Did Mary have biological children after Jesus?

[Sol]

This is a topic of joking discussion between a friend of mine and me, but I'm actually curious what you all think. Should we read the biblical discussion of "brothers and sisters of Jesus" at face value or interpret as a mark of intimacy or of a stepbrotherly relation?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The Gospel of James, which is apparently the oldest source to assert the perpetual virginity of Mary, also says that the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" are Joseph's children from a previous marriage. This is of course not the position of the Catholic Church but it arguably makes the most sense, although I am not sure making sense is a prerogative when we are dealing with a virginal birth anyway.

On a related note, this is the perfect occasion to plug in my specific interests - I have recently listened quite a bit to La buona novella by Fabrizio De André, a music album entirely based on the apocryphal Gospels (naturally it is not a Christian album in its meaning as De André was religiously anarchic and to a large extent it serves as an allegory, but it relates to the common idea of Jesus as a great revolutionary).

[afleitch]

It would be highly unusual, given the time, place and circumstances for her not to. But it was not foundational to Mariology.

[°Leprechaun]

If she did it might be possible that she is the ancestor of people living today, although we may never know.

[Blue3]

Mark 6:

Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. 2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.

“Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing? 3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Matthew 13:

53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.

But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”

Full blood-brothers and sisters of Jesus

This position rejects the virgin birth of Jesus and accepts his brothers and sisters as precisely that. This position it seems to have been restricted to a 2nd century Jewish Christian sect called the Ebionites, who did not accept the incarnation and divinity of Jesus. This is arguably the position presupposed by Mark, John, and Paul, who do not mention the virginal conception of Jesus. [27]



Half-brothers and sisters of Jesus (Helvidian view)

The view of Helvidius was that the adelphoi were full siblings of Jesus born to Mary and Joseph after the firstborn Jesus.[28] This is the most common Protestant position,[28] and is taken today by a large number of scholars, including a few who identify as Roman Catholic.[29]


                              

Stepbrothers of Jesus (Epiphanian view)

The Epiphanian view, named after its main proponent, the fourth-century bishop Epiphanius, and championed by the third century theologian Origen and fourth-century bishop Eusebius, the “brothers” and “sisters” mentioned in the New Testament are sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, and hence stepbrothers of Jesus; this is still the official position of the Eastern Orthodox churches.[31]



Cousins of Jesus (Hieronymian view)

The Hieronymian view was put forward in the 4th century by Jerome, who argued that not only Mary, but Joseph too, had been a life-long virgin.[32] Apparently voicing the general opinion of the Church, he held that the "brothers of Jesus" were the sons of Mary the "mother of James and Joses" mentioned in Mark 15:40, whom he identified with the wife of Clopas and sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus mentioned in John 19:25.[33] The Roman Catholic church continues to teach that the adelphoi were cousins of Jesus.[34] (The following family tree is from Richard Bauckham, "Jude and the Relatives of James")[35]

Jerome's argument produces the unlikely result of two sisters both named Mary.[35] A modern variant eliminates this by identifying Clopas as the brother of Joseph, thereby making the two Marys sisters-in-law; in this version Jesus's cousin Simon is identified with Symeon the second leader of the church in Jerusalem.[35][36] (The following family tree is from Richard Bauckham, "Jude and the Relatives of James")[37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus






Answer: Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 name four men called Jesus' brethren: James, Joses (short for Joseph Jr.), Simon, and Judas called Jude. Verse 56 mentions that Jesus had sisters. The sisters are not named, but since the word is plural there were at least two of them. John 7:5 tells us his brothers didn't believe in Jesus, and all three synoptic gospels tell of a time when his mother and brothers came to speak with Jesus. The implication is that they came to take him home, possibly to rethink his ministry because he was offending the Jewish leaders. That may be why Jesus didn't go out to talk with them immediately.

Later, 1 Corinthians 15:7 says Jesus made a resurrection appearance to his brother James, which must have converted him. Then, Matthew 28:10 records that the rest of Jesus' brothers would see him at a resurrection appearance in Galilee. So, Acts 1:14 says Mary and all the brothers were present when the Holy Spirit came upon believers at Pentecost. In Acts 12:17, Dr. Luke wrote that Peter sent word to James and his brothers of his miraculous release from prison. By the middle of the first Christian century James appears to be the leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13, Galatians 1:19 and 2:9). He wrote the epistle of James, and his brother Judas wrote the epistle of Jude in the New Testament (James 1:1; Jude 1:1).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Of course, and that Catholic explanation is just LOL. Where were they during the Nativity?

[LabourJersey]

I have heard that Hebrew at the time did not have a word for cousin, or at least people used the term "brothers and sisters" to refer to their cousins. I however am not a biblical scholar, so I have no idea if that's true or not.

[Mr. Smith]

James isn't?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Absolutely.  James is specifically mentioned as Jesus's brother*.  There is nothing Biblically to say that Mary remained a virgin after marrying Joseph, just that she was one when she gave birth to Jesus.

