Jesus Had Brothers?

Dear Sir/Madame:

Your brother in Christ,

Edward Imperati

Dear Mr. Emperati:

Peace in Christ! First, I refer you to our Faith Facts, Mary's Perpetual Virginity and The “Brothers and Sisters” of Jesus. We should also make some brief comments on the verses of Scripture your friend mentioned that we “Romans” continue to ignore.

Matthew 1:25 is often used to “prove” that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse after the birth of Jesus, because of the word “until.” A simple grammatical point is that “until” does not necessarily denote the state of affairs afterwards, but those up to a given point. The state of affairs after the event may or may not change, but “until” does not require a change. This point is made more clear by seeing the different ways the Greek word, hoes, may be translated—e.g., “up to,” “unto,” “until,” etc.

Further, Matthew's concern in this passage is not to give us information about the status of the sexual relations of Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born. To insist that this verse either proves or disproves Mary's perpetual virginity is to seek more than what is there. Matthew was giving an account of the events that surrounded the Incarnation of the Messiah in relation to the fulfillment of prophecy, not telling us (even secondarily) about the future sex life of Joseph and Mary.

The rest of the verses mentioned by your friend refer in one way or another to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Catholic Church has not “ignored” these verses, but has simply continued to understand them in the way handed down. One issue here is that of authority to interpret the deposit of faith, in this case, contained in Scripture. Your friend may not accept the authority of the Church, but he must then consider, at least, that it is equal to his own. Setting aside, however, the issue of the authority of the Catholic Church to teach and interpret the deposit of faith, the Church's position has a foundation and is reasonable. If, after a sincere and honest inquiry into the Church's position, he concludes differently, he might at least acknowledge that the Catholic Church has not “ignored” these verses. The above Faith Fact and the following information address the issue of the brothers and sisters of Jesus more fully.

In relation to this, there are some points to consider in Luke 1:36, where Elizabeth is called Mary's “kinswoman.” Others have noted that it is a different word than adelphos, which is the word for “brother” and, as we explain in our Faith Fact, is often used to mean cousins or other relatives. The question being, if adelphos is used in an all-inclusive manner, then why is it not used in Luke 1:36? It would seem to suggest that the argument explaining the use of the word adelphos as not referring to literal brothers and sisters of Jesus, might not be a good argument.

The Greek word in Luke 1:36 is suggenes (pronounced soong-ghen-ace'), which is used in the Bible to refer to relationships between blood relatives of the same descent and can mean, by extension, those of the same tribe or race or fellow countrymen (see the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel & Gerhard Friedrich [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1985]. See page 22 for adelphos and page 1097 for suggenes). Suggenes is used once in Mark's Gospel (6:4), once in John (18:26) and five times in Luke (1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16). It is also used once in Acts and four times in Romans. It is interesting that when referring to his own countrymen in Romans 9:3, St. Paul uses suggenes, but elsewhere when referring to brothers and sisters in Christ Paul uses adelphos. In fact, he uses it in this manner 130 times, but only uses suggenes in the Epistle to the Romans (Kittel & Friedrich). It is also interesting that it is used mostly by Luke, who was himself Greek, and, thus, more disposed to use Greek words literally, rather than in the dynamic sense explained in our Faith Fact.

It makes a good deal of sense to use suggenes with regard to Mary and Elizabeth in Luke 1:36, because they are two specific people for which Luke could use a word in its literal meaning. Their relationship to one another is clear. To use adelphos would seem unnecessary. The literal sense of adelphos (feminine: adelphe) is sister, and Mary and Elizabeth were not sisters. And the dynamic sense of adelphos would be unnecessary, because Luke knew the relationship of Mary to Elizabeth. However, the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus could have been cousins, nephews, uncles or any other family relation. To use suggenes or anepsios (cousin) may have been possible, but the dynamic sense is more inclusive and could even cover close friends of the family. Again, because the writer may not have known the various relationships or, if he did, because there was more than one kind, it would be necessary to use a more inclusive word like adelphos.

I would like to mention one other point worthy of thought. In any language, as well as our own, people use various words to mean the same thing. In English we have the words “kinsman,” “cousin” or “relative,” just to name a few. In the same way, there is more than one Greek word that can mean “cousin” or “relative” that can be used. So whether the particular word adelphos, anepsios (anepsios is used only once in the New Testament in Colossians 4:10), or suggenes is used is not as relevant. The question is how Christians have, from the beginning, thought about Mary and Joseph. Orthodox Christians have always maintained that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life and, while having different ideas about who the brothers and sisters of Jesus were, they spoke with one voice against any notion that would deny Mary's perpetual virginity.

How did the early Church resolve the apparent problem that Jesus had “brothers and sisters.” Besides those mentioned in our Faith Fact, other theories have existed throughout the centuries that affirm the Church's position on Mary's perpetual virginity. Saint Jerome, the great Biblical translator, believed that Jesus' “brothers and sisters” were cousins or other close kinsmen, and that the New Testament writers were using a common Semitic idiom to refer to them. Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages spoken by Jesus' family and the Apostles, had no words for “cousin,” so cousins were usually called brothers. Saint Epiphanius, on the other hand, believed that Jesus' “brothers and sisters” were the biological sons and daughters of Joseph by a previous, deceased wife. A recent New Testament scholar, John McHugh, has theorized that Jesus' “brothers and sisters” were Jesus' cousins adopted by Joseph after the death(s) of their own father(s). Finally, the theory of Helvidius holds that Jesus' “brothers and sisters” were biological children of Mary and Joseph. Helvidius' arguments in favor of this theory were refuted by Saint Jerome in Against Helvidius: On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary. Of these four theories, only one, the Helvidian theory, has ever been condemned as heresy by the Catholic Church. It is also worthy of note that the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and many other non-Catholics have also regarded the Helvidian theory as heresy, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli-the first leaders of Protestant Christianity.

If a non-Catholic Christian reflects on the issue, there is nothing in non-Catholic theology that makes it necessary to believe Mary did not remain a virgin. The only apparent reason to believe any different would be an anti-Catholic bias that would reject Mary's perpetual virginity only on the basis that the Catholic Church teaches it. That is, the only possible reason to hold that she did not remain a virgin has to come from the perceived need to debunk a particular aspect of Catholic teaching. Frankly, for non-Catholic theology, whether Mary remained a virgin is completely irrelevant. It can only be rejected as to have a reason to hold that the Catholic Church is wrong—not a very good basis to begin Biblical interpretation.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any further questions on this or any other subject or if you would like more information about CUF, please feel free to call us at 1-800-MY-FAITH (693-2484). May God bless your day.

United in the Faith,

David E. Utsler

Information Specialist

Catholics United for the Faith

827 North Fourth Street

Steubenville, OH 43952

800-MY-FAITH (800-693-2484)