Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

In my previous article, I wrote about the “Hebraic” use of the Greek adelphos: as applying to cousins, fellow countrymen, and a wide array of uses beyond the meaning of “sibling.” Yet it is unanimously translated as “brother” in the King James Version (KJV): 246 times. The cognate adelphe is translated 24 times only as “sister”. This is because it reflects Hebrew usage, translated into Greek. Briefly put, in Jesus’ Hebrew culture (and Middle Eastern culture even today), cousins were called “brothers”.

Now, it’s true that sungenis (Greek for “cousin”) and its cognate sungenia appear in the New Testament fifteen times (sungenia: Lk 1:61; Acts 7:3, 14; sungenis: Mk 6:4; Lk 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21). But they are usually translated kinsmen, kinsfolk, or kindred in KJV: that is, in a sense wider than cousin: often referring to the entire nation of Hebrews. Thus, the eminent Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, lists sungenis not only under “Cousin” but also under “Kin, Kinsfolk, Kinsman, Kinswoman.”

In all but two of these occurrences, the authors were either Luke or Paul. Luke was a Greek Gentile. Paul, though Jewish, was raised in the very cosmopolitan, culturally Greek town of Tarsus. But even so, both still clearly used adelphos many times with the meaning of non-sibling (Lk 10:29; Acts 3:17; 7:23-26; Rom 1:7, 13; 9:3; 1 Thess 1:4). They understood what all these words meant, yet they continued to use adelphos even in those instances that had a non-sibling application.

Strikingly, it looks like every time St. Paul uses adelphos (unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way. Yet we often hear about Galatians 1:19: “James the Lord’s brother.” 137 other times, Paul means non-sibling, yet amazingly enough, here he must mean sibling, because (so we are told) he uses the word adelphos? That doesn’t make any sense.

Some folks think it is a compelling argument that sungenis isn’t used to describe the brothers of Jesus. But they need to examine Mark 6:4 (RSV), where sungenis appears:

And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” (cf. Jn 7:5: “For even his brothers did not believe in him”)

What is the context? Let’s look at the preceding verse, where the people in “his own country” (6:1) exclaimed: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. It can plausibly be argued, then, that Jesus’ reference to kin (sungenis) refers (at least in part) back to this mention of His “brothers” and “sisters”: His relatives. Since we know that sungenis means cousins or more distant relatives, that would be an indication of the status of those called Jesus’ “brothers”.

Jude is called the Lord’s “brother” 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 “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus’ blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s 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 James‘ brother. This is far too strange and implausible to believe.

Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19: dealt with above). It’s true that Scripture doesn’t come right out and explicitly state that Mary was a perpetual virgin. But nothing in Scripture contradicts that notion, and (to say the same thing another way) nothing in the perpetual virginity doctrine contradicts Scripture. Moreover, no Scripture can be produced that absolutely, undeniably, compellingly defeats the perpetual virginity of Mary. Human Tradition

The alleged disproofs utterly fail in their purpose. The attempted linguistic argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity from the mere use of the word “brothers” in English translations (and from sungenis) falls flat at every turn, as we have seen.

If there is any purely “human” tradition here, then, it is the denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary, since it originated (mostly) some 1700 years after the initial apostolic deposit: just as all heresies are much later corruptions. The earliest Church fathers know of no such thing. To a person, they all testify that Mary was perpetually a virgin, and indeed, thought that this protected the doctrine of the Incarnation, as a miraculous birth from a mother who was a virgin before, during and after the birth.

Do you not believe in the Incarnation?

>>”But Mary’s is mentioned briefly regarding the birth of the Son of Man”

You don’t believe Mary’s son, Jesus, is God?

Perhaps we have greater differences than I thought.

Do you believe the Word became flesh means God became incarnate? That Jesus is God, the Word become flesh, born of a woman?

Are you Christian or some other religion?

Do you not believe in the Incarnation?
You don’t believe Mary’s son, Jesus, is God?

I believe He is the "Son of God" and that He is "The Son of Man" and that He is Emmanuel because those terms are in the bible. I am very very sensitive to Catholic redefinition and relabeling of everything in the bible. To me it shows a very bad lack of respect for God's Word. I will say that I enjoy the way that you discuss these topics. Most people seem to go personal right away. Thanks for not doing that.

Perhaps we have greater differences than I thought.

That's still possible depending on how strongly you believe on RC doctrines that are unscriptural. Marianism is the biggest offense to me but I also loathe the Priesthood which is antiscriptural. The Pope, which is anti scriptural. The redefinition of the word "Church" also really bugs me. Just to name a few.

Do you believe the Word became flesh means God became incarnate? That Jesus is God, the Word become flesh, born of a woman?

Frankly with their doctrinal errors I don't believe that Catholics really believe those things. Time and time again when I or others use scripture to argue against bad RC doctrines the RC's will actually attack the bible itself finding it incomplete and insufficient.

Thanks for your reply.

The previous topic was Mary in Holy Scripture and I think the Incarnation qualifies as a fair amount of Mary in Holy Scripture. Mary is absolutely part of and necessary for the Incarnation. The Word become flesh has a mother. Catholics don’t redefine or relabel this, we accept is as fact. I think others try not to do so.

As far as doctrines and what is unscriptural, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unscriptural, worse it fails its own test and so is internally contradicting.

Sola scriptura is, in my view, a necessary evil once one leaves the Church and takes the authority of the Church upon themselves.

But our disagreement over this doctrine is going to lead to constant disagreement. It’s closely wedded to authority and what the “Church” is. We will not see much agreement here.

I think one can go too far either way:

Separate God from His human-ness in the Incarnation or make the human God.

In the Incarnation, God had a mother. God incarnate is what Christ is and what Christianity is about. He suffered as we do. We are united to, in communion with God, His body, in the body of Christ. This is the Church with Christ as the head.

This is all key to the dogma of Christianity. God choose to do this through Mary, with Mary. IF you get Mary wrong, you get Christ wrong, you get the Most Holy Trinity Wrong; you embrace some form of heresy; we see this today often.

Also, we have different definitions of “worship.” This is a constant area of argument. Latria is our word for the honor due to God alone. Mary is not God. One can honor humans, dulia, but it is fundamentally different in kind.

The Mass is our highest form of worship; in my opinion a lot of the problems occurred with those who left the Church and the mass. This “worship” was lost and in its place pretty much everything else became confused for worship.

I should have summarized, in answer to your question, that I think the article has the balance; if anyone takes part without the other, that would be an unbalance.

As for DeMontfort, I think one can take him to a quite unbalanced place; and, reading him one, usually, needs a guide. I think this one helps:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/a-reader-s

I could try summarize a great deal of my thinking:

Who Christ is, God in history, “in person” if you will, is in a huge part what our religion is. Fully realizing this - not just intellectually - is a spiritual exercise, and that is putting it far too mildly.

Who God is, who we are and our relationship to God is a way of encapsulating the whole of religion.

All three of these: God, man, relationship, are there in Christ, in His incarnation. One very good way - I think essential for me - is realize (make real) Christ, the Incarnate Word. And a key way to do this is relate to oneself that God had a mother. In this way we, as humans, who also have a mother...

This is ineffable, but an attempt to explain what for is to Jesus through Mary.

“None of this is dogmatic, but it is in accord with the implications of the Tradition. “.

In other words take it or leave it but either is OK. Also it built not from scripture nor from traditions but it is implied from tradition.

Take it or leave it, pretty much. If de Montfort leads you some conclusion that is contrary to dogma, definitely leave it, or seek a teacher to get you back on the right track.

If he leads you to Christ, then definitely take it.

de Montfort is not dogma.

Same with deSales, Francis Xavier, Ignatius of Loyola, St. John of the Cross, St. Augustine, St. Teresa, St. Catherine, et. al.

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding when some think any Catholic writer speaks for the Church and what they say or write is dogma however the reader may understand what they said or wrote.

Not true.

Maybe this is part of our differences.

We don’t believe we are in this alone; certainly not in it alone with books or texts. We are a teaching Church, in all the forms that teaching may take. We have spiritual directors. Each individual is different, each is, well, individual.

Some people are experiential, more internal, some or outward, compassionate or externally focused, some are intellectual, some are not. We have a wide variety of practices and teaching developed over many centuries.

de Montfort may be right for one, wrong for another. Aquinas may be perfect for one, useless for another. St. Francis of Assisi may open one heart to God; St. Augustine another.

No one is advised to go it alone, but to seek others in community and in individual spiritual direction, all with the same fundamental belief: seek and you shall find.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.