*Well, technically his half-brother, since God (not Joseph) was his biological father.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A plain reading of the canonical text would indicate that she did. The Catholic (and Orthodox? I'm not sure there) arguments to the contrary are a little strained, but are attested early enough that it's possible we moderns are missing something. I believe as a matter of faith that she didn't but from a more neutral perspective this is the most we can say.

[afleitch]

Matthew (which on balance is the strongest of the two for reasons passim) hints that 'relations' happened after Jesus was born. So it hints that there could have been biological children.

I do find it quite an interesting question to post and ponder because it did facilitate the unraveling of my own faith. Not the last piece; I'd already settled on accepting adoptionism some time before. Part of that was because yes, on balance she would have had children. Yes, from what we know about contemporary Jewish betrothal, she would have been of an age that we today would rightfully baulk at. And lastly, I do not believe she could consent. Or if she did, that it was valid. Not a matter of age, but as a matter of power. And I didn't think that was how god would 'move' (particularly such a gendered move)

So blep. Fun fact for you all.

[LabourJersey]

Matthew (which on balance is the strongest of the two for reasons passim) hints that 'relations' happened after Jesus was born. So it hints that there could have been biological children.

I do find it quite an interesting question to post and ponder because it did facilitate the unraveling of my own faith. Not the last piece; I'd already settled on accepting adoptionism some time before. Part of that was because yes, on balance she would have had children. Yes, from what we know about contemporary Jewish betrothal, she would have been of an age that we today would rightfully baulk at. And lastly, I do not believe she could consent. Or if she did, that it was valid. Not a matter of age, but as a matter of power. And I didn't think that was how god would 'move' (particularly such a gendered move)

So blep. Fun fact for you all.

There's been some really interesting discourse about exactly this situation with the Annunciation. I admittedly am very sympathetic to the belief that Mary's consent was present and was valid, but it's an important point to discuss in Christianity.

[afleitch]

Matthew (which on balance is the strongest of the two for reasons passim) hints that 'relations' happened after Jesus was born. So it hints that there could have been biological children.

I do find it quite an interesting question to post and ponder because it did facilitate the unraveling of my own faith. Not the last piece; I'd already settled on accepting adoptionism some time before. Part of that was because yes, on balance she would have had children. Yes, from what we know about contemporary Jewish betrothal, she would have been of an age that we today would rightfully baulk at. And lastly, I do not believe she could consent. Or if she did, that it was valid. Not a matter of age, but as a matter of power. And I didn't think that was how god would 'move' (particularly such a gendered move)

So blep. Fun fact for you all.

There's been some really interesting discourse about exactly this situation with the Annunciation. I admittedly am very sympathetic to the belief that Mary's consent was present and was valid, but it's an important point to discuss in Christianity.

I think certainly there should be room for discussion about it, as much as there's a bit of discomfort around it.

My own view is that not only was she was not in a position to give valid consent, no one would be. I think there's an expression of maleness in the ask/act too. And a certain type of maleness that as a believer I started to have discomfort in (tldr; the end product of procreation as a signifier of a 'beyond doubt' expression of maleness divorced even from the sexual act)

I just don't think a deity would appeal to such base appropriation of contemporary Galilean 'male gaze' norms. Particularly given Jesus' rejection/inversion of the same.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The consent issue is a valid concern, more of one than I've felt prepared to acknowledge in the past, but I think the issue of Mary's (real, probable, or putative) extreme youth is a more urgent one for theologians to address. I think this because Christian thinkers have been aware of and have had responses to the consent concern for many centuries now (regardless of whether or not one finds those responses perspicuous or convincing), whereas the age thing--which of course is connected, but technically a separate issue--has flown under the radar. As I've said recently on the forum, it leads to some seriously disturbing homiletic practices in American Catholicism:

Regarding the child marriages dude, and the Mary-Joseph stuff, maybe this is something that was always "there", lurking out in the fields and the forests and the hills of America's internal frontier, but we are only aware of it at a mass level thanks to modern media. As for people defending him, maybe they do so out of partisanship or knee jerk narrative contrarianism.

There's a creepy tendency to stress Mary's youth (which isn't directly indicated anywhere in the Biblical canon, although we can surmise that she's likely younger than most women are when they have their first child today) in some homiletic and devotional contexts too. Normally it's a way of communicating her piety and trust in God, but lots of preachers seem to have legitimately no idea how unsettling it ends up sounding anyway. I'd be interested to know if it's less present in churches in other countries.

I think it would be to the good if priests just shut up about this and focused on other topics in their Annunciation and Christmas homilies. Lord knows there's a lot more there to discuss.

[DaleCooper]

I never got the impression from the Bible that Mary was extremely young, or for that matter that Joseph was old, but that's a different issue. It should be noted that according to one of the gospels she was already betrothed to Joseph when the conception took place, so I don't see why she would've been younger than any other young woman entering her first marriage.

As for her having children after Jesus, it's pretty clear that Jesus had siblings, who would have to be younger if you believe in the virgin birth. Paul himself refers to James as being the brother of Jesus Christ in a context that doesn't seem to imply that he is talking about a spiritual brother. In fact, I think that line from Paul in Galatians is one of the best pieces of evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ.