Replies

Yeah, it must have been really painful to hear their aunt entrusted to a non-relative:

Behold, the MOTHER of YOU (singular).

Either way you interpret this bible verse, it's gonna disprove a Protestant position, because in the Greek, "you" is exclusively singular. The two ways of taking this (both of which are true.)

1. In the HISTORICAL sense, this was spoken to the disciple John. Jesus is dying on the cross, and puts John in charge of taking care of his mother in his corporeal absence. By using the singular form of "you," he reveals that Mary has no other children in this sense. If James, Joseph, Simon and Jude [/Judas] were her children, this statement would have been proclaiming them disowned, an inconceivably harsh response, given the forgiveness extended Peter just a chapter later.

2. In the PROPHETIC sense, this statement is declared to the reader of the gospel. Note that the disciple is not directly identified as John, but rather as the beloved disciple. In this sense, the reader becomes the singular person who is commanded to behold his mother.

So who are James, Joseph, Simon and Jude? The Greek word used to describe their relation to Jesus means either "cousins" or "brothers." However, as used, their is a seperate Greek word for "cousins" which may have otherwise been used; using a Greek word which can also mean "brothers," exclusively, would be a rarer usage in this context. And while it is a rarer usage, it is by no means unprecedented.

... Except when one remembers that Jesus wasn't speaking Greek, but rather Hebrew or Aramaic, which don't have a seperate word for "cousins." Even if Jesus had meant "cousins," he would have said, in Aramaic, "brothers." Hence, a direct translation from Aramaic to Greek would have used the Greek word chosen by the evangelists.

Many Orthodox Christians insist simultaneously that Mary was ever-virgin AND that Jesus had brothers! None of the early cultures had any language whatsoever for "half" brothers. Catholic and Orthodox legends agree that Joseph was much older than Mary. According to the Orthodox, Joseph had children by a previous wife, including, James, "the brother of Jesus," also called, "the elder." But such children would have been seen as children of Mary. To further complicate matters, there is another Mary "of Clopas," and ancient maps equate the Clopas with Alphaeus.

Reconcile these names:

"Mary, the mother of James"
"James, of Alphaeus... Judas, the brother of James"
"Jude, servant of Christ and brother of James"
"James, brother of Christ"
"James and Joseph, sons of Mary"
"Mary, the wife of Clophas, and Mary

So, there was a Mary besides the mother of Jesus, who had sons named James, Jude/Judas, and Joseph/Joses. The Protestant position would insist:

Jesus had brothers named James, Joseph, and Judas who were his travelling companions. He also chose apostles who were named James and Judas, who were not his brothers. He also had travelling companions who were brothers, but who were not his brothers, and who were not chosen apostles, who were brothers named James, Joseph and Judas. James his brother (of Joseph) he made authoritative to write scripture, but James his disciple (of Alphaeus), he made authoritative to govern the church in Jerusalem.

If we assert that James "the brother of Jesus" is in fact also James "the son of [or, from] Alphaeus," and also James "the son of Mary... of Clopas" than we have a much smaller cast and the bizarre coincidences disappear.