
Now it is much too late to go into further detail but I will take this up later.

At this time of the development of words in the West - we have come to use the terms brother and sister in a restricted way direct (conjugal) blood relationship, and so brother and sister are used to indicate direct offspring of the union of direct parents.

We still sometimes use these terms (as was also done in the past) in a metaphorical way (spiritual) to indicate someone of like spirit but not necessarily of the same conjugal parent, and so we call may call members of the same group “brother” or “sister” even if not of the same direct parents. The black community in American sometimes uses the term to indicate - the same race - and so one black man may call any other black man - brother - and so in that community is is proper and recognized as proper use.

The Jewish community at the time of Jesus (and before) did not restrict the term as we have today. Nephews and nieces (our terms) were also called brother and sister - as well as direct conjugal offspring. Also, coming from a tradition built upon tribal development - in the past the king of the tribe was also the father of the tribe and marriage was restricted to within the tribe - meaning nephews and nieces often married. The tribal king had direct sons and daughters (prince and princess) and the sons and daughter of princes and princesses were also called sons and daughters of the king.

The fatherhood of the king in a relationship with members of the tribe was direct with only a few children - and indirect (grandfather / great grandfather - etc) with the majority of the tribe. But the terms we use (grandfather / grandfather on the mother’s side / grandfather on the fathers side / great grandfather etc.. to all the variations) were not yet coined and so being a son or daughter of the tribe was named through the father - to his father - to his father - etc… giving the terms son/daughter /brother/sister a wide utility that we have restricted today.

Example: XX the son of YY - not only indicated that XX is the direct son of YY - but was also a son of the same tribe that YY is a genetic member of. In early development one was expected to marry only a brother or sister (genetic member of the tribe) and marriage outside of the tribe was restricted to prince and princess between the two tribes in order to merge - the two tribes involved - into one tribe as eventually them that would rise to king of either would be (in our terns) nephews but in their terms - brothers.

eldest father of the tribe was also the king - he did not did not directly spawn all the members of his nomadic tribe. And so we can hear Jews say that they are sons of Abraham and Abraham is my father (which does not indicate a direct off-spring by conjugal means). It is clear that Abraham was - dead - long - by the time of Christ.

Among the rabbi and prophets - the groups that gathered to them - if accepted as disciples, the disciples were called brother between them while the rabbi was called father. I am not sure if their wives were called sisters as most of the time discipleship was restricted to males. That is somewhat maintained down to today in that priests are called Father and male monks are called Brother. This has come down to us from the situation of monastic (living together but separated from the world) were there would be one priest to guide the community and serve sacraments among several brothers - among other reasons and traditions.

Now I might be wrong here because I am not going to check - but if I am wrong on this one point - that does not disqualify the rest. I believe it is only Greek translations which give the gloss that Mary visited her “cousin” Elisabeth - because the Arabic - not making a distinction and having no word distinction - the Greek translator made the amendment so that Greeks would understand the relationship.

And finally, if a husband (XX) dies and not have male offspring with his wife (YY) his brother (WW) was required to marry the window (YY) with purpose to have son thought the widow (YY) The resultant son (if had) was first - the son of the dead brother (XX) and secondly - his own (YY) giving perpetuity to his brother’s line. The genealogy of the Temple would note that by naming the father (XX) son relationship to the wife’s original husband (XX) through the mother (WW).

The window - would remain executer of her dead husband’s estate (and genetic lineage was considered to be a part of that estate) until her new son (fathered by YY) came to age of majority (13) at which time he inherited his dead father’s estate and rights (and linage). Although directly fathered by his dead father’s brother - this son would be names after his dead father because of the original marriage of his mother - and so his legal and official name would still be “SS son of XX” and not son of YY.

Easy to understand but complicated to explain along today’s restricted use of the terms.

James and John were both - cousins of Jesus (one reason to use the term brother when speaking of them) - and disciples (another reason to use the term brother).

