V£ ^ Q, f 
V / / ? 

W 3 1 & 

OfKl 





DID 

MARY 
HAVE OTHER CHILDREN 

? 

By: C. F. DeVine, C.SS.R. 
(Professor of Sacred Scripture) 

S T . ALPHONSUS S E M I N A R Y 

Woodstock, Ontario, Canada 

Published By 

LIGUORIAN PAMPHLET OFFICE 
Redemptorist Fathers 

LIGUORI, MISSOURI 



Imprimi Potest: 
J A M E S F U L L E R , C . S S . R . 

Superior of the Toronto Province 
May 25, 1946. 

Nihil Obstat: 
L . F L Y N N 

Censor Deputatus 

Imprimatur-. 
8B J O H N T . K I D D 

Bishop of London 
London, July 9th, 1946. 

Dsacfcfflfecf 



DID 

M A R Y 

HAVE OTHER CHILDREN 
9 
9 

I . 

INTRODUCTION 
This little pamphlet is concerned with an inter-

esting scriptural problem that occurs several times 
in the New Testament. It purposes to deal with 
an expression that at first sight seems to imply 
that Jesus our Savior had real brothers and sisters, 
or that Mary had other children besides Jesus. 
It is a very important problem, for as can easily 
be seen it has a direct bearing on the Catholic 
belief that Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin 
not only before and during, but also after the 
birth of her Son. 

In a dozen or so places in the New Testament 
certain individuals are referred to as the "brothers 
of Jesus". In one or other place sisters are also 
mentioned. Who, then, are these individuals and 
what is the nature of their relationship to Jesus? 
Were they real brothers and sisters or not? The 
first step in attempting to answer these questions 

The Problem 



is to take a copy of the New Testament and seek 
out carefully each place where the brothers or 
sisters are mentioned. 
The places in question are the following: 
St. Matthew 
12:4<S-47—"his mother and his brethren..." 
13:55-56—"his brethren James and Joseph and 

Simon and Jude? And his sisters..." 
St. Mark 

3:31-32—"Behold thy mother and thy brethren." 
6:3 —"Is not this . . . the brother of James 

and Joseph and Jude and Simon? Are 
not also his sisters here with us?" 

St. Luke 
8:19-20—"... and his mother and brethren..." 

St. John 
2:12 — " . . . h e and his mother and his brethren 

and his disciples. . ." 
7:3 —". . .and his brethren said to him:" 
7:5 —"For neither did his brethren believe in 

him." 
7:10 . . his brethren were gone up." 

Acts. 
1:14 —" . . .wi th the women and Mary the 

mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." 
I Corinthians 

9:5 . . t he apostles and the brethren of 
the Lord and Cephas?" 

Galatians 
1:19 —"But other of the Apostles I saw none, 

saving James the brother of the Lord." 
From these citations it is clear that certain 

individuals are spoken of as the "brothers of 
Jesus". His sisters are mentioned twice: Mt. 13: 
55-56; and Mk. 6:3; although the names or num-

— 



ber of the sisters are not stated. Certain of the 
"brothers" are, however, called by name in Mat-
thew and Mark, viz.: James, Joseph, Simon and 
Jude. 

It is also clear that we are up against a real 
problem, for no reliable scholar would dismiss 
the question by saying the "brethren" were sim-
ply the companions of Jesus, His disciples, or 
the Apostles. For although it is true that the 
English term "brethren" is less precise than the 
word "brothers", still the word in the original 
Greek text is adelphoi, and that is the exact plural 
of "brother". Moreover, the "brethren" are men-
tioned as a separate group and sometimes in the 
same context with the Apostles or disciples. 

It should be noted, however, that we are not 
concerned here with the question of the virgin 
birth of Jesus. W e are dealing with the virginity 
of Mary after the birth of Jesus. It is theoretically 
conceivable that Mary could have given birth to 
Jesus virginally and that afterwards she could 
have had other children in the natural way by 
St. Joseph. Thus the two questions are distinct. 
Still, it is true that most of those who reject the 
doctrine of Mary's virginity after the birth of 
Jesus also reject the doctrine of the virgin birth. 
In fact, outside the Catholic Church few can be 
found who feel obliged to defend the traditional 
belief in Our Lady's virginity before, during, and 
after the birth of her Son. 

A Stock Objection 
This brief study will make little attempt at 

originality. The solution to be presented of the 
problem can be found in any authoritative Cath-



olic commentary on the New Testament. How-
ever, the question of the "brethren of the Lord" 
has an uncanny way of cropping up unexpectedly 
and in remote places. Usually it is tossed like a 
hand-grenade that is supposed completely to de-
molish the Catholic position. It is hoped, there-
fore, that this little work, which does not pretend 
to be exhaustive, may prove of some service to 
a busy curate here and there; to leaders of study 
clubs; or even to the average Catholic, who stands 
a good chance of having this problem thrown up 
to him in discussions on religion. 

The manner of presentation of matter will be 
semi-popular, but there will be no attempt at 
sugar-coating the arguments in dialogue or other 
fanciful form. The only way to tackle this prob-
lem is to face all the facts squarely. This may be 
hard going for the average reader but it will 
repay the effort. A few references will be given 
in case someone should wish to verify one or 
other important point. In this connection, the 
references PG or PL are to the well-known 
Greek and Latin Patrology of Migne. Since its 
purpose is not scientific, one cannot. expect to 
find all the aspects of the problem treated in this 
work. If it achieves the aim of being a ready out-
line of the problem and its solutions it will have 
served its purpose. 

II. 
HISTORY 

OF THE QUESTION 
From the manner in which this question is 

treated by some non-Catholic authors one would 



gather that the problem of the "brethren of the 
Lord" is a particularly embarassing one for Cath-
olics. The idea seems to be prevalent in some 
quarters that until the sixteenth century the Cath-
olic Church, had slept serene in its belief that Mary 
was always a virgin. After the Reformation, how-
ever, and the supposed advent of the "open Bible", 
Catholics, it is implied, were amazed to find that 
the New Testament refers several times to real 
brothers and sisters of Christ, and so they at once 
invented the unsatisfactory subterfuge that the 
"brothers" were not brothers at all but only cous-
ins. Now, this is not the view of Protestant schol-
ars as a group, most of them being better in-
formed, (some of them even defending Mary's 
perpetual virginity) but it has a peculiar way of 
turning up in popular controversy as a difficulty 
that is supposed to be unanswerable. One would 
almost suspect that it is presented in Protestant, 
parochial studyclubs as an unfailing weapon 
whereby to dislodge the average Catholic from 
his supposedly stubborn "worship" of the Virgin. 
Why anyone should wish to destroy veneration 
for the mother of Jesus or attack her prerogative 
of perpetual virginity is hard to calculate. 

As a matter of fact, by the time of the Protes-
tant Reformation the problem of the "brethren 
of the Lord" was viewed as a question that had 
been fully discussed and settled centuries before. 
As early as the fourth century St. Jerome had 
written his classical treatise Against Helvidius. In 
this work the great biblical scholar faced the 
problem squarely, and with keen logic and a pun-
gent brilliance of expression treated and solved 
every objection usually urged against Mary's vir-

— 5 la 



ginity. So much so, that it is not without justice 
that some recent writers have been referred to as 
"Modern Helvidians", since they present nothing 
more than a re-hash of the work of Helvidius, 
a heretic of the fourth century, and the first to 
question formally the perpetual virginity of Our 
Lady. These facts will be more clearly evident 
if we sketch briefly the history of the problem. 

The Early Evidence 
From the early days of the Church we have 

not the slightest shred of evidence to show that 
any objection was raised against a belief in the 
perpetual virginity of Our Lady. There is no 
suggestion at all that the expression "brethren of 
the Lord" could constitute an obstacle to that 
belief. In fact, there is no discussion of the 
"brethren" until the end of the second century. 
This in itself is important. For since the exact 
relationship of the "brothers and sisters" to Jesus 
was a question of fact, it could easily be verified 
and it would be well-known especially to the 
members of the early Chiurch in Palestine. If, 
then, we later find a solid tradition in existence 
regarding Mary's perpetual virginity, it is incred-
ible that such a belief should have sprung into 
being suddenly and without reason in, say, the 
fourth century. It must have been founded on 
the fact that Mary was The Virgin without qual-
ification. And it is undoubtedly true that the later 
celebrated dictum of St. Epiphanius (+403) 
expresses exactly what was always believed and 
taught: "Whoever in any age has dared to pro-
nounce the name Mary and has not, if inter-

B f l 



rogated, straightway affixed the title Virgin?" 
(PG 42, 70S). 

JOSEPHUS FLAVIUS (93-94 A.D.) - In his 
work entitled Antiquities of the Jews (XX, 9, 1) 
this well-known Jewish historian has the follow-
ing statement, " . . . and he brought before them 
(the Sanhedrin) the brother of Jesus, who was 
called Christ, whose name was James . . . and he 
delivered them to be stoned." Here apparently 
we have the phrase "brother of Jesus" used in 
connection with James the Apostle. Some scholars 
suspect that this passage from Josephus is not 
authentic and view it as a Christian insertion. 
However this may be, and even should the sec-
tion be genuine, it contributes very little to our 
investigation. For, it gives no explanation of the 
meaning of the expression "brother of Jesus" 
which in fact had already been used, at least 
equivalently, many times in the New Testament. 

HEGESIPPUS (c. 180 A.D.)-Actually, the 
first sign of any explanation of the designation 
"brothers of the Lord" is in the writings of a 
certain Hegesippus who lived in Palestine and 
wrote his memoirs towards the end of the second 
century. His writings have been preserved to us 
by Eusebius, the Church historian, who tells us 
that Hegesippus knew the successors of the Apos-
tles. For Hegesippus the expression "brothers of 
the Lord" is equivalent to "cousins of the Lord 
on his father's side". He gives the Greek word 
adelphos (brother) the force of anepsios (cousin). 
Thus the earliest discussion of the "brethren" 
brings with it a precise designation of the mean-
ing of the term, and that by a Palestinian who 
knew personally the early second century wit-

— 7 IS 



nesses of that Church. A further important point 
to note is the fact that Hegesippus is not defend-
ing Mary's virginity or engaging in controversy 
at all. He is not treating expBcidy of the mean-
ing of the title "brothers of the Lord". He sim-
ply and casually refers to an historical fact. This 
is important evidence. 

APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS-The next refer-
ence to the "brethren of the Lord" is found in 
two Apocryphal Gospels: The Qospel of James 
and The Gospel of Peter. They are, of course, 
spurious works, but they are quite ancient, parts 
of them dating, perhaps, to the end of the second 
century. In these odd works Our Lady is very 
definitely pictured as a virgin, but St. Joseph 
is described as having several children of a pre-
vious marriage. Thus, according to Origen's view 
of these works, the "brethren of the Lord" would 
have been children of St. Joseph. It is not im-
possible that this idea should have been proposed 
by the writers of the Apocryphal Gospels pre-
cisely to safeguard the belief in the perpetual 
virginity of Mary. 

TERTULLLAN (C. 217)- I t is not until the 
third century that we find anyone to question 
the perpetual virginity of the mother of Jesus. 
In the works of Tertullian there are several state-
ments (cf. PL 2, 835, 9*15, 989) which, though 
somewhat obscure, seem to imply that their author 
did not know, or rejected, the belief that Mary 
remained a virgin during and after the birth of 
Jesus. Tertullian certainly defended the virginal 
conception of Jesus, and if he did deny Mary's 
virginity during and after the birth of Jesus, he 
did so on his own authority. Presuming (as did 



Helvidius and St. Jerome) that Tertullian's state-
ments really constitute a denial of Mary's virgin-
ity and an assertion that Jesus had real brothers 
and sisters, he then has the dubious distinction of 
being the only writer of the first three centuries 
to step apart from the line of Christian tradition. 

ORIGEN (c. 245)—Origen, the "Man of Steel", 
that prodigious Alexandrian writer, refers several 
times to the "brothers of the Lord". On one 
point he is very Emphatic: they are definitely 
not children of Mary by St. Joseph. Who are 
they, then? They are children of St. Joseph be-
gotten in a previous marriage. In presenting this 
latter view, Origen tells us that he is following 
the Apocryphal Gospels. Now, although this 
opinion of Origen is rightly rejected by Catholic 
authors as opposed to the common Catholic 
teaching that St. Joseph was always a virgin, it 
should be noted that it is a view that has not been 
formally condemned, and in fact was later held 
by several Fathers of the Church. 

If we pass over Clement of Alexandria ( + c . 
215), about whose opinion in this matter there 
is some question, other Fathers certainly followed 
the views of Origen. St. Hilary (+366) , St. 
Epiphanius (+403) and St. Cyril of Alexandria 
(+-444) all propose the view that the "brethren 
of the Lord" were children of St. Joseph by a 
former marriage. They all, of course, defended 
the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. St. John 
Chrysostom (+407) and St. Augustine (+430) 
also at one time favored the opinion of Origen 
but later changed, probably influenced by the 
arguments of St. Jerome. It is quite clear that 
these Fathers, like Origen, were under the influ-

- 9 - ' 



ence of the Apocryphal Gospels. It is more than 
likely that they embraced this opinion because 
they considered that it satisfactorily disposed of 
any difficulty against Mary's virginity implied in 
the expression "brothers of Jesus". In any case, as 
has been said, they are very emphatic in asserting 
that the "brothers" are not Mary's children. 

ST. J E R O M E (c. 383)-I f we except Tertul-
lian, there is not the slightest evidence of any 
denial or even serious discussion of the doctrine 
of Mary's perpetual virginity until about the end 
of the fourth century. At that time several bitter 
disputes arose involving the defenders of the 
monastic and celibate life on the one hand and 
the champions of the married life on the other. 
Both sides probably exceeded the bounds of cor-
rectness. It is easy to see, at any rate, how the 
defenders of the married life would appeal to the 
fact that Our Lady and St. Joseph were truly 
married. Pushing an argument too far, and in 
the heat of controversy forgetful of consequences, 
they pictured these holy spouses as living a full 
married life and having children in the natural 
way. In the midst of these discussions a certain 
unknown individual, Helvidius by name, pro-
posed in Rome the thesis that Mary the mother 
of Jesus did not remain a Virgin after His birth, 
but having connubial relations with Joseph her 
husband, afterwards bore several sons and daugh-
ters. 

St. Jerome, being in Rome at this time, was 
asked to undertake a refutation, and so it was 
that he came to write his now famous treatise: 
On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary against Hel-
vidius. In this work Jerome, the great Doctor of 

- 10 + 



the Scriptures, castigates Helvidius unmercifully. 
He shows that the heretic is departing from the 
teaching of the Church, the belief of centuries, 
in thus despoiling the mother of Jesus of one of 
her greatest prerogatives. St. Jerome speaks 
against Helvidius as if against an offensive in-
truder. He answers the objections proposed one 
after the other; and as for the "brothers of the 
Lord", they were, says Jerome, cousins and not 
real blood-brothers of Jesus. In this he was re-
echoing the view already proposed by Hegesip-
pus; and one feels as he reads St. Jerome's monu-
mental work that its author is writing as a man 
who is simply reflecting the belief of the Church 
and its ancient teachers. 

Helvidius was silenced by the authority and 
logic of St. Jerome, but a few years later a 
Roman monk named Jovinianus revived the her-
esy of Helvidius. Jerome, writing from Bethle-
hem, again rushed to the defence of Mary's vir-
ginity with his treatise Against Jovinianus. In 
Italy St. Ambrose published a refutation of the 
disciples of Jovinianus. It was not long before 
the errors which these Saints opposed were for-
mally condemned by the Holy See. 

The preceding outline makes it clear that until 
the end of the fourth century no one except 
Tertullian dared raise his voice against the belief 
in Mary's perpetual virginity. This is all the more 
striking when we find that Helvidius in his attack 
on this belief could cite no authority in his favor 
but Tertullian. True, he mentions that Victorinus 
of Pettau held his views, but St. Jerome, who 
knew Victorinus' works, denies that Helvidius 
has interpreted them correctly. St. Jerome, then, 

B8SS-



following his predecessors in the Faith, is the 
authentic voice of tradition in this matter. He 
defends Mary's virginity as an important doc-
trine, something that has been handed down 
from the beginning, and asserts with the greatest 
emphasis that to deny it is to do something 
wicked and dishonorable, completely apart from 
the belief of centuries. And this was well over 
fifteen hundred years ago! 

III. 
THE TRADITIONAL VIEW 

DEFENDED 
The assertion has been made by some writers 

that •iny unbiased reader of the New Testament 
must at once conclude that Mary had other chil-
dren after the birth of Jesus. The obvious and 
natural interpretation of the phrase "brothers of 
Jesus", it is said, is that they were real brothers 
in the flesh. It can be readily admitted that a 
cursory reading of the New Testament -could 
yield such a conclusion. But like so many ap-
parently simple solutions, it is a little too simple. 
It causes more difficulties than it seems to solve, 
and, moreover, it neglects the principal elements 
of the problem, which must be carefully collected 
from the whole New Testament account, and 
not from a few isolated sections. 

Tradition not Sentiment 
The perpetual virginity of the mother of the 

Lord is a doctrine that Catholic theologians more 
easily find contained explicitly in Tradition than 

- 12 



in Sacred Scripture. Knowing that this belief is 
expressly stated in Tradition, theologians can then 
point to confirmatory reasons for the doctrine 
in the Scriptures. Like St. Jerome they are in-
clined to assert that, "We believe that God was 
born of a virgin because we read it; that Mary 
had knowledge of man after the birth (of Jesus) 
we do not believe because we do not read it" 
(PL 23, 213). Some non-Catholics who deny 
Mary's perpetual virginity are disposed to ridicule 
the Catholic position as being based purely on 
sentimental grounds. A glance back at the his-
torical evidence shows, indeed, that the doctrine 
was part of the belief of the early Church, but 
it does not show that it was sentimental. St. 
Jerome's treatment of the question can hardly be 
called sentimental. It should be remembered,'too, 
that Jerome was not merely involved in a dispute 
on marriage versus virginity. For lest this be 
asserted against him he says explicitly: "Nor do 
we speak as if condemning the married life, for 
virginity itself is the fruit of marriage" (PL 23, 
213). He spoke rather as one with those who had 
spoken before him: "Am I not able to array 
against you (Helvidius) a whole series of ancient 
writers: Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin the 
Martyr and many other apostolic and eloquent 
men?" (PL 23, 211). 

The early Church was not given to sentiment, 
neither was it hesitant or doubtful but sang open-
ly and with full voice the praises of Mary ever 
virgin (aeiparthenos). Still, for many non-Cath-
olics the belief of the early centuries is as noth-
ing, for it must dash itself to pieces against the 
obstacle of the "brethren of the Lord". This 

- 13 + 



expression in the New Testament, they say, is 
decisive: Christ had real brothers, therefore Mary 
had real children. With Helvidius they continue 
to assert: with the birth of Jesus Alary's virginity 
ceased. Any sort of belief in a perpetual virginity 
is pure sentiment. This amounts to a denial of 
the value of Tradition, but it also constitutes a 
refusal to face candidly the solid arguments ad-
vanced in favor of the traditional view. 

The Arguments 
The general argument for the Catholic or tra-

ditional view that Mary was always a virgin pro-
ceeds somewhat as follows:— 

The traditional belief in the perpetual virgin-
ity of Mary is not opposed by any scriptural 
argument drawn from the use of the expression 
"brothers of the Lord", because: A.—This ex-
pression can have a wider signification than 
real, or blood-brothers; and B.—It must have 
this wider signification. 
A.—The expression, "brothers of the Lord" 

(and its variants: "his brethren"; "brother of the 
Lord"; "thy brethren", etc.; also the "sisters", for 
this is the same problem) can have a wide signif-
ication:— 

1. No one will attempt to deny that the word 
"brother" ordinarily means a son of the same par-
ents. On the other hand no one can deny that it 
frequenty is used in a wider signification of those 
who are closely united by religious, political, or 
famliy bonds. A preacher will often use the ex-
pression "my dear brethren" and no one in his 
audience will think that he is addressing his re-

— 14 ^ 



marks only to his blood-brothers. Members of 
Religious Orders or social brotherhoods are often 
called brothers or addressed as "brother". The 
word allows a wide signification. 

2. The New Testament Books although for 
the most part written in Greek were nevertheless 
composed in a Hebrew or Aramaic environment. 
Most of them reflect this environment on almost 
every page. They have a Semitic color about 
them, which is only natural, and they frequently 
use expressions or words which are Semitic in 
origin. Now, while no Catholic author holds that 
the Hebrew word for "brother" (ah; aha, Ara-
maic) in its proper or technical signification 
means anything else than "strictly "brother", no 
reasonable non-Catholic author can deny that this 
Hebrew (or Aramaic) word sometimes has an 
extended signification. Nor can he deny that the 
New Testament expression "brothers of the 
Lord" was conceived in a Hebrew or Aramaic 
environment. Thus it could conceivably have a 
wider or hebraistic signification. 

