Did Jesus have siblings?

[gnostic]

The title said it all...but I'll ask the question again.

Did Jesus have siblings?

Were they Mary's children or not?

I think some churches believed that Jesus only had half-brothers and half-sisters, because some still believe that Mary was perpetual virgin, and never had other children, other than Jesus. That they were Joseph's children from a previous marriage.

But I could find no evidences to support these claims, of children of Joseph's previous marriage or that of Mary's perpetual virgin status.

 

[outhouse]

The bible is just absence of details about Joseph.

They are forced into this position due their claims of "son of god" Augustus used just prior to Jesus birth.


Mary and Joseph having multiple children would be very normal. The high mortality rates for children under 5 years of age led most families to try and have many as to not have all your eggs in one basket.

 

[Breathe]

I would imagine so, yes; mortality rates, lack of contraception, etc.
To be honest, I expect the same of Jesus.

 

[Havitor]

Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." (KJV)

Based on this scripture Christ had both brothers and sisters. There is no scriptural reference that specifies if these siblings are half or whole.

The doctrine of Mary being a perpetual virgin is not based on any scriptural reference ether, it is a dogma presented by Catholicism[1]. Because of the lack of scriptural reinforcement to me this dogma is only speculation.

Speak only what the Word says, anything else is speculation.

[1].Mark Miravalle, 1993, Introduction to Mary, Queenship Publishing ISBN 978-1-882972-06-7, pages 56-64

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The title said it all...but I'll ask the question again.

Did Jesus have siblings?

Were they Mary's children or not?

I think some churches believed that Jesus only had half-brothers and half-sisters, because some still believe that Mary was perpetual virgin, and never had other children, other than Jesus. That they were Joseph's children from a previous marriage.

But I could find no evidences to support these claims, of children of Joseph's previous marriage or that of Mary's perpetual virgin status.

J. P. Meier is a Catholic priest. The Catholic church maintains that Jesus had no siblings, and resolve the issue with semantic ambiguity. Meier, however, wrote his volumes on the historical Jesus with the intent to provide something closest to what any and all biblical scholars would agree with no matter what their background. And he argues, despite his own beliefs and his membership in a church which is quite clear on this issue, that Jesus had brothers.

There are no good arguments that Jesus had no siblings except those motivated by religious beliefs.

 

[horizon_mj1]

In order to properly conclude this question, one must look beyond the KJV Bible and search Canonical writings as well. Yes Jesus did in fact have siblings (let us not forget the discretion between historical fact and ancient Aesop fable is often contorted rather if this is accepted or not, it is fact). Logic alone can usually answer such questions by viewing the entire scenario and the time in which the scenario took place. When a marriage took place within the Judaic community of the time it was for breeding purposes (remember the incestuous habits of Royalty during this time frame; breeding with the "proper" person was essential). My question is why would anyone think otherwise?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In order to properly conclude this question, one must look beyond the KJV Bible

Why? Why would that be better than reading an edition (such as the SBL's) of the Greek NT? Why use a translation?

Logic alone can usually answer such questions by viewing the entire scenario and the time in which the scenario took place. When a marriage took place within the Judaic community of the time it was for breeding purposes

This isn't true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This isn't true.

This rarely stops people ...

 

[gnostic]

Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." (KJV)

Based on this scripture Christ had both brothers and sisters. There is no scriptural reference that specifies if these siblings are half or whole.

Yes, I remember this verse from Mark, about Jesus having brothers and sisters. Matthew wrote something similar in his version. And yes, it doesn't indicate full or half siblings.

Wouldn't this verse from Luke about Jesus' birth indicate that Mary had more than one son?

7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

It state that "...her firstborn son..."

Someone reminded me in another thread that Luke based the story of Jesus' birth, on Mary's recount of event. If Luke wrote of Jesus' birth, because of what Mary told Luke, then he would know of Mary's other sons (and daughters).

And being the "firstborn son" of Mary, then Jesus would have at least one younger brother, but Mark 6:3 indicated that there were more than one brother.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Why? Why would that be better than reading an edition (such as the SBL's) of the Greek NT? Why use a translation?{/quote]I thought it would be obvious due to the lineage of Christ being Jewish and being canon is written in the same language in which was spoken at the time, and not Greek: I am in no way saying there is no credence to the Greek translation.

This isn't true.

No one is saying this is True 100% of the time however statistically speaking it is True more often than not.

 

[Shiranui117]

Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." (KJV)

Based on this scripture Christ had both brothers and sisters. There is no scriptural reference that specifies if these siblings are half or whole.

The doctrine of Mary being a perpetual virgin is not based on any scriptural reference ether, it is a dogma presented by Catholicism[1]. Because of the lack of scriptural reinforcement to me this dogma is only speculation.

Speak only what the Word says, anything else is speculation.

[1].Mark Miravalle, 1993, Introduction to Mary, Queenship Publishing ISBN 978-1-882972-06-7, pages 56-64

Too bad it's an ancient position supported by all of Apostolic Christianity--Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East. Even Martin Luther defended the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Shiranui117]

Wouldn't this verse from Luke about Jesus' birth indicate that Mary had more than one son?

Actually, it wouldn't. Just because you have a first child doesn't mean you have a second child. "Firstborn" means just that: The first. It doesn't necessitate that other children were after Jesus. It just means that none were before Him.

And being the "firstborn son" of Mary, then Jesus would have at least one younger brother, but Mark 6:3 indicated that there were more than one brother.