The person who came to Jesus and said that his mother and brothers were outside - used the term mother to indicate the direct mother-son relationship between Jesus and Mary - and used the term brother to indicate the Rabbi (father) and disciple (group of brothers) relationship between Jesus as Rabbi and the brotherhood of his disciples belonging to him. This did not indicate that Jesus was also a brother (fellow disciple) but indicated that the brothers (disciples) belonged to him as their rabbi-father. The person who said this was certainly aware of the rabbi-disciple relationship but there is no way to tell is that person also knew of the cousin relationship.

From my own research - I believe genealogies that trace the family relationship between Jesus and most of the disciples - existed - up to the start of the Middle Ages. The relationship between Jesus and his cousins was common knowledge, taken for granted as ‘everybody knows that” and therefore not well documented. German scholars have done the best research to restore these - but since within the main Christian traditions (Orthodox, Catholic - the main traditions) (Lutheran, Episcopal - directly from the main traditions) this topic is not a debate - and so further research and documentation has no call to be done.

So among those churches which maintain sacramental and monastic traditions going back to early Christianity - it is just common knowledge and taken for granted that everyone knows - that Jesus called them brothers because of this father-brother rabbi-son relationship and most of us also know about the cousin relationship between Jesus and I think some of the disciples.

Now I am not good at this - but if Mary and Elisabeth were cousins (fist? Second? Third?) then Jesus and John the Baptist were also cousins (second? Third? Fourth??)

If you ever get together with a group of Greek Orthodox one of the favorite entertainments is everyone discovering how they are related to each other in some way! Hehe. And it makes you dizzy because as Stephanos has noted - the habit is that new children are given the name of the grandparents - so if you call out "Hey Nick!" in a crowd of Greek Orthodox, or "Hey Cathy!" one third of the of the pople in the room will shout back "Who? me?"

Also (hehe) if you marry a Greek (and you were not Greek) if they accept you - within a short time - you ARE Greek - and no one even remembers that you were not. They just see you as always having been a Greek and related to them. I don't know how many times my Poish name (Kaliss) has been traced by Greeks to Greek orgin (a typical Greek name would be Malis). They actually have me believeing that I was just a displaced Greek! And (funny funny) I call all my wife's cousins (all 23) my own 'cousin' as I am now adopted and these are my cousins. And same with nephews and so on. With my marriage to a Greek - my whole family tree - has changed! - and that is simply the way it is for them.

If you - really - have an interest - I will see what I can do to give you proper resources. Just ask.

It is very understandable that Chritians outside of the main streams of tradition where these histories are kept and passed down - might not be aware of how these terms were used at the time in such gospel places.

-ray

Great post, Ray! - 'brother in Christ'. I would like to add Mark 3:31-35 to enhance the topic.

"Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."

Whether it was a rabbi-son-brothers' relationship as you mention or simply that the family standing outside with the mother of Jesus were kin, so to speak, Jesus makes it clear who his family is in vs. 33-35.

"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

A pretty inclusive family for sure--made up of those who do God's will-the family of Jesus.

Your 'sister' in Christ,

Porter

and you enhaced it so well.

I am like a shot gun.

You - refocus it all.


-ray

Hello Rose,

"Finally, I believe that Joseph, being a righteous man would not even entertain the idea of having sexual relations with The Mother of God."

The idea of Mary as Mother of God is not original to the earliest tradition of Christian thought, probably not even the first or second century. The theology of the Theotokos is quite a bit later than the New Testament era.

Yes, the Tradition of the Theotokos goes back a long way, but it is not a thought that Joseph, as husband of the loveliest Mary, ever would have ever countenanced. If we think that, we are reading later tradition into the year dot. Joseph was righteous in that he did right by Mary, as God commanded: he didn't put her away as a woman of ill-repute, as an unwed pregnant teenager would have been viewed in that day.

"... no mention of other children tagging along."

Well, yes, you're right. At that point, none of the other brothers and sisters of Jesus had risen to any prominence. That early story of Him with the Elders in the Temple is about Him, not about relatively unimportant siblings.

"... there were no children for Joseph from a prior marriage."

This is where you and other Orthodox believers/theologians disagree. I'll leave that to you all to sort out, shall I?


Hello Stephanos I,

You are not speaking to a Biblically-ignorant Protestant, thanks! :-) Not knowing much Scripture, as a Protestant, may fit others, it doesn't fit me, OK.

The supposed siblings you refer to are designated cousins by the Tradition to which you hold. The family of Jesus preceded the T/tradition. That is not a safe assumption; it has to be true. We cannot deny that. Theotokos theology developed, then the Bible story was interpreted to fit the theology. That's what the thorough investigation discloses.

I'm not, God forbid, suggesting that the Tradition be scrapped, no! I only suggest the facts be recognised-- the family of Jesus came first, the Bible came later and the theology of the Theotokos came even later.

Theology follows story, not the other way round.

Theology makes of the story what it wants to make of the story.

The Greek text of St John 19.25 is not so easily understood as your post indicates, not when, as Biblical scholars, we take into consideration what St Matthew and St Mark say: 27.55f and 15.40, respectively. If St John's gospel is familially correct, we can make one assumption. If Sts Matthew and Mark are correct, we can make quite a different assumption. Taking all three (St Luke doesn't record this episode) we may determine that the John at the foot of the Cross (with the women, standing afar off in St Matthew and St Mark) is, in fact, a cousin... and perhaps the only near relation, brother, sister or cousin, who has chosen to follow Jesus.

I took 8 years of Spanish in elemtary school and high school, a year in college and conversational Spanish as an adult learner. I have traveled to Mexico and Spain. I speak to those for whom Spanish is their first language on a weekly basis. I know something of which you speak with regard to Hispanic families naming more that one child by the same name. I've not yet traveled to Greece, but I speak to Greek persons on a weekly basis as well.

I don't question the theology of the Theotokos to be mean or to instill doubt in anyone's mind or heart. I do so only with regard to taking the Scriptures seriously, as they stand... before layers of T/tradition were added. I respect the T/tradition, but I don't take it as seriously as I take the Scriptures.


Hello RayK,

I appreciate the way you approach the education of a fellow believer, one who is not steeped in Orthodox/Eastern Catholic T/tradition, thanks.


Hello Porter,

Good to see you here as well; you hit the nail on the head: "those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven"... are the family of Jesus. St Matthew 12.50

blessing to all, wg

As you know ... it can sometimes be difficult to separate that which has some real support - and that which has grown from a pious imagination to become an unquestionable 'truth'.

There is absolutely no doubt that myth (even piously intended) has attached itself to past members of the church - and it can be difficult to separate that - from fact and legitimate interpretations. Scratch ‘can be’ because it is just plain is - difficult. If one touches something that others have held as dear belief - that can risk getting our fingers cut off.

As a bit of a history buff (you are) may I also suggest that, with the mind and culture of the East at the time of Christ … if Jesus did have siblings - these would have been swept up to run things after him. Such as we see happened to the relatives of Mohamed. Revolts, kings, royal families … etc… wherever such movements began - authority was passed down within the family - the movements was carried on (in authority) by the nearest immediate male family member - and so on and so on. Even Moses to Arron and on to Joshusha (sp) who I seem to remember was related to Moses in some way - perhaps nephew through Arron of Miriam.

Christianity - was an anomaly. While Mary was treated as the Queen Mother (Israel had a king and queen) all decisions were maybe the “table of ministers” (apostles) and neither did they - hand down power through their own hereditary line - instead they anointed others (not relatives) as their successors. This was of course - unheard of - a very ‘strange’ thing to do. If we look at the rise of Chritianity according to the customs of the time - Chritianity should NOT have survived at all. It did things entirely against the 'grain'. There is no social or cultrual reason why - it should have survived. Its complete social anomoly - should have snuffed it out within 100 years. There is no grounds whatso ever that current social conditions were 'ripe' and Chritianity grew because 'the time way right'.

All other eeligious movements (including Moses) the time - was right. Social conditions were ready to 'swing'. Not so with Chritianity. There sinmply is no human explination of history for its sucess. By all trends of history - it should have died with Christ that day. Anyways - now I am just yakking.

It has often intrigued me that the last failed ‘messiah’ movement (and you know there were many) happened around the time that Jesus was born. During the time in which the last Roman census was taken. And several more took place after Jesus with the last being the Bar Kopha revolt which was followed by the Temple destruction. As with the Maccabiean revolt - authority stayed within the genetic family. Not so with the “Jesus” event. And so this is just one more extra-biblical support that there were no Jesus siblings.

