Does "Brother"= "Cousin"?

[Scruffyzach]

I have been discussing the issue of Mary's Perpetual Virginity with some Catholics I know, and they tell me that the word for brother also means "cousin". They have even went as far as to say that all the references to Jesus' human brothers were referring to just His followers! I thought that "adelphos" means brother and that "anepsios" means cousin.

So is it really a plausible idea that the passages in the NT that refers to Jesus' brothers are referring to His cousins instead?

[John Reece]

I have been discussing the issue of Mary's Perpetual Virginity with some Catholics I know, and they tell me that the word for brother also means "cousin". They have even went as far as to say that all the references to Jesus' human brothers were referring to just His followers! I thought that "adelphos" means brother and that "anepsios" means cousin.

So is it really a plausible idea that the passages in the NT that refers to Jesus' brothers are referring to His cousins instead?

From BDAG = A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition (University of Chicago Press, 2000):

ἀδελφός [adelphos]

1. a male from the same womb as the reference person, brother, Of Jesus’ brothers (passages like Gen 13:8; 14:14; 24:48; 29:12; Lev 10:4; 1 Ch 9:6 do not establish the meaning ‘cousin’ for ἀδελφός; they only show that in rendering the Hebrew ‏אָח‎ [‏ʾāḥ = blood-relation] ἀδελφός [adelphos] is used loosely in isolated cases to designate masculine relatives of various degrees).
2. a person viewed as a brother in terms of a close affinity, brother, fellow member, member, associate figurative extension of 1.

ἀνεψιός [anepsios]

cousin.

[Scruffyzach]

Thanks for the reply

[One Bad Pig]

From BDAG = A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition (University of Chicago Press, 2000):

ἀδελφός [adelphos]

1. a male from the same womb as the reference person, brother, Of Jesus’ brothers (passages like Gen 13:8; 14:14; 24:48; 29:12; Lev 10:4; 1 Ch 9:6 do not establish the meaning ‘cousin’ for ἀδελφός; they only show that in rendering the Hebrew ‏אָח‎ [‏ʾāḥ = blood-relation] ἀδελφός [adelphos] is used loosely in isolated cases to designate masculine relatives of various degrees).
2. a person viewed as a brother in terms of a close affinity, brother, fellow member, member, associate figurative extension of 1.

ἀνεψιός [anepsios]

cousin.

With all due respect, the entry seems a bit biased. We should not forget that the eyewitnesses from whom the accounts came were from Aramaic/Hebrew culture, not Greek culture. While the references from the LXX do not establish the meaning 'cousin', they do not reflect a literal meaning of "male from the same womb" either.

On the other hand, there is a third option: the brothers of the Lord were sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. This would explain Jesus commending His mother to John's care at the crucifixion, which would have been culturally unnecessary if Mary had other children.

There is a good discussion here explaining the three options.

[Scruffyzach]

With all due respect, the entry seems a bit biased. We should not forget that the eyewitnesses from whom the accounts came were from Aramaic/Hebrew culture, not Greek culture. While the references from the LXX do not establish the meaning 'cousin', they do not reflect a literal meaning of "male from the same womb" either.

I agree that by itself the word might not absolutely settle the case. However, in numerous passages in the NT Jesus' brothers are described as being with His mother, which would make no sense if they were just cousins.

here[/url] explaining the three options.

I actually don't really have a problem with the "stepbrothers" idea except for the fact that it comes from later accounts and that the Gospel writers heavily imply that they are biological offspring (Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7).
I also don't find the idea that Jesus gave His mother over to John instead of His brothers implausible when we consider that they were unbelievers at the time(John 7:5).

[One Bad Pig]

I agree that by itself the word might not absolutely settle the case. However, in numerous passages in the NT Jesus' brothers are described as being with His mother, which would make no sense if they were just cousins.

Numerous? Not exactly. Three passages, one in each of the synoptic Gospels, probably describe the same event. The one occurrence in John may or may not be the same event as well.

I actually don't really have a problem with the "stepbrothers" idea except for the fact that it comes from later accounts and that the Gospel writers heavily imply that they are biological offspring (Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7).

Prototokos does not heavily imply that. It only means "first offspring," and as far as I know, it is used whether there are later offspring or not.

I also don't find the idea that Jesus gave His mother over to John instead of His brothers implausible when we consider that they were unbelievers at the time(John 7:5).

The same Jesus who knew at least one would subsequently believe, and to whom He appeared after the Resurrection, and who quickly rose to a position of prominence?

[themuzicman]

With all due respect, the entry seems a bit biased. We should not forget that the eyewitnesses from whom the accounts came were from Aramaic/Hebrew culture, not Greek culture. While the references from the LXX do not establish the meaning 'cousin', they do not reflect a literal meaning of "male from the same womb" either.

On the other hand, there is a third option: the brothers of the Lord were sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. This would explain Jesus commending His mother to John's care at the crucifixion, which would have been culturally unnecessary if Mary had other children.

There is a good discussion here explaining the three options.

BDAG is THE present authoritative Biblical Greek Lexicon. This isn't some marginal reference.

Also, there is no reference in any gospel to Joseph being previously married or having other children. The fact that the text refers to Jesus' family including brothers without clarification tells us that the authors are wholly unconcerned with the appearance that Mary might not be a perpetual virgin, suggesting that this was not a belief among gospel writers, and indeed these were Jesus' actual brothers from the same womb.

[Scruffyzach]

Numerous? Not exactly. Three passages, one in each of the synoptic Gospels, probably describe the same event. The one occurrence in John may or may not be the same event as well.

How about Acts 1:14? And what I mean is that the authors create the impression that they are children of Mary by yoking the brothers with her. I am not aware of any logical reason why they would be with her if they were cousins of Jesus.

Prototokos does not heavily imply that. It only means "first offspring," and as far as I know, it is used whether there are later offspring or not.

I will have to plead ignorance on prototokos. Nonetheless, we are still left to deal with "until" in Matthew 1:25. The general usage is that of "before, but not after". Even if this is not a guranteed conclusion from the word itself, the fact that Matthew later yokes Mary with the brothers without elaborating highly implies that they are her children.

The same Jesus who knew at least one would subsequently believe, and to whom He appeared after the Resurrection, and who quickly rose to a position of prominence?

Yes, the same one who constantly places discipleship over family. Jesus commending His mother to John isn't implausible when we consider that John is called many times "the disciple whom Jesus loved". Furthermore, if the "brothers" we're cousins or stepbrothers, wouldn't they also be a part of His family? If Jesus intended to commend her to a family member why not a cousin or stepbrother?

[One Bad Pig]

BDAG is THE present authoritative Biblical Greek Lexicon. This isn't some marginal reference.

I quite understand that, thanks. That's why I prefaced my comments with "With all due respect". Just because it's the current standard doesn't mean it's unbiased.

Also, there is no reference in any gospel to Joseph being previously married or having other children. The fact that the text refers to Jesus' family including brothers without clarification tells us that the authors are wholly unconcerned with the appearance that Mary might not be a perpetual virgin, suggesting that this was not a belief among gospel writers, and indeed these were Jesus' actual brothers from the same womb.

Or it could just tell us that the writers saw no need for clarification because the Hebrew concept was looser than your strict interpretation and the facts were commonly known.

[One Bad Pig]

How about Acts 1:14? And what I mean is that the authors create the impression that they are children of Mary by yoking the brothers with her. I am not aware of any logical reason why they would be with her if they were cousins of Jesus.

Perhaps because they had become believers by that point?

I will have to plead ignorance on prototokos. Nonetheless, we are still left to deal with "until" in Matthew 1:25. The general usage is that of "before, but not after".

I only have access to the lexicon at blueletterbible.org, which does not list Mat. 1:25 with that usage.

Even if this is not a guranteed conclusion from the word itself, the fact that Matthew later yokes Mary with the brothers without elaborating highly implies that they are her children.

I think I've covered that already.

Yes, the same one who constantly places discipleship over family. Jesus commending His mother to John isn't implausible when we consider that John is called many times "the disciple whom Jesus loved". Furthermore, if the "brothers" we're cousins or stepbrothers, wouldn't they also be a part of His family? If Jesus intended to commend her to a family member why not a cousin or stepbrother?

I don't know. It could be that because they were not blood relations, they had no cultural obligation. They're never referred to as Mary's sons.

IMO absent tradition, there's not enough to definitively say either way.

[themuzicman]

Or it could just tell us that the writers saw no need for clarification because the Hebrew concept was looser than your strict interpretation and the facts were commonly known.

When you're writing about an event that happened 50-60 years earlier to people who weren't there and weren't familiar with events, I doubt that, if this was important to Matthew, that he would leave it vague.

[RBerman]

On the other hand, there is a third option: the brothers of the Lord were sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. This would explain Jesus commending His mother to John's care at the crucifixion, which would have been culturally unnecessary if Mary had other children.

Are you saying that if Joseph had children from a previous marriage, they would not have taken care of their stepmother? That's not how I would have expected that culture to work.

[Scruffyzach]

Are you saying that if Joseph had children from a previous marriage, they would not have taken care of their stepmother? That's not how I would have expected that culture to work.

if I'm remembering correctly, their culture valued legal relationships more than biological, hence why Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through Joseph.

[Bill the Cat]

According to my best friend's rabbi, had Jesus been younger than Joseph's earlier children, he would have not been able to assign the mother's care to anyone according to Torah. That duty would have fallen to the eldest son.

[RBerman]

if I'm remembering correctly, their culture valued legal relationships more than biological, hence why Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through Joseph.

That may well be, but it doesn't show, if Mary had stepchildren, that they would ignore her.