30. Relation of Joseph to Mary Brothers of Jesus. (Chapter 3. Announcement of the Conception of Jesus) (The Life of Jesus Critically Examined) (Strauss, David Friedrich)

OUR Gospels, in the true spirit of the ancient legend, find it unbecoming to allow the mother of Jesus, so long as she bore the heavenly germ, to be approached or profaned by an earthly husband. Consequently Luke (ii. 5.) represents the connection between Joseph and Mary, prior to the birth of Jesus, as a betrothment merely. And, as it is stated respecting the father of Plato, after his wife had become pregnant by Apollo: so likewise it is remarked of Joseph in Matthew (i. 25.) kai ou)k e)ginwsken au)thn e(wj ou( e)teke ton ui(on au)thj ton prwtotokon. In each of these kindred passages the Greek word ewj (till) must evidently receive the same. interpretation. Now in the first quotation the meaning is incontestably this: that till the time of Plato's birth his father abstained from intercourse with his wife, but subsequently assumed his conjugal rights, since we hear of Plato's brothers. In reference, therefore, to the parents of Jesus, the ewj cannot have a different signification; in any case it indicates precisely the same limitation. So again the expression prwtotokoj (firstborn) used in reference to Jesus in both Gospels (Matt. i. 25, Luke ii. 7.) supposes that Mary had other children, for as Lucian says: e)i men prwtoj, ou) monoj.ei) de monoj, ou) prwtoj. Even in the same Gospels (Matt. xiii. 55, Luke viii. 19.) mention is made of "brothers of Jesus." But this did not continue to satisfy the orthodox: as the veneration for Mary rose even higher, she who had once become fruitful by divine agency was not subsequently to be profaned by the common relations of life. The opinion that Mary after the birth of Jesus became the wife of Joseph, was early ranked among the heresies, and the orthodox Fathers sought every means to escape from it and to combat ^{P.135} it. They contended that according to the exegetical interpretation of e(wj ou(, it sometimes affirmed or denied a thing, not merely up to a certain limit, but beyond that limitation and for ever; and that the words of Matthew ou)k e)gnwken au)ton excluded a matrimonial connection between Joseph and Mary for all time.

In like manner it was asserted of the term e(wj prin that it did not necessarily include the subsequent birth of other children, but that it merely excluded' any previous birth. But in order to banish the thought of a matrimonial connection between Mary and Joseph, not only grammatically but physiologically, they represented Joseph as a very old man, under whom Mary was placed for control and protection only; and the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament they regarded as the children of Joseph by a former marriage, But this was not all; soon it was insisted not only that Mary never became the wife of Joseph, but that in giving birth to Jesus she did not lose her virginity. But even the conservation of Mary's virginity did not long continue to satisfy: perpetual virginity was likewise required on the part of Joseph. It was not enough that he had no connection with Mary; it was also necessary that His entire life should be one of celibacy. Accordingly, though Epiphanius allows that Joseph had sons by a former marriage, Jerome rejects the supposition as an impious and audacious invention; and from that time the brothers of Jesus were degraded to the rank of cousins.

Some modern theologians agree with the Fathers of the Church in maintaining that no matrimonial connection subsisted at any time between Joseph and Mary, and believe themselves able to explain the gospel expressions which appear to assert the contrary. In reference to the term first born, Olshausen contends that it signifies an only son: no less than the eldest of several. Paulus allows that here he is right, and Clemens and Fritzsche seek in vain to demonstrate the impossibility of this signification. For when it is said in Exod. xiii. 2, prwtotokon prwtogenej (LXX) it was not merely a firstborn followed by others subsequently born, who was sanctified to the Lord, but the fruit of the body of that mother of whom no other child had previously been born. Therefore the term prwtotokoj must bear also this signification. Truly however we must confess with Winer and others, on the other side, that if a narrator who was acquainted with the whole sequel of the story used that expression, we should be tempted to understand it in its primitive sense; since had the author intended to exclude other children, he would rather have ^{P.136} used the word monogenhj or would have connected it with prwtotokoj. If this be not quite decisive, the reasoning of Fritzsche in reference to the e(wj ou( etc., is more convincing. He rejects the citations adduced in support of the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church, proving that this expression according to its primitive signification affirms only to a given limit, and beyond that limit supposes the logical opposite of the affirmation to take place; a signification which it loses only when the context shows clearly that the opposite is impossible in the nature of things. For example, if it is said "he knew her not until she died," it is self-evident that the negation, during the time elapsed till death, cannot be transformed after death into an affirmation; but when it is said, as in Matthew, "he knew her not until she brought forth," the giving birth to the divine fruit opposes no impossibility to the establishment of the conjugal relations; on the contrary it renders it possible i.e. suitable for them now to take place.

Olshausen, impelled by the same doctrinal motives which influenced the Fathers, is led in this instance to contradict both the evidence of grammar and of logic. He thinks that Joseph, without wishing to impair the sanctity of marriage, must have concluded from his experience that his marriage with Mary had "another object than the production of children; besides it was but natural in the last descendant of the house of David, and of that particular branch from which the Messiah should come forth, to terminate her race in this last and eternal offshoot."

A curious ladder may be formed of these different beliefs and superstitions in relation to the connection between Mary and Joseph.

1. Contemporaries of Jesus and composers of the genealogies: Joseph and Mary man and wife Jesus the offspring of their marriage.

2. The age and authors of our histories of the birth of Jesus: Mary and Joseph betrothed only; Joseph having no participation in the conception of the child, and previous to its birth no conjugal connection with Mary.

3. Olshausen and others: subsequent to the birth of Jesus, Joseph, though then the husband of Mary, relinquishes his matrimonial rights.

4. Epiphanius, Protevangelium Jacobi and others: Joseph a decrepit, old man, no longer to be thought of as a husband; the children attributed to him are of a former marriage. More especially it is not as a bride and wife that he receives Mary; he takes her merely under his guardianship.

5. Protevang., Chrysostom and others: Mary's virginity was not only not destroyed by any subsequent births of children by Joseph but was not in the slightest degree impaired by the birth of Jesus.. . . . ''.

6. Jerome: not Mary only but Joseph also observed an absolute virginity, and the pretended brothers of Jesus were not his sons but merely cousins to Jesus. .

The opinion that the a)delfoi (brothers) and a)delfai (sisters of Jesus) mentioned in the New Testament, were merely half brothers or indeed cousins, appears in its origin, as shown above, together with the notion that no matrimonial connection ever subsisted between Joseph and Mary, as the mere invention of superstition, a circumstance highly prejudicial to such an opinion. It is however no less true that purely exegetical grounds exist, in virtue of which theologians who were free from prejudice have decided, that the opinion that Jesus actually had brothers is untenable.

Had we merely the following passages, Matth. xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3, where the people of Nazareth astonished at the wisdom of their countryman, in order to mark his well known origin, immediately after having spoken of tektwn (the carpenter) his father, and His mother Mary, mention by name his brothers: James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, together with his sisters whose names are not given; again Matth. xii. 4G, Luke viii. 19, when His mother and his brethren come to Jesus; John ii. 12, where Jesus journeys with his mother and his brethren to Capernaum; Acts i. 14, where they are mentioned in immediate connection with his mother if we had these passages only, we could not for a moment hesitate to recognize here real brothers of Jesus at least on the mother's side, children of Joseph and Mary; not only on account of the proper signification of the word a)delfoj, but also in consequence of its continual conjunction with Mary and Joseph. Even the passages in which it is remarked that his brethren did not believe on Jesus, John vii.5, and Mark iii. 21, compared with 31, where according to the most probable explanation, the brothers of Jesus with his mother went out to lay hold of him as one beside himself furnish no adequate grounds for relinquishing the proper signification of a)delfoj.

Many theologians have interpreted a)delfoi I)hsou. in the last cited passage half brothers, sons of Joseph by a former marriage, alleging that the real brothers of Jesus must have believed in him, but this is a mere assumption. The difficulty seems greater when we read in John xix. 26 f. that Jesus on the cross, enjoined John to be a son to his mother; an injunction it is not easy to regard as suitable,,under the supposition that Mary had other children, except indeed these were half brothers and unfriendly to Jesus. Nevertheless we can imagine the existence both of external circumstances and of individual feelings which might have influenced Jesus to confide his mother to John rather than to his brothers. That these brothers appeared in company with His Apostles after the ascension (Acts i. 14,) is no proof that they must have believed in Jesus at the time of his death.

The real perplexity in the matter, however, originates in this: that besides the James and Joses spoken of as the brothers of Jesus, two men of the same name are mentioned as the sons of another Mary (Mark xv. 40, 47, xvi. 1, Matt. xxvii. 56,) without doubt that Mary who is designated, John xix. 25, as the sister of the mother of Jesus, and the wife of Cleophas: so that we have a James and a Joses not only among the children of Mary the mother of Jesus, but again among her sister's children. We meet with several others among those immediately connected with Jesus, whose names are identical. In the lists of the Apostles (Matth. x.2ff, Luke vi. 14 ff.) we have two more of the name of James: that is four, the brother and cousin of Jesus included; two more of the name of Judas: that is three, the brother of Jesus included; two of the name of Simon, also making three with the brother of Jesus of the sime name. The question naturally arises, whether the same individual is not here taken as distinct persons? The suspicion is almost unavoidable in reference to James. As James the son of Alpheus is, in the list of the Apostles, introduced after the son of Zebedee, as the second, perhaps the younger; and as James the cousin of Jesus is called "the less" (Mark. xv. 40;) and since by comparing John xix. 25, we find that the latter is called the son of Cleophas, it is possible that the name Cleophas given to the husband of Mary's sister, and the name Alpheus given to the father of the apostle, may be only different forms of the Hebrew? Thus would the second James enumerated among the Apostles and the cousin of Jesus of that name be identical, and there would remain besides him only the son of Zebedee and the brother of Jesus. Now in the Acts (xv. 13) a James appears who takes a prominent part in the so-called apostolic council, and as, according to Acts xil. 2, the son of Zebedee had previously been put to death, and as in the foregoing portion of the book of the Acts no mention is made of any other James besides the son of Alpheus (i. 13) so this James, of whom (Acts xv. 13,) no more precise description is given, can be no other than the son of Alpheus. iiut Paul speaks of a James (Gal. i. 19) the .Lord's brother, whom he saw at Jerusalem, and it, is doubtless he of whom he speaks in connection with Cephas and John as the "pillars" of the Church-for this is precisely in character with the (Apostle) James as he appeared at the apostolic council-so that this James may be considered as identical with the Lord's brother, and the rather as the expression "but other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Gal. i. 19,) makes it appear as if the Lord's brother were a recognised member of the Church. Also the ancient tradition ^{P.139} which represents James the Just, a brother of Jesus, as the first head of the Church at Jerusalem, agrees. But admitting the James of the Acts to be identical with the distinguished Apostle of that name, then is he the son of Alpheus, and not the son of Joseph; consequently if he be at the same time a)delfoj Kuriou, then a)delfoj cannot signify a brother. Now if Alpheus and Cleophas are admitted to be the same individual, the husband of the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, it is obvious that a)delfoj, used to denote the relationship of his son to Jesus, must be taken in the signification, cousin. If, after this manner, James the Apostle the son of Alpheus be identified with the cousin, and the cousin be identified with the brother of Jesus of the same name, it is obvious that I)oudaj I)akwbou in the catalogue of the Apostles in Luke (Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13,) must be translated brother of Joses (son of Alpheus); and this Apostle Jude must be held as identical with the Jude a)delfoj I)hsou, that is, with the cousin of the Lord and son of Mary Cleophas; (though the name of Jude is never mentioned in connection with this Mary.) If the Epistle of Jude in our canon be authentic, it is confirmatory of the above deduction, that the author (verse 1) designates himself as the a)delfoj (brother of James). Some moreover have identified the Apostle Simon with the Simon enumerated among the brothers of Jesus (Mark vi. 3,) and who according to a tradition of the Church succeeded James as head of the Church at Jerusalem; so that Joses alone appears without further designation or appellative.

If, accordingly, those spoken of as a)delfoi I)hsou were merely cousins, and three of these were Apostles, it must excite surprise that not only in the Acts, (i. 14,) after an enumeration of the Apostles, the brothers of Jesus are separately particularized, but that also (1 Cor. ix. 5.) they appear to be a class distinct from the Apostles.

Perhaps, also, the passage Gal. 1.19 ought to be understood as indicating that James, the Lord's brother, was not an Apostle. It therefore, the a)delfoi seem thus to be extruded from the number of the Apostles, it is yet more difficult to regard them merely as the cousins of Jesus, since they appear in so many places immediately associated with the mother of Jesus, and in two or three passages only are two men bearing the same names mentioned in connection with the other Mary, who accordingly would be their real mother. The Greek word a)delfoj, may indeed signify, in language which pretends not to precision, as well as the Hebrew ah a more distant relative; but as it is repeatedly used to express the relationship of these persons to Jesus, and is in no instance replaced by a)neyioj a word which is not foreign to the New Testament language when the relationship of cousin is to be denoted (Col. iv. 10.) it cannot well be taken in any other than its proper signification. Further, it need only be pointed out that the highest degree of un- ^{P.140} certainty exists respecting not only the identity of the names Alphaeus and Cleophas, upon which the identity of James the cousin of Jesus and of the Apostle James the Less rests, lint also regarding the translation of Ioudaj Iakwbou by the brother of James; and likewise respecting the assumed identity of the author of the last Catholic Epistle with the Apostle Jude.

Thus the web of this identification gives way at all points, and we are forced back to the position from which we set out; so that we have again real brothers of Jesus, also two cousins distinct from these brothers, though bearing the same names with two of them, besides some Apostles of the same names with both brothers and cousins.

To find two pairs of sons of the same names in a family is, indeed, not so uncommon as to become a source of objection. It is, however, remarkable that the same James who in the Epistle to the Galatians is designated a)delfoj Kuriou (the Lord's brother), must unquestionably, according to the Acts of the Apostles, be regarded as the son of Alplieus; which he could not be if this expression signified a brother. So that there is perplexity on every side, which can be solved only (and then, indeed, but negatively and without historical result) by admitting the existence of obscurity and error on this point in the New Testament writers, and even in the very earliest Christian traditions; error which, in matters of involved relationships and family names, is far more easily fallen into than avoided. We have consequently no ground for denying that the mother of Jesus bore her husband several other children besides Jesus, younger, and perhaps also older; the latter, because the representation in the New Testament that Jesus was the first-born may belong no less to the myth than the representation of the Fathers that he was an only son.