But early on (in the total history of the church) as bishoprics became long established and steady - such patrimony did take place. Bishops passing down their own authority - within their own family. And so a son of a bishop might be ordained to the priesthood in a hurry - so that he would take his fathers place. Having no qualifications at all - would be ordained on a minutes notice - and take over his fathers authority so that authority would not fall out of the family.

Now to husband and wife (Joseph and Mary) we have every right to conjecture that Joseph thought of Mary in a husbandly way - and fully expected to consummate their betrothal and marriage - in the customary way. At least the thought should have crosses both their minds upon their agreement to be engaged. One can speculate that since Mary knew herself to be that chosen virgin - if she had informed Joseph of that before the engagement - he would not have had such mental difficulty when she was pregnant by not by him. Betrothed couples did have sex - because being betrothed was as good as being married - so it was not a social sin to find the bride already pregnant by the husband to be - by the time the actual marriage took place. The perplexity of Joseph regarding the pregnancy - displays that - Joseph at least expected a normal engagement and marriage with all the usual things involved - namely - a family - kids - etc.. which does not lessen Joseph’s personal virtues in any way.

The concept that Joesph would not have ‘thought of Mary in that way’ I suspect - probably arose during the Victorian age - when any sex - became - evil. As far as the Victrian age is concerned - they all had children through - miracle means (hehe).

Sex and the sex act between married couples has never - ever - been considered anything but - a wonderful part of marriage - by church doctrines. Of course, members of the church have thought and taught differently - according to their own minds - but as far as I know the church has never considered it a ‘distasteful obligation’ of husband and wife - but rather likened it to a union which reflects the nuptials of that mystical union between the soul and Christ. Song of Songs being just one such wonderful comparison.

So there is every reason to believe that Joseph (upon entering the engagement) saw himself in every way - a husband and not just a protector or guardian. Matters would soon change (certainly I would be a bit stunned to find my wife pregnant and be told that she was going to be the mother of a messiah) and other necessities and priorities took over. And so I can readily believe that Joseph and Mary remained chaste both before and now after her unusual pregnancy.

Now on a note of humor - I certainly can not imagine what it would have been like to have Jesus as an older or younger brother. He would always win at very game - he would always be right about everything - and I would not be able to teach him - anything. While that is meant for humor - there is a certain amount of reality to it. Joseph and Mary must have often been in awe - of their son - and having to do their parental duties - still. They were adults and had to cope with that - I can not imagine a normal human sibling having the capacity to grow up with his brother “Jesus the messiah”. Any siblings would have either been entirely sick of their brother - or - been entirely dedicated to him. While apparently each disciple called was apparently a normal guy of the time and lived a normal life before becoming a disciple. A read of any description of action or words of any of the disciples recorded - displays that these disciples - really did not know Jesus well or understand him. So that also seems to point to a fact that none of them grew up close to him. He was more of a stranger to them - than even a close friend. So it is just outside of even human reason to consider that Jesus grew up with sibling brothers who became his disciples - and all of a sudden - these ‘brothers’ had no idea what Jesus was talking about and misunderstood almost everything he said to them.

And so tradition and human reason coincide here to say that Jesus had no siblings.

-ray

hello Ray,

Thanks for that; I usually shrink from reading posts that are that long, but I know the spirit in which you write so it is not burdensome to read your posts!

I can't help but wonder if these verses in St Luke say more than we first think of on the surface:

"I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!

Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth?

No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." chapter 12.49-53

And we have this in St Mark:

And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself." chapter 3.21


When you spoke of how it might have been hard being the brother or sister of the messiah-elect, it was quite touching. It reminded me of the Joseph stories... where Joe dreams he will someday be in a position of prominence and his brothers will bow down to him. :-) Yet there is no such record of Jesus' delusions of grandeur. In fact the Apostle Paul encloses this early hymn to Jesus in his correspondence to the Church at Philippi:

he was in the form of God,
did not count equality with God
a thing to be grasped,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant,
being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form
he humbled himself and became obedient unto death,
even death on a cross. chapter 2.6-8


Remember, He has to wash the disciples feet! :-)


Furthermore, though one can argue that He was always aware of His sonship, calling, mission... we see this come to fruition at His baptism.

:-) So... I'd venture to say that he was not a pain to his little brothers and sisters. :-) good to speak with you, wg

WG,you wrote:

/It reminded me of the Joseph stories... where Joe dreams he will someday be in a position of prominence and his brothers will bow down to him. :-) Yet there is no such record of Jesus' delusions of grandeur./

Delusions of grandeur might have been what Joseph's brothers and father thought although that would not have been their words used at that time. A careful reading of that story in Genesis 37-50 will show that the reason the brothers of Joseph sold him into bondage in Egypt was because they hated him and were jealous of him. His father's favor was on Joseph. Their hatred of him is repeated throughout the first part of the story.
And It is true that because Joseph shared what he dreamed with them this caused hatred and jealousy even more.

Yet it is significant to remember that Joseph's own ability to interpret Pharoah's dreams brought him from being a slave to a place of prominence in Egypt.

Later Joseph was Lord over all of Egypt and when his brothers came to him (not knowing that this was their brother) they did, indeed, bow down to him.

As for the banter as to 'what if' Jesus had brothers and how hard it might have been for them to have someone so perfect a brother as Jesus - what Ray mentions - I will leave 'what if' alone and just conclude by saying...

Jesus IS our brother and His Father is our Father and His Mother is our Mother.


In Christ,
Porter...

Jewish customs of the time forbid younger to advise elder. If these were the siblings of Jesus by the womb of Mary - they would not try to size the elder Jesus in public. So these (half-brothers? cousins? nephews?) were older than Jesus. And double that if Joseph was dead already and Jesus was eldest male.

It is still that way among Greeks and Jews.

Some first century Church records and historians have James the Righteous, Joses, Jude and Symon (these called brothers) as having been half-brothers of Jesus on Joseph’s side. But so little is written on them there is no huge confirmation. The Protestant reformation cut off many Christians from these records.

But exactly what they were (‘brother’) by today’s language - is quite peripheral to the apostolic witness of the perpetual Virginity of Mary and her status as Theotokos.

Are you a member of a wider Protestant denomination or have you your own church?

-ray

Eusebius (d. AD 339) in his The History of the Church wrote,
These brothers and sisters would really then be half-brothers and half-sisters, but only by law, not by blood since Joseph was not the natural father of our Lord. This explanation is why St. Joseph sometimes appears elderly in paintings. Keep in mind there is no conclusive evidence to support this explanation.

I already explained to you about the Greek use of adelphos to include cousins, half-brother, nephews etc... here are some from the OT…

Genesis 13:8 and 14:14-16, Lot is called the brother (adelphos) of Abraham... and Laban is called the adelphos of Jacob (today we would say 'uncle').

The Protestant dictionary 'Vines' - notes adelphos used to indicate - any kinsman. So even some protestants recognize the use.


So now let us find out who James, Joses, Jude, and Simon - are - who are called 'brothers of the Lord' in the NT.

If your own mind is set - cease reading - here -.

James (i.e. James the Less) would be the one who was the Bishop of Jerusalem and martyred. James the Less and Joses were the sons of the Mary who was the wife of Clopas (Mk 15:40, Jn 19:25) James the Less was also identified as "the son of Alphaeus" (Lk 6:15); and here "Clopas" and "Alphaeus" are names traditionally noted to identify the same man, just as "Jude" and "Thaddeus" refer to the same apostle (St. Jude Thaddeus.).

Judas and by extension Simon were the sons of James (these Judas and Simon are not the same as the apostles of the same name) find that in (Lk 6:16).

James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee - and obviously not the husband of Mary who gave birth to Jesus. (Mt 20:20).

More Jewish customs...
This point is again corroborated at the crucifixion scene: Before He dies, our Lord says to Mary, "Woman, there is your son," and then to St. John, who is definitely not a blood brother, "There is your mother." If Jesus had a younger brother - that younger brother by law must take over the care of the mother. So in giving his mother’s care to John - he displays he had no younger blood brother.

See also the “ProtoEvangelian of St. James the Apostle” you may find that on the net, and I have an excellent copy of Fahsel genealogical Table of Jesus. Pressed real hard I might copy it for you.

-ray


Cheers mate.
-ray

Dear Wild Goose...

While this may be off topic... have you eaver read Jung?

In my opinion he was a Protestant of epic proportions, a brother in Christ who came to understand spiritual depths of man that we seldom appreciate.

I read him as a teen (I was a teen) and he moved me greatly. Only now that I am older and my son is doing a bit of study on him at school, that I have confiscated my son's book and am half way through it - and I have no really sat to read in a long time.

I am amazed at how much of Jung I had actually absorded into my life... at how much reading him in my youth - really came to be a part of me.

I understand his views about the need for myth in peoples lives. Right brain - left brain - all one brain that must talk to each other.

I am wondering if you read him and what you think of our need for myth and it symbols.

I myself recognise that there is 'myth' which is fantasy - and myth which is not fantasy but rather a profound way to express what can not be expressed any other way.

I am just wondering on your thoughts here.

-ray

Hi RayK,

I'm not a rogue or a maverick or a desparado if that is what you're getting at. :-)

I've been serving the Lord actively in His Church for over 1/4 of century! The denomination I serve is firmly planted in the Reformed Traditions, Continental European, British and American. I have a great love and appreciation of both Western and Eastern Tradition.

My Protestant roots seldom let me trust Tradition over and beyond Scripture, and that's where I raise questions that seem to raise the ire of some of the good Eastern Catholics round here. AND I realise that Scripture is molded by degrees of tradition, too. :-)

I mean no harm, as you seem to be able to recognise, bless you, wg

I didn't think you were a 'troll' (a self appointed evangelical come on a mission of God to attack those who corrupted the teachings of Christ). These mostly come from the American ‘bible belt’ of the Mid West states. Perhaps because this board is so small - or perhaps because of the diligence of its manager s- I have never ever encounter that type of ‘troll’ in here. Arguments here seldom raise above the family kitchen table level and tolerance and love then soon prevail. I am probably the most obnoxious member of the board.

I asked your denomination so that I might take some care to be sensitive to your interpretations based upon your beliefs. Theology is like a language - and I find it best to try to adapt myself to the language of the one I am speaking with - listening is an art and I sometimes do remember that.

I am one who believes that God holds conversation with all who believe in him - and it is up to me - to not disturb that conversation in some misguided attempt to change - that very personal conversation. God comes to meet us - where we are- he comes to us - and so he is found where ever he wills himself to be found. This is sort of what I believe. I was raised a Roman Catholic but I found God outside of the Roman Catholic church and then I realized that Providence had made me a Roman Catholic - and so then began my second journey of also finding him in the Roman Catholic church also. But my story is neither here nor there.

I mentioned Jung because (and here please take no offence) there are portions of the Protestant reformed that live Christianity in a very rational way. Certainly there is good to that. But I wonder sometimes if (because we are creatures who are only part rational - left brain and right brain) some of these are not, from time to time, attracted to the symbolism (some might say mythic quality) of the catholic churches. Ceremonies and objects which seem less to the rational mind and more toward the (how to say it!?) … more toward the motherly nature.

It has seemed to me that God has built this into us, in as much as we are raised by a father (rational nature) and a mother (emotions and intuitive nature). So while the pendulum will swing through out our life (sometimes we prefer the more rational and sometimes we prefer the more mythic) there seems to be an overall balance that is good for us.

Even the most rational man (intelligence and reason well developed) will - late in his life - sit for hours remembering the views of his childhood when life was simpler and emotional. So it seems to me that even the most intelligent man - comes to reintegrate into himself his emotional nature before leaving.

In as much as the catholic churches had their formation before the age of rational Reason (about the time of the Reformation) and the Protestant branch reformed within the are of Reason - I often wonder if some Protestants come to feel, at times, an attraction to the emotional and intuitive side of Christianity - with its icons, traditions, regalia, ceremonies, etc..

If we draw a parallel between the development of a child to adult - with the development of Christianity - as the child grows it must make effort to leave each stage behind in order to make himself move onto the next. The child must put away his toys (with some effort) and look at them no more - when he has decided it is time to bee a teen. And after graduation from high school he must sever some of his teen relationship by going off to college or working full time jobs - and that too is not easy so he must put the last stage - away - with some effort. And then when the peak has been reached - reminiscing in memories (re-living) his childhood and teen years takes on a special healing quality. And we tend to cherish that human in our own children. They (our children) heal us as much as we rationally guide them.

Does any of this make sense to you? Have I made any sense? What are your own thoughts here?

I tend to muse - but I guess you noticed that.

-ray

Hi RayK,

Funny enough or unbelievable enough, one of my English (Fiction, not Poetry) profs in university started a short Summer term with Jung!!! We spent what must have been a whole week of a 5-week term on Jung! I must not have been the only one who thought, "hey, I thought this was Intro to Fiction, not Psych 301!"

My great uncle was a Freudian psycho-analyst, and I remember 'taking him on' once when they came for a (very) rare visit. I'm glad now that he was patient with me... must have thought, "a little knowledge of Jung is... dangerous in his hands." !!!

I agree whole-heartedly that Protestant religious expression is too Word-dependent, not dependent enough upon Symbol (where Jung was strong, yes!).

However, I don't hold the Protestants to ransom on this. It was part and parcel of the age. The printing press has much to answer for!!!

It is really odd that Luther and Calvin could not have hoped for as much patience (any earlier era would have seen them strung up no sooner than you can say Jiminy Cricket!) as they would have gotten from Rome and Her Emperors in any other time. The Empire was fragmenting. Conditions were either right or wrong for many of the changes that happened.


Take iconography for instance. Here one has the story of the Faith told in pictures... when the masses couldn't read or write, yet they could still learn/'read' the Bible! and the Faith.

Balance is what I think is achieveable in the Christian faith: West appreciative of East and East appreciative of West. Protestants appreciative of Catholicism and Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy and Catholicism appreciative of Protestants.

But they say that the next wave is going to be Pentecostalism. Whoa Nellie. What do you say to that?

I wrote and deleted a reply at least 4 times - either too long (who? Me?!) or too short and cryptic.

Let me try now…

Yes… the age of Reason and the Enlightenment - Kant, Hegel, French Revolution, science, etc... effected all Western culture and society.

Erick Fromm writes a good description of the change of the age - in his book “Escape From Freedom”. He does a real fair job of dealing with the Latin Church in Europe and Luther and Calvin.

Many things were changing. The industrial age was beginning. The individual was emerging from being born and submerged into a class statues. Capitalism allowed people to move between class levels. Royalty began to lose its ‘divine’ privileges. Republics and democracy were replacing kings. Christendom had reached it peak and was starting its slow decline .. Etc…

Yes - Christendom is passing - and it must. We are at the tail end of its decline.

Christendom is when the Christian religion and Christian based principles of law - were mandated on the population by governments. While some may lament its passing, and wish for the old days to return… its purpose has been fulfilled and its time is over - never to return. People who believe in Christ - now WANT to go to church or WANT to pray. They have made a conscious and conscience choice - to do so. This is a liberty which God now desires.

Before - quantity was used in order to spread knowledge of the gospel - that task is now done and there is not a nation or peoples who do not know the name of Jesus Christ and something about his gospel. Other peoples may love Christians or hate them - but they certainly know about Jesus Christ and Christians. Now -quality is desired.

At the peak of Christendom - if one did not go to church and live externally in Christian ways - one was ‘odd’. To be a Christian was - expected. Those who did not do Christian observance were going to hell. Christianity was a social status. If you were not a Christian - you were a prostitute or criminal.

As we all know… being a social Christian (a card carrying member of a major Christian church) has little to do with personal holiness.

If people think that there will be a huge Pentecostal like wave - that will return peoples and countries to Christendom - that will not happen.

I am keeping this short. If you want to discuss any part of this, I will. But I should probably give it its own thread if we do.

I believe we would be of the same mind - if we worked our way through the words.

-ray