If Jesus had other siblings, then why would He entrust Mary to John, who wasn't even related to Jesus? Wouldn't Jesus put Mary into the care of one of her own children, if she had any?

John 19:
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I thought it would be obvious due to the lineage of Christ being Jewish and being canon is written in the same language in which was spoken at the time, and not Greek: I am in no way saying there is no credence to the Greek translation.

There is no Greek translation. The NT was written entirely in Greek from the beginning. The gospels, Paul's letters, etc., were all composed in Greek.

No one is saying this is True 100% of the time however statistically speaking it is True more often than not.

It's certainly true that a wife's "duty" was to produce offspring. That is entirely different from marriage itself being for "breeding purposes". Socio-political ties, opprobrium, traditions, "laws" (religious) and laws (legal) as well as other factors determined who married whom. It is not true that "more often than not" the marriage itself was for "breeding", first of all because the term "breeding" would be totally out of place here, and secondly because the duty of a wife or a husband does not define the purpose of a marriage.

 

[horizon_mj1]

There is no Greek translation. The NT was written entirely in Greek from the beginning. The gospels, Paul's letters, etc., were all composed in Greek.

Interesting, this is a piece of information that for some reason or other I discounted. Thank you for the info.

It's certainly true that a wife's "duty" was to produce offspring. That is entirely different from marriage itself being for "breeding purposes". Socio-political ties, opprobrium, traditions, "laws" (religious) and laws (legal) as well as other factors determined who married whom. It is not true that "more often than not" the marriage itself was for "breeding", first of all because the term "breeding" would be totally out of place here, and secondly because the duty of a wife or a husband does not define the purpose of a marriage.

I can agree that in the general public the point you are making is true, but when it comes to royalty, this is completely incorrect. Breeding, not how good of a wife or husband will perform duties was the the leading factor of choosing who will have heirs to rule the kingdoms in the future. If your bloodline was considered pure, you would be considered and it is this in which lead to so many incestuous bread royalties, these practices where in fact used quite often in Egypt; http://cnersundergraduatejournal.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/incest_in_ancient_egypt_revised_.pdf
I am however quite aware that these mentalities did not trickle to the common men and women of the time and many other factors to marriage and child rearing were considered, especially laws indicated within personal religions of the time.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I can agree that in the general public the point you are making is true, but when it comes to royalty, this is completely incorrect. Breeding, not how good of a wife or husband will perform duties was the the leading factor of choosing who will have heirs to rule the kingdoms in the future.

That and much more. Kingdoms rise and fall not simply over blood, or even within a family, but within political maneuvers.

 

[seeking4truth]

Isn't there also a mention of Jesus brother James being appointed leader of the believers after the Crucifixion?

 

[outhouse]

also to add.

There was a 25% motality rate within 48 hours of birth as well.

There was also a high rate of death for mothers, with infection being the number one killer. These Jewish women were also supposed to be ritually purified afterwards, by immersion in a mikvah.


I wonder what they did in places with no mikvah?

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

The title said it all...but I'll ask the question again.

Did Jesus have siblings?

Were they Mary's children or not?

I think some churches believed that Jesus only had half-brothers and half-sisters, because some still believe that Mary was perpetual virgin, and never had other children, other than Jesus. That they were Joseph's children from a previous marriage.

But I could find no evidences to support these claims, of children of Joseph's previous marriage or that of Mary's perpetual virgin status.

Is this question about the fictional Jesus of the gospels or an historical person from whom JC was derived?

 

[ChristineES]

Yes. The New Testament says that Jesus had brothers:

Mark 3:31 Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. They stood outside the house and sent in a message, asking for him.

Mark 6:3 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.

The two above verses talk about them. And I do believe they were Mary's sons as well and not just Joseph's.

 

[gnostic]

Does anyone agree with Shiranui117's statement below?

Actually, it wouldn't. Just because you have a first child doesn't mean you have a second child. "Firstborn" means just that: The first. It doesn't necessitate that other children were after Jesus. It just means that none were before Him.

Is Shiranui117 correct?

Does "her firstborn son" mean that Mary didn't have other son(s)?

If Jesus had other siblings, then why would He entrust Mary to John, who wasn't even related to Jesus? Wouldn't Jesus put Mary into the care of one of her own children, if she had any?

John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

I have seen this argument before.

There are several problems I have with this version of the event.

It is the only one (gospel of John) that mentioned the disciple taking Mary in. None of the other gospels say anything about Mary and this unnamed disciple.

John wrote several other things that conflict with Mark and Matthew (for instance, the supper at Bethany, where a woman anointed Jesus with perfume and her tears; Mark and Matthew say his head was anointed, John says feet; and different host (Simon the Leper and Lazarus) was given). I don't trust John's version of certain event.

Several times, Mary was mentioned with Jesus' brothers (Mark 3:31-35; Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56). I know that some Christians have reasoned that these brothers (and sisters) were either half siblings and even cousins, but none of these gospels say anything about they were Jesus' half brothers. That Luke state that Jesus was Mary's firstborn son, seemed to indicate that Jesus was the eldest of her children.

Luke 2:7 stated quite clearly "her firstborn son", which to me, make sense that Jesus wasn't Mary's only son. It say "her", not "his" or "Joseph's". The whole Mary being a perpetual virgin or remaining a virgin, after Jesus' birth, is a myth perpetuated first by 4th century Roman church propaganda (the root of East and West Roman church).

I agreed with Outhouse's posts, that a typical Jewish family in the past were usually large, because of the infant mortality rate were quite high.