Who were the “brothers” of Jesus?

[Wrangler]

You’re accusing me of “not taking responsibility,” but let’s stay with the actual text.

No. I showed repeatedly how you are not taking responsibility. I‘m done.

 

[Soul.og]

No. I showed repeatedly how you are not taking responsibility.

You keep saying I’m “not taking responsibility,” but you still haven’t addressed the actual point. I asked a very simple, text‑based question:

Was I wrong to say Mary is Jesus’ biological mother when Scripture explicitly says He was conceived in Her womb, is the fruit of Her womb, and that She gave birth to Him?

Those statements aren’t my interpretation—they are the plain wording of Matthew 1:20, Luke 1:31; 1:42; 2:7, and Galatians 4:4.

You haven’t explained how those passages could mean anything other than biological motherhood. Instead of engaging the texts, you’ve repeated the same accusation without answering the evidence.

So let’s stay with the actual issue:

If those verses don’t mean Mary is Jesus’ biological mother, what do they mean?

I‘m done.

You’re free to step away, but the central issue remains untouched. Scripture never calls Joseph, Simon, James, or Judas sons of Mary, and you haven’t presented a single verse that does. Until that textual evidence is presented, your objection doesn’t address the argument. If you ever find such a verse, I’m open to discussing it.

 

[Soul.og]

I wouldn’t bother...

I would and I will.

[...] the RCC have applied different meanings to the term “brothers”, (adelphos) insisting that these were relatives but not siblings....when there was no Scriptural reason for such an idea.

The Catholic Church isn’t “applying different meanings” to adelphos—the broader semantic range of the word is already present throughout Scripture itself. In the Septuagint, adelphos regularly refers to relatives who are not biological siblings, such as Abraham and Lot in Genesis 13:8 or Laban and Jacob in Genesis 29:12. That’s not a Catholic reinterpretation; that’s simply how Koine Greek functions in scriptural usage.

And in the specific case of Jesus’ “brothers”—Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas—Scripture explicitly names another Mary, not Mary the Mother of Jesus, as the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25). So the idea that these “brothers” were not Mary’s biological children is not something imposed onto the text; it arises directly from the text itself.

Could the word “adelphos” refer to Jesus’ disciples, or spiritual brothers? This idea conflicts with the Scriptures....

Scripture regularly uses adelphos for disciples or spiritual brothers. For example:

• Matthew 12:49–50 — Jesus points to His disciples and calls them His “brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — “You are all brothers,” addressed to His followers.
• Acts 1:15; 9:30 — believers are called “brothers.”
• Romans 1:13 — Paul refers to fellow Christians as “brothers.”

So it’s simply incorrect to claim that adelphos cannot refer to disciples or spiritual kin. Scripture itself uses the term that way repeatedly.

Were Jesus’ “brothers” actually his “cousins”?
The Greek Scriptures use distinct words for “brother,” “relative,” and “cousin.”....“syngenēs” is used for a relative (cousin or close blood relative) in Luke 21:16....and in Col 4:10, “anepsios” is used specifically for a cousin.”

The Greek language can distinguish “brother,” “relative,” and “cousin,” but Scripture does not consistently use those distinctions—especially in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Old Testament that shaped New Testament vocabulary.

Koine Greek includes:

• ἀνεψιός (anepsios) — cousin (Colossians 4:10); also used more broadly in Greek for “nephew”
• συγγενίς (syngenis) — female relative (Luke 1:36)
• συγγενής (syngenes) — relative/kinsman, fellow countryman (Mark 6:4; Luke 1:58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; John 18:26; Acts 10:24; Romans 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21)
• ἀδελφός (adelphos) — brother, kinsman, relative, fellow Israelite, fellow believer
• ἀδελφή (adelphe) — sister, kinswoman, female believer

These distinctions exist, but Scripture does not use them with modern English precision.

The LXX routinely uses adelphos to translate the broad Hebrew term ’ach, which covers many kinds of kinship. As a result, adelphos often refers to relatives who are not biological siblings:

1. Abraham and Lot (uncle–nephew)

• Genesis 13:8 (LXX): “We are adelphoi.”
• Genesis 14:14 (LXX): Lot is called Abraham’s adelphos.

2. Jacob and Laban (uncle–nephew)

• Genesis 29:15 (LXX): Laban calls Jacob adelphos.

3. Eleazar’s daughters and their cousins

• 1 Chronicles 23:22 (LXX): their cousins are called their adelphoi.

This is not an anomaly—it is the standard LXX pattern.

So in scriptural Greek, adelphos has a much wider semantic range than modern English “brother.”

Even when a more specific term existed, NT writers did not always use it. For example, when Luke identifies Elizabeth as Mary’s relative, he uses syngenis, not anepsios, even though Christian tradition understands them as cousins (Luke 1:36). This shows NT writers were comfortable using broader kinship terms, just as the LXX did.

More importantly, the Gospels explicitly identify another Mary—not Mary the Mother of Jesus—as the mother of James and Joseph, two of the men called Jesus’ “brothers” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3:

• “Mary the mother of James” (Mark 16:1)
• “Mary the mother of James” (Luke 24:10)
• “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Matthew 27:56)
• “Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph” (Mark 15:40)
• “Mary the wife of Clopas,” identified as the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus (John 19:25)

These passages consistently distinguish:

• Mary the Mother of Jesus, and
• Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Mary of Clopas/Cleophas)

This is not theological inference—it is explicit textual evidence.

So yes, Greek can say “cousin.” But:

• Scripture often uses broader family terms instead of the narrowest one.
• Adelphos frequently includes relatives who are not biological siblings.
• NT writers did not feel obligated to use anepsios even when a cousin‑type relationship was involved.
• And Scripture itself identifies two of Jesus’ “brothers” as the sons of another Mary, not Mary the Mother of Jesus.

The question isn’t “Why didn’t the NT use the word for cousin?” The real question is:

Why does the NT repeatedly identify these men as the sons of another Mary?

Until that is answered, the claim that Jesus’ “brothers” must be Mary’s biological children is not supported by the text.

 

[Aunty Jane]

@Soul.og none of your response proves anything but the Catholic position on the worship of “Jesus as God” and Mary as “the mother of God”....neither of which are Christian teachings....they are both Catholic adoptions which have been around and justified for so long that no one in your church can question them. I questioned them, and through careful Bible study, saw through that justification.

The very fact that Jesus had siblings fights with your mariolatry. That is at the base of all of all Catholic belief.

A dead giveaway for all false worship is a change in the nature of God, to a multiplicity of gods, even the combining of three gods into one entity, so that the same god can be in three different places at once and can talk to one another....how on earth did the church get away with that idea? They forbade access to the Bible, so that no one could find out what the Bible said, but instead had to take the word of apostate priests just (as it was in Jesus’s day). It was these apostate priests who orchestrated the murder of the Christ, in much the same way as the Catholic church orchestrated the murder of anyone who disagreed with their beliefs or conduct. Torture and bloodshed was never part of true worship. The death penalty was applied to only certain crimes.....none of which involved prolonged torture or forced confessions.

Israel’s God was “one” not three. (Deut 6:4) He does not change...ever....

You would not be here arguing for Catholic doctrine if someone had not indoctrinated you with those ideas.
Mary was never given the place that Catholicism gives her.....all of that was a Catholic invention to accommodate the mother goddess worship that they wanted to adopt....clearly seen in the adoration of idols that God’s word forbids. (Ex 20:4-5)

You can argue all you want to about the possibilities but you cannot argue about where the ideas came from in the first place....all of them pagan to their bootstraps.

 

[Soul.og]

@Soul.og none of your response proves anything [...]

You’re dismissing the argument without engaging any part of it. If you believe the evidence “proves nothing,” then identify which premise is wrong, which citation is incorrect, or which conclusion doesn’t follow.

Simply asserting “none of it proves anything” is not a rebuttal—it’s just avoiding the substance.

If you want to challenge the argument, address the actual points. Otherwise, your dismissal carries no weight.

The very fact that Jesus had siblings [...]

Your argument assumes the very point under dispute. You treat Jesus’ having biological siblings as an established fact, yet you haