Rudolph Pesch has championed the position that Jesus really had fleshly siblings. John Meier reports:
"Although his claims raised a fire storm of controversy among German Catholics, he has never been officially censured or condemned by Rome for his views" (Meier, A Marginal Jew, page 319). But here are the arguments posited by Meier:
(1) Meier argues that the Greek word ADELFOI ("brothers" or "brothers and sisters") combined with the "until" statement of Matthew 1:25 "creates the natural impression that Matthew understood 1:25a to mean that Joseph and Mary did have children after the birth of Jesus" (A Marginal Jew, page 322).
(2) In Matthew 13:55, Matthew appears to place Jesus’ brothers: "with his biological mother, not his legal father" (323).
(3) ADELFOS, the Hebrew word 'AH (ACH) and the Aramaic 'AHA are naturally translated as "brother." 'AH or ADELFOS could be used to mean "cousin," but only if the immediate literary context clarifies the relationship of the ADELFOI under consideration. Yet, Meier writes, "No such clarification is given in the NT texts concerning the brothers of Jesus. Rather, the regularity with which they are yoked with Jesus' mother gives the exact opposite impression" (325).
As an aside, BDAG Greek and English Lexicon observes that the Old Testament usage of 'AH does not establish the meaning, "cousin," for the Greek ADELFOS. This lexicon notes that "in rendering the Hebr. 'AH [ADELFOS] is used loosely in isolated cases" to designate male relatives "of various degrees" (BDAG 18). See ADELFOS, sense 1 in BDAG.
(4) The way that ADELFOS is employed by New Testament writers suggests that it refers to "brothers" rather than cousins. The word in fact describes "full brothers" in Mark 1:29-30 and throughout the New Testament. Meier thus wonders: “Why an exegete, operating purely on philological and historical grounds, should judge differently in Mark 6:3, where we hear that Jesus is the son of Mary and the brother (ADELFOS) of James, Joses, Jude, and Simon, is not clear” (Meier 327). He thus concludes: "In short, the 'cousin' approach of Jerome, like the 'stepbrother' approach of Epiphanius, simply lacks sufficient philological basis in the usage of the NT" (329).
(5) There appears to have been a tradition among the Church fathers of interpreting the brothers of Jesus as "real brothers" (331).
Conclusion:
"Hence, from a purely philological and historical point of view, the most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were his siblings. This interpretation of the NT texts was kept alive by at least some Church writers up until the late 4th century" (332).
Meier presents much more detail, but I have simply tried to summarize his view. The point I want to make is that Meier says history and philology suggests Jesus had real siblings. Faith may direct certain believers to hold onto the tradition espoused by Jerome in the 4th century, however. Can the two approaches be combined?
Meier argues that the phrase in Matthew 1:25—“Joseph knew her not until she had borne a son”—creates the impression that Joseph and Mary had children after the birth of Jesus. This hinges on the interpretation of "until" (Greek: HEOS HOU), which in modern usage often implies a change afterward. However, this interpretation is not consistent with biblical usage of the term.
ReplyDeleteIn Scripture, "until" does not always imply that a change occurs after the stated condition. For example:
In 2 Samuel 6:23, it says, "Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death." This clearly does not imply that she had children after her death.
Matthew 28:20 says, "I am with you always, UNTIL the end of the age." This does not suggest that Christ will abandon us after the end of the age.
Thus, the use of HEOS HOU in Matthew 1:25 does not necessarily imply that Mary and Joseph had marital relations or other children after the birth of Jesus. The Catholic tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity is entirely compatible with the use of this phrase.
Meier suggests that Matthew 13:55, which refers to the brothers of Jesus in the context of his mother Mary, implies biological brothers. However, this ignores the fact that the word ADELPHOS (brother) in both Greek and Hebrew can have a broader meaning. In the cultural and linguistic context of first-century Palestine, ADELPHOS could refer to extended family members, including cousins or even close family friends. The Gospels themselves provide evidence that the term "brothers" is used in a broader sense:
Luke 22:32 uses "brothers" to refer to the apostles, none of whom were biological siblings of Jesus.
Genesis 14:14 calls Lot the "brother" of Abraham, though he was actually his nephew.
Additionally, while the "brothers" of Jesus are mentioned alongside Mary, their father is never referred to as Joseph. This absence of a paternal link is significant and suggests that these so-called "brothers" were not necessarily biological children of both Joseph and Mary.
Meier argues that because there is no explicit clarification that the "brothers" of Jesus were cousins, we should assume they were biological siblings. But this argument hinges on the expectation that the New Testament writers would have felt compelled to clarify every familial term in a way that matches modern sensibilities.
In reality, the ancient usage of ADELPHOS was much broader, as noted earlier. The absence of clarification in the New Testament does not mean that the Church’s interpretation of "brothers" as cousins or extended relatives is philologically unsound. There is no clear evidence that the term ADELPHOS strictly refers to biological brothers, and we must consider the broader context of familial language in ancient Semitic cultures.
Meier questions why the term ADELPHOS should be interpreted differently in Mark 6:3 than in other New Testament passages where it clearly refers to full brothers. The answer lies in context. In Mark 6:3, Jesus is identified as the "son of Mary," but the relationship of the "brothers" to both Mary and Joseph is never specified. The ambiguity of these passages leaves room for legitimate interpretation based on historical and theological evidence.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the early Church consistently defended the perpetual virginity of Mary, which suggests that the understanding of ADELPHOI as cousins or extended family was part of the tradition passed down through the centuries.
Meier notes that some early Church Fathers may have interpreted the "brothers" of Jesus as biological siblings. However, this was not the dominant interpretation, nor was it the one ultimately adopted by the Church.
As early as the second century, Church Fathers like Origen and Jerome defended Mary's perpetual virginity. Jerome, in particular, vehemently opposed the idea that Mary had other children, and his views became the dominant position in the Western Church. The Eastern Church similarly upheld the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, with Church Fathers like Epiphanius and Athanasius supporting it.
While it is true that some early Christian writers may have considered the possibility of Jesus having biological siblings, the overwhelming consensus of both Eastern and Western Church tradition affirmed that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. This tradition is rooted not only in theological reasoning but also in the practice of the early Church, which saw Mary as a model of perfect holiness and consecration to God.
John Meier's position is built on modern assumptions about familial language that do not fully account for the broader cultural and linguistic context of the New Testament. The Church's interpretation of ADELPHOI as extended family members, rather than biological siblings, is both historically and philologically credible. Furthermore, the early Church's consistent teaching on Mary's perpetual virginity, rooted in Scripture and Tradition, provides a coherent understanding that aligns with the Catholic faith.
While Meier’s philological arguments are interesting, they do not conclusively overturn the long-held belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, a belief affirmed by centuries of theological reflection and upheld by the Church Fathers.