Helping to Answer the Error of Helvidius

Q

The Bible states that John the Lesser is Jesus' brother, yet you say Mary's marriage was never consummated? How is this possible?
https://www.quora.com/The-Bible-states-that-John-the-Lesser-is-Jesus-brother-yet-you-say-Marys-marriage-was-never-consummated-How-is-this-possible

Jack Wallace

M.A. Early Church History & Systematic Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1996)

Answered Mon

The traditional belief is that Joseph was an elderly widower with children from his prior marriage, and that he willingly chose to live with Mary celibately … and what pious man wouldn't be more than a little reluctant to bed the woman he knew had been impregnated by God?

Tradition holds that the “brothers" and “sisters" of the Lord were Joseph's children from this prior marriage or Jesus's cousins, as the Greek word adelphoi includes both siblings and cousins.

That being said, there is no “John the Lesser" named among Jesus's supposed siblings.

Two answers

by Cathy Lippert (A) and by me (B)

A

Cathy Lippert

8h ago

If indeed Joseph had children in a former marriage then they would have been compelled to go with him and Mary to Bethlehem for the census. Yet there is no such mention of anything like that, not so much as a whisper. Therefore, I'm counting that theory out. In every case where other children are mentioned, they are with Mary, and they are referred to as brothers and sisters of Jesus. We need to accept the plain meaning of the verse before we start looking for more esoteric and unlikely meanings.

Edit: As another Quoran pointed out, in the original language there were plenty of other words for other kinds of relatives available, but the words for actual brothers and sisters are always used.

As to the argument posed that the brothers and sisters are not Mary’s but Joseph's by another wife, this is doubtful. Since Joseph was betrothed to a very young girl, it is not likely he would be so old as to have had grown children as old as or older than Mary. If they existed then, they would have to have been fairly old if they would not accompany the couple, but make their own way to Bethlehem for the census. And it doesn't make sense that any grown children of another wife would be repeatedly seen with Mary after Joseph passed. No, it is more likely that Jesus delayed his public ministry until the last of the younger brothers and sisters was old enough not to need the daily guidance of the older brother who stepped into Joseph's shoes to support the family.

Two answer sets

by Jack Wallace (AA) and 4 by me (AB)

AA

Jack Wallace

7h ago

There’s nothing esoteric about the one side, nor is there a “plain meaning” to the other side, at least not one so clear and narrow as you presume.

But as for the trip to Bethlehem, you neglect the possibility that the children were grown. Also, Luke alone mentions the journey to Bethlehem and it could be a mere story-telling device — or an error. It’s is essential to setting up WHY Jesus would be lying in a manger in “the lower room” (itself also possibly a story-telling device). The point is that Joseph and family were staying in house as less than welcome guests. In the cultural milieu where the text seems silent to us now, it was actually thunderous to the audience then: Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were staying with a relative of Joseph who wouldn’t let his whore of fiance and her bastard into the upper room (badly translated as “the inn”), that is, into the good part of the house reserved for respectable company and honored guests. It might have even been James’s own house, but certainly that of a close kinsman. Meanwhile, in Matthew they live in a house to which an embassage of Persian magians could come bearing gifts of gold and better without drawing any comment.

As for me, I’m ambivalent. I merely report that the weight of tradition is early, credible, substantial, and absolutely and universally opposed to your view.

Cathy Lippert

4h ago

Brother and sister both have plain meaning.

Other people I know would not say that my mother and brother are outside if they are talking about my mother and my friend or cousin.

Claiming your interpretation is superior to mine does not make it so! If you are trying to imply that Catholic tradition is always historically correct, that only holds true to a degree and not in all cases. Since Catholics believe the Pope is infallible, that permits him to change facts even if it contradicts scripture. We don't know how many times that happened. But we do know what the words of scripture say. The rule of scripture interpretation is that you take the plain meaning of the words unless they directly contradict another passage of scripture; then you look for a second meaning, only if necessary. But Jesus having brothers and sisters through Mary does not contradict scripture in the least. It only contradicts Catholic church teaching and tradition. Sorry but I weigh in with Martin Luther on this one.

Two answers

by Jack Wallace (AAA) and by me (AAB)

AAA

Jack Wallace

3h ago

Brother and sister have a “plain meaning” in Thai too: everyone you know who’s in your generation. Likewise “aunt and uncle” mean everyone other than your parents that are approximately their age. That’s not just a figurative meaning -- in practice it’s the primary meaning, and it’s very aggravating to outsiders. In 1st century Koine, adelphoi meant family members in your own generation, not just immediate siblings.

And I didn’t claim my interpretation was superior to yours. I pointed out that yours isn’t as certain as you think.

And it’s not just CATHOLIC Tradition … it’s the tradition of the Church as far back as we have records, and dogma among all the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Maronite, the Marthoma Church, and the Ethiopic Church. And Martin Luther believed in and defended it too, as did Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, and John Wesley.

Luther wrote:

"When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom." (That Jesus was Born a Jew)

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. […] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." (Sermons on John).

And no, the Pope has no authority to contradict Scripture or even established dogma.

At any rate, the hermeneutic of “plain sense” only applies if you’re reading it in the original Greek and Hebrew and are expert enough in both to know what the “plain sense” of the original is.

BTW, I’m not Catholic. But neither am I an anti-Catholic bigot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“In 1st century Koine, adelphoi meant family members in your own generation, not just immediate siblings.”

I have another idea on why in the first place “brothers” and due to that “sisters” could be used, if cousins.

"When brethren dwell together, and one of them dieth without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another: but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother:"
[Deuteronomy 25:5]

Now, suppose we are talking of cousins, they would be Our Lord's brothers as to this duty, if He had none of His own, since closest relative.

Ruth 3:[9] And he said to her: Who art thou? And she answered: I am Ruth thy handmaid: spread thy coverlet over thy servant, for thou art a near kinsman. [10] And he said: Blessed art thou of the Lord, my daughter, and thy latter kindness has surpassed the former: because thou hast not followed young men either poor or rich. [11] Fear not therefore, but whatsoever thou shalt say to me I will do to thee. For all the people that dwell within the gates of my city, know that thou art a virtuous woman. [12] Neither do I deny myself to be near of kin, but there is another nearer than I.

In other words, in absence of actual brother, someone else would have acted the role of brother prescribed by Deuteronomy 25:5 - and his sisters would by analogy be referred to as sisters.

But this on the theory of cousins. As said, I prefer the "old widower" theory.

AAB

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7m ago

"If you are trying to imply that Catholic tradition is always historically correct, that only holds true to a degree and not in all cases."

When it is unanimous, it is. Without it, you don't even have the Gospel authors correctly or at all assigned.

"Since Catholics believe the Pope is infallible, that permits him to change facts even if it contradicts scripture."

No, it does not. Infallibility is not anything which involves creativity, and when "Pope Francis" tries to involve creativity and changing things, like agreeing with Protestants against Mark 10:6 and similar loci, this is one reason Catholics reject him as "Pope".

The deceased Cardinal Stickler considered there were certain things even the Pope cannot change, according to Medieval canon law (he was a great canon law expert, canonist, as we say):

• The Bible,
• the rite of the Sacraments (hence his opposition to new liturgy of 1969),
• the "status ecclesiae", probably meaning Papal States (making Pius XI a culprit overstepping his rights in 1929, but Stickler did not take this view on the meaning of the phrase, he simply left the phrase unexplained).

As for this:

“Sorry but I weigh in with Martin Luther on this one.”

The irony is, both Luther and Calvin agreed that Jesus had no full siblings as in natural children of the Blessed Virgin other than He. Both agreed with St Jerome (who took the cousin view on siblings, not the old widower view on St Joseph) in condemning the error of Helvidius.

"The rule of scripture interpretation is that you take the plain meaning of the words unless they directly contradict another passage of scripture;"

Or Tradition.

"then you look for a second meaning, only if necessary."

Or if given by Tradition.

In this case, the other passage is a strong view on what the prophecy of Isaiah means. She was virgin prior to, during and after Birth of Our Lord.

AB

subdivided ABA, ABB, ABC, ABD.

ABA

Hans-Georg Lundahl

23m ago

“If indeed Joseph had children in a former marriage then they would have been compelled to go with him and Mary to Bethlehem for the census.”

No. For one thing, they could have gone to census in Nazareth - their city. St Joseph taking Bethlehem as “his city” was probably a political statement. Like telling Romans “we have a history too, you know”. It would NOT have been the usual Roman requirement.

For another, if they were in their father’s household (like working in his carpentry) they may not have been required to enroll individually, since he was going. “And all went to be enrolled, every one” could refer to all who were independent, not living with a father or a master.

Update

Cathy Lippert

17h ago

If Joseph as the head of household had the option of registering in Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, then that would have been far less risky for a wife who is about to deliver a child. No, he was compelled to go to Bethlehem by law, and so would his grown children have been compelled if they existed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

I have been answered that by Atheists.

When the Roman law or order or command or whatever it was required of people to be registered in their own city, they were NOT requiring non-citizen provincials to register in the city of a remote ancestor - just that they should register where they were living (or possibly : where they were born, the Roman definition of patria), not a place they just happened to visit.

That is why they argue the story involves a contrivance to fake a fulfilment of Micah.

My answer to them, which proves useful to you as well, is, no, St Joseph was making a statement.

As there was a donkey to ride on, the journey was not that much a hardship in a pregnant woman.

In Roman law (at least up to end of Republic), the grown children did not need to be in the household of St Joseph not to be sui juris and therefore might not count.

Also, the sons were evidently working as carpenters in their father’s shop. That is also how he could get it back in his hands when returning from Egypt : they ran it for him.

ABB

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20m ago

“In every case where other children are mentioned, they are with Mary, and they are referred to as brothers and sisters of Jesus. We need to accept the plain meaning of the verse before we start looking for more esoteric and unlikely meanings.”

There is no plain meaning about them necessarily being children of Mary.

They came to lock Jesus up. If they were NOT Jesus’ own siblings, but Mary was their stepmother (both parents being dead) as well as Jesus’ real one, their bringing her along would have been a way to force the argument.

Update

Cathy Lippert

16h ago

But the siblings of Jesus were by that time evidently in the household of Mary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

I am not denying it.

If she was their stepmother and a widow, it would be natural.

If she suffered from being stepmother to men who had tried to get Her Son stamped as a madman and dragging her along, it is also natural that she went with John, according to John 19:25–27.

ABC

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19m ago

“Since Joseph was betrothed to a very young girl, it is not likely he would be so old as to have had grown children as old as or older than Mary.”

Why not?

He was Jewish, not Hindoo.

Update

Cathy Lippert

15h ago

Brother James was not thought to be a believer until Jesus appeared to him by specific mention in the scripture. That could explain why Jesus gave His mother to John.

We don't know why Mary and the brothers and sisters were together on multiple occasions, except that would be natural if they live in the same household. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a hostage situation however.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"Brother James was not thought to be a believer until Jesus appeared to him by specific mention in the scripture."

We know specifically from canonic books that Our Lord appeared to James.

We also have from Proto-Gospel of St James that after St Joseph died, the other sons refused Jesus a portion of the heritage, but St James shared his own portion with Jesus.

"We don't know why Mary and the brothers and sisters were together on multiple occasions, except that would be natural if they live in the same household. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a hostage situation however."

Living in a same household can sometimes become that. Especially if disagreeing on a family member outside the household.

ABD

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18m ago

“And it doesn't make sense that any grown children of another wife would be repeatedly seen with Mary after Joseph passed.”

Except that, as their brother James was already a disciple of Jesus, and not with them, she was the one hostage they could take against Him.

This situation is also obviously the reason why He on the Cross gave Her as mother to St John.

Update

Cathy Lippert

15h ago

Well, I said probably. In the book of Ruth, we see that Boaz assumed he would not be acceptable to Ruth due to his age. So we have an inkling about the preferred age for espousal. If Joseph already had at least 6 children, he must have been at least 30, and the very same traditions others cite estimate his age at 80 or more. But life expectancy average was quite low.

It’s possible, but Joseph’s age or prior marriage and children are never cited in the scripture.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"In the book of Ruth, we see that Boaz assumed he would not be acceptable to Ruth due to his age."

Not quite. He thought it would have been understandable if she had preferred someone younger.

St Joseph seems to have made a similar assumption, leaving Mary (as he supposed her to be enamoured of someone younger) free to marry the younger man.

"If Joseph already had at least 6 children, he must have been at least 30, and the very same traditions others cite estimate his age at 80 or more."

He was a widower, I might have thought sth like 60. Perhaps 70.

"But life expectancy average was quite low."

With a very wide spectrum of ages when dying this does not preclude some getting very old.

I have made a check for sibling groups under Middle Ages from St Louis IX to c. 1500 - among his descendants, from wikipedias.

I get a median of 33 for men and 38 for women including those who died young and when including only those who survived to 20, the medians are 55 for ladies and 54 for gents. However, as they are a military class, I think their life expectancy was lowered by a “fast and furious” lifestyle. One uncle of St Louis IX died at 13 because he was jumping from crenelation to crenelation on a castle wall and missed and fell (know this from a previous check). One later descendant of his, Mary of Burgundy, died at 18 some weeks after falling off her horse - fortunately, she already had 3 children.

Carpenters and clerks would likely have a much higher life expectancy than knights.

"It’s possible, but Joseph’s age or prior marriage and children are never cited in the scripture."

Unless it is precisely St Josephs children from a prior marriage who ARE cited in Scripture.

The fact that it is not explicitly said they are such is what makes the "they are cousins" theory not heretical. But both theories, which together make up total of Christian tradition (Helvidius was not traditional, and is not a witness for tradition), agree on the Blessed Virgin remaining Virgin.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“there is no “John the Lesser" named among Jesus's supposed siblings.”

Questioner would be referring to James the Lesser.