This reasoning becomes clearer when we con-
sult Old Testament Hebrew usage. In the Book 
of Genesis we read: "Let there be no quarrel, I 
beseech thee, between me and thee, and between 
my herdsmen and thy herdsmen: for we are 
brothers" (Gen. 13:8). And yet Abraham who 
is here speaking to Lot was not Lot's brother, 
but his uncle (Gen. 11:27). Again, in Genesis 
29:15, Laban says to Jacob, "Because thou art 
my brother, shalt thou serve me without wages?" 
Actually, in the context, it is clear that Laban 
was the uncle of Jacob, the Son of Rebecca. A 
similar usage is noted in the Book of Leviticus, 

- 15 + 



chapter 10; while in I Par. (1 Chron.) 23:21 where 
we read that Eleazar died leaving no sons, "but 
only daughters, and the sons of Cis their brothers 
took them", the "brothers" who married them 
were really (from the context) their cousins. i 
Now, in every one of the instances just cited the 
most ancient Greek translation of the Old Testa-
ment, the Septuagint, renders the Hebrew word 
ah by the Greek word for "brother" i.e. adelphos. f 
It is interesting to note, too, that the Protestant 
Authorized or King James version renders these 
places by the English "brother" or "brethren." 
This is a hebraism admittedly, but we have no 
reasonable grounds for denying that such a heb-
raism could run over into the Greek of the New 
Testament, especially since this latter is the logical 
successor of the Greek of the Septuagint. And 
so it cannot reasonably be denied that an expres-
sion such as the "brethren of the Lord" in the 
New Testament could be the rendering of an 1 
Aramaic expression implying a wider relationship 
than strict brothers. Especially so in an Aramaic 
community, and when it is fully realized both 
how much the vernacular Aramaic influenced the 
New Testament writers, and how much they 
depended on the Greek style and expression of 
the Septuagint. This is put beyond doubt when 
we know that neither the Hebrew nor the Ara-
maic languages possessed a word for "cousin". 
Rather than use an awkward circumlocution such 
as "the son of one's uncle", they simply said 
"brother". People in the same community or gen-
eral locality would easily understand what actual 
relationship was meant by the term "brother", 
for among the Hebrews especially, family lines 

- 1 6 -



and ties were carefully noted. Hence we believe 
that the expression "brethren of the Lord" in a 
Semitic environment could designate other rel-
atives of Jesus than strict brothers. 

Second Part of Argument 
B.—The expression "brothers of the Lord" (and 

its variants) must have a wider signification. It 
must designate a wider relationship than that im-
plied in the word "brother" used in its technical 
or proper signification, fon— 

1. In St. John's Gospel (Jo. 19:26) it is related 
that as Jesus was dying on the cross He entrusted 
His mother to the care of St. John. Now, if 
Mary had other children it is incredible that 
Jesus would have given her to someone outside 
the family. At the death of one of her sons Mary 
simply would have been commended to the care 
of her other sons and daughters. This would 
especially be the case in a Hebrew community 
where family ties were so strong. Any other way 
of acting would have constituted a scandal, and 
Jesus in His dying moments would scarcely have 
left such an example to the Christian world. W e 
are forced, therefore, to conclude that Jesus en-
trusted His mother to St. John precisely because: 
after His death on the cross Mary would be alto-
gether alone. She had no other children, no sons 
or daughters who could care for her. 

2. When the angel Gabriel announced to Mary 
that she would conceive and bear a son, she 
replied, "How shall this be done, because I know 
not man?" (Luke 1:34). These words of Our 
Lady to the angel, and particularly the present 

- 17 + 



tense of the verb, do not make sense unless she 
had taken at least the firm resolve to remain a 
virgin even in her married life. Catholic exegesis 
has always seen in these words of Marv such a 
firm determination. No single text of the Gos-
pels contradicts this view. Hence the expression 
"brothers of the Lord" must be interpreted in 
the light of, and not against this important text 
of St. Luke. 

3. Finally the whole tenor of the Gospel story 
demands that the expression "brothers of the 
Lord" be interpreted in a wide sense—relatives of 
Jesus, but not real brothers. T o be convinced of 
this one has only to correlate the various sections 
of the Gospel narrative. This can be done here 
in only a very summary fashion. 

St. Matthew and St. Luke relate the story of 
the infancy of Christ. Both these narratives stress 
the fact of the birth of Jesus from Mary a virgin. 
Otherwise they are unintelligible. Therefore "we 
cannot suppose that Jesus had older brothers or 
sisters. Further, the complete Gospel context ex-
cludes also younger brothers or sisters. It is al-
ways just Jesus, Mary and Joseph-in Bethlehem, 
at Jerusalem, in Nazareth—there are no others in 
that Holy Family. The "brethren" appear later, 
it is true. But they are entirely absent during the 
Infancy and Childhood of Jesus. Their late ap-
pearance, though not absolutely conclusive of 
itself, is strong confirmatory evidence that they 
were not really part of the Holy Family. A more 
telling consideration is the following. 

It is abundantly clear that St. Joseph was not 
the real father of Jesus and yet St. Luke can say: 
"Behold thy father and I have sought thee sor-

- 1 8 - ' 



rowing" (Lk. 2:48). Obviously he is using the 
term "father" in a wide sense, just as in another 
place he explains: "And Jesus . . . being, as it 
was supposed, the son of Joseph" (Lk. 3:23). If, 
therefore, St. Luke, in view of his very definite 
account of the virgin birth, can allow himself 
the use of the expression "thy father" in refer-
ence to St. Joseph, this must decidedly be inter-
preted in the light of what he had already writ-
ten of the virgin birth. The term "father" as 
used of St. Joseph must be interpreted widely to 
mean foster-father, and not real father. So, too, 
with the expression "brothers of the Lord": it 
must be interpreted in the light of the Annuncia-
tion narrative and especially the statement of 
Mary: "I know not man." It is a parallel case. 
Besides, the argument holds also for the other 
Evangelists—the fourfold Gospel story is in real-
ity one historical document. 

Then, too, many other expressions in the In-
fancy narrative as well as in that of the Public 
Life bear out the view that Jesus alone was the 
son of Mary. It is always, " . . . the child with 
Mary his mother" (Mt.' 2:11); " . . . take the 
child and his mother" (Mt. 2:13); " . . . they 
found Mary and Joseph and the infant" (Lk. 
2:16); "and Simeon blessed them and said to 
Mary his mother" (Lk. 2:34). Never is there the 
slightest suggestion of other children. Mary is 
called the "Mother of Jesus", as if He were her 
only son. She is never called the mother of any-
one else. Jesus is designated as "the son of Mary", 
and in St. Mark this is asserted with special 
emphasis (Mk. 6:3). In a word, it was sufficient 
to designate Jesus as "the son of Mary", and yet 

- 1 9 - ' 



such a title would not have distinguished Him 
if Mary had other sons. 

Therefore, to sum up an argument that could 
be made more forceful if every text were col-
lated, the whole course of the Gospel story 
excludes other children: Jesus was "the son of 
Mary"; Mary was His mother. Hence the one 
phrase that provides a difficulty must be inter-
preted widely — the "brethren" were relatives, 
indeed, of Jesus but not His real brothers. 

The Relatives of Jesus 
But, it may now reasonably be demanded, what 

connection did these "brethren" have with Jesus, 
what was the precise nature of their relationship 
to the Savior? Or, putting it another way: if the 
term "brothers" can express a wide relationship, 
and must indicate a wider relationship, than real 
blood-brothers, what exactly was this relation-
ship? 

It must be admitted at once that in the present 
state of our knowledge an exact answer to this 
question cannot be given. Several more or less 
satisfactory explanations have been proposed. 
However none of these theories can be called 
certain to the extent that it excludes all proba-
bility to opposing views. Some of the explana-
tions can be treated here, but only briefly. 

1. As we have seen, Origen and a few others 
express the opinion that the "brethren of Jesus" 
were children of St. Joseph by a previous mar-
riage. They would then be in a legal sense half-
brothers of Jesus. Now, although the proponents 
of this view (among them a number of modern 
non-Catholic writers) defend the perpetual vir-

- 2 0 - ' 



ginity of Mary, their solution is not tenable. For, 
although it has not been expressly condemned it 
certainly offends against the belief of the uni-
versal Church in the virginity of St. Joseph. It 
directly or indirectly depends upon casual state-
ments in the Apocryphal Gospels of James and 
Peter, and has no greater authority than these 
ancient though often bizarre works. St. Jerome 
speaking of this opinion classes it among the 
"ravings of the Apocryphals", and goes on to 
say: "You say that Mary did not remain a virgin; 
but I, for my part, claim more than that, namely 
that Joseph too was a virgin through Mary, that 
of a virginal marriage a virginal son might be 
born" (PL 23, 213). It is very difficult to see how 
Jerome, steeped as he was in the writings of 
those who preceded him, could have been igno-
rant of the genuine state of tradition on this 
subject. 

2. St. Jerome as well as some other Fathers of 
the Church (v.g. Chrysostom, Augustine) suggest 
that the "brethren" were cousins of Jesus on 
His mother's side. That would make them chil-
dren of the maternal aunt of Jesus, Mary of Cleo-
phas, His mother's sister (Jo. 19:25). However, 
St. Jerome is not insistent on this view and seems 
to vacillate at times. As long as he makes it clear 
that the "brethren of Jesus" are not real sons of 
Mary, Jerome does not appear too concerned 
about their precise relationship — whether they 
were cousins on the mother's side or cousins 
through St. Joseph does not greatly matter. 
Hence it does not seem important to delay longer 
in the discussion of this particular opinion: it is 
a- satisfactory solution although now not much 

- 2 1 -



in favor. 
3. Catholic scholars in recent years have come 

to look with more favor on the view that the 
"brethren" were cousins of Jesus on His foster-
father's side. This would make them children of 
Cleophas, brother (according to this view) of 
St. Joseph; and children of Mary, sister of St. 
Joseph (hence sister-in-law of Mary, mother of 
Jesus—Jo. 19:25). This opinion would be more 
in accord with that expressed by Hegesippus in 
the second century and on that account alone it 
claims many adherents. The whole question de-
pends on how one relates several Gospel texts, 
principally Mt. 27:56; Mk. 15:40; Lk. 24:10; as 
well as Jo. 19:25. These texts can be and are 
variously interpreted. There is hardly space here 
to discuss the problem completely. Suffice it to 
say that in this whole discussion there are two 
clearly distinct questions: I.— Was Mary, the 
mother of Jesus, also the mother of othdr chil-
dren called in Scripture the "brethren of the 
Lord"? This question has already been answered 
in the negative from both Scripture and Tradi-
tion. The further question: II. — What precise 
relationship did the "brethren" have to Jesus? — 
is an entirely distinct question and one that is 
open to free discussion. 

This distinction must be kept clearly in mind, 
for some recent authors attempt to treat these 
two questions as one. In so doing they claim that 
St. Jerome was not consistent in his views. This 
is to misinterpret woefully the Saint's works. 
Jerome was vehemently and always opposed to 
the view that Jesus had real brothers; but when 
it came to a discussion of the exact relationship 

I - 2 2 -



of the "brethren" to Jesus, Jerome, like those 
who followed him, saw clearly that this was an 
entirely secondary question that could be solved 
in different ways. 

IV. 
SOME FURTHER QUESTIONS 
The solution of the problem of the "brethren 

of the Lord" proposed here (they were not real 
brothers) implies that Mary was always a virgin. 
Those who interprét the "brethren" as real 
brothers of Jesus object that there are strong 
reasons for believing that Mary was not always 
a virgin. It would be well, therefore, to consider 
some of the principal objections commonly urged 
against Mary's perpetual virginity. They are not 
new despite their modern dress, since for the 
most part they were proposed by Helvidius and 
answered by St. Jerome centuries ago. They are 
still used,, though, and for that reason will be 
considered here briefly. 

1. It is claimed that the doctrine of the per-
petual virginity of the mother of Jesus was the 
belief of the early Church. Yet this doctrine was 
denied by the important writer Tertullian in the 
early part of the third century. 

Answer: Tertullian is indeed a valuable wit-
ness to some points of doctrine. However, it 
should be remembered that Tertullian, a very 
rugged individualist, broke away from the author-
ity of the Universal Church towards middle-age 
and founded an heretical sect of his own. 

His references to the virginity of Mary are 
casual and obscure, and in no instance does he 

- 2 3 Ü 



claim that his views are part Qf the teaching of 
the Church. They constitute nothing more than 
the perverse opinions of an individual heretic. 
As St. Jerome said of him: "Of Tertullian I need 
say nothing more than that he was not a son 
of the Church" (PL 23, 211). It should also be 
remembered that when Helvidius publicly denied 
Mary's perpetual virginity, he could appeal to no 
other authority with any sort of assurance than 
the heretic Tertullian. This in itself is strong 
testimony to the universal belief of Christendom 
in Mary's virginity. Tertullian's break with Tra-
dition is unimportant—one voice does not make 
a chorus. 

2. Even if the Hebrew or Aramaic languages 
had no single technical word for "cousins", the 
Greek language had such a word. If the "breth-
ren" were cousins and not real brothers, why did 
the New Testament writers who wrote in Greek 
employ the word adelphoi (brothers) instead 
of anepsioi (cousins) ? 

Answer-. It is quite true that the New Testa-
ment writers could have used the word anepsioi 
(cousins) to express their meaning, and then we 
should have no difficulty to face. However, they 
did not do so. W e have seen that even though 
they did use the term adelphoi (brothers) they 
could not have meant anything but relatives or 
kinsfolk, and that these relatives could have been 
cousins. Why did they leave the way open to 
possible ambiguity? First of all it was not a 
question of their being deliberately ambiguous-
there would have been no point in that. As the 
relationship was a question of fact, it was well 
known to the first readers of the New Testament 

- 2 4 - ' 



what exact relationship the "brethren" had to 
Jesus. Being á fact known to all, it could easily 
be verified and hence there would be little dan-
ger of confusion. So, writing in an Aramaic en-
vironment, the Evangelists could easily use a 
phrase (as they have done in other instances) 
that was a literal rendering of a commonly used 
Aramaic expression. 

If, as seems likely, the expression "brethren of 
the Lord" (or its equivalent) carried a certain 
honorary import in Aramaic, this title would 
naturallly be carried over literally into Greek. 
The near kinsfolk of Jesus on account of their 
relationship to the Master would be especially 
distinguished and so it could easily arrive that 
they would come to be referred to with the title 
of honor, "brethren of the Lord". In any case 
it is not unusual that an Aramaic or Semitic phrase 
in general should be rendered literally in New 
Testament Greek which, as everyone knows, is 
not classical Greek, but vernacular Greek with 
a Semitic coloring. As a point of considerable 
interest, reference might be made here in passing 
to the fact that two recently published pre-Chris-
tian papyri (Adler Papyri contain examples of 
the Greek word for brother (adelphos) being 
used in the meaning of relative or kinsman. 

3. In St. Matthew's Gospel it is said: "When 
his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before 
they came together, she was found with child, of 
the Holy Ghost" (Mt. 1:18). It seems clear, then, 
that after the birth of Jesus they did come to-
gether, and hence Mary was not always a virgin. 

Answers: This objection was proposed to St. 
Jerome centuries ago. It is really pointless. St. 

- 2 5 - 1 



Matthew, in this section of his Gospel is primarily 
concerned with stressing the fact of the virgin 
birth of Jesus. He is not concerned here with 
what happened afterwards. So, even if the phrase 
"before they came together" refers to marital 
relations all that is asserted is that Jesus was not 
born in -the natural way, but by the operation 
of the Holy Ghost. 

It is much more probable however, that the 
phrase "before they came together" should be 
interpreted in the light of marriage customs of 
that day. In this sense the phrase would refer to 
the time of the espousals during which the bride 
remained with her own people and at the end of 
which she was led to her husband's house. During 
the time of the espousals the spouses were looked 
upon as being almost a married couple, although 
the leading of the bride to the husband's house 
was considered the completion of the marriage 
ceremony. St. Matthew's phrase would mean, 
therefore,—during the time of the espousals (be-
fore they came together) Mary was found with 
child of the Holy Ghost. 

4. But in the same chapter of his Gospel, St. 
Matthew says of St. Joseph: "And he knew her 
not till she brought forth her first-born son" 
(Mt. 1:25). Now, as Helvidius pointed out, if he 
did not know, her "till" or "until", he knew her 
afterwards; that is, after the birth of Jesus, Joseph 
and Mary lived normally as man and wife. Be-
sides, Jesus is called "her firstborn son", if "first-
born" then there were others after Him, for 
"firstborn" is the first of many. 

Answers: There are two difficulties proposed 
here: they rest on the meaning of "till" or "until" 

H 26 -



and "firstborn". As for the force of the phrase 
"he did not know her till": this must be inter-
preted in its circumstances. Again, St. Matthew 
is stressing the fact of the virgin birth of Jesus. 
He is emphatically, by repetition, denying to St. 
Joseph any part in the birth of Jesus—this holy 
birth was through the Holy Ghost. 

Moreover, the expression "did not know her 
until" can have an exclusive force; it can refer 
to what did not happen before a certain event 
without saying anything of what happened after-
wards. In the light of the whole Gospel context 
and the arguments already presented, it must have 
this meaning here. Nor is this an unusual mean-
ing of the phrase in any language. W e could say 
of a certain wicked man that he did not repent 
until his death, and yet we would not mean that 
he repented after death. Then in II Kings (II 
Sam.) 6:23 we read: "Therefore Michol the 
daughter of Saul had no . child till the day of her 
death." Surely no one would conclude that she 
had children after her death! 

As for the term "firstborn", (which is very 
likely not an authentic part of the text in Mt. 
1:25, but does occur in Lk. 2:7) it does not at 
all follow that since Jesus is called the firstborn 
son of Mary she had other sons afterwards. An 
only son could correctly be called "firstborn 
son", and was so called in Hebrew law since the 
term "firstborn" had a technical or legal signifi-
cation. The Mosaic legislation prescribed certain 
duties and privileges for the first-born son (v.g. 
Ex. 13:2, 34:19 etc.) whether he was the only son 
or the first of many, as long as he was "first". W e 
still say quite correctly of a mother that she died 

- 2 7 - ' 



giving birth to her firstborn son. In the case of 
Jesus, He was the firstborn and only son of His 
mother Mary. 

V. 
CONCLUSION 

The purpose of the preceding pages has been 
to endeavor to demonstrate that the expression 
"brethren of the Lord", used in the New Testa-
ment of certain individuals, does not constitute 
a valid objection against the belief of the Cath-
olic Church in the perpetual virginity of Mary 
the mother of Jesus. This belief, solidly founded 
in Tradition, is confirmed by the complete con-
text of the New Testament. It cannot be lightly 
questioned by anyone who retains a measure of 
reverence for the Faith of the early Church and 
is convinced of the historical accuracy of the 
New Testament writings. 

In fact, it is difficult to see why anyone should 
wish to detract from the glory of the mother of 
Jesus by denying to her a prerogative that Fa-
thers and Doctors and Saints through the cen-
turies have recognized as peculiarly hers. In the 
early ages of the Church it became the custom 
to refer to her simply as The Virgin or Mary 
Ever Virgin. Such titles had a doctrinal import. 
They were the expression of the mind of the 
Church, and were applied naturally to her whom 
Elizabeth saluted as "the mother of my Lord" 
(Lk. 1:43). For it was only fitting that the sanct-
uary in which the Incarnate Word first found 
refuge in this world should have been left .for-
ever pure and intact. The dwelling which was 

- 2 8 - ' 



pecoliarly His should not have been entered by 
any other. It does sometimes appear, therefore, 
that those who write so bitterly in attempting 
to diminish Mary's glory must be led on by 
hatred for the Catholic Church or that they seek 
cheap notoriety. Perhaps they are like that un-
known man of Ephesus in the story quoted by 
St. Jerome, who, since he could think of nothing 
good to do that he might become famous, decided 
to set fire to the great temple of the goddess 
Diana, that by this wicked deed he might gain 
notoriety. If so, they would merit the apt re-
proach of St. Jerome to Helvidius: "You have 
set fire to the temple of the Body of the Lord; 
you have contaminated the sanctuary of the 
Holy Ghost" (PL 23, 210). Much better it would 
be if they would use their time and talents to ful-
fill Mary's own prophecy, "Behold from hence-
forth all nations shall call me blessed" (Lk. 1:48). 

- 2 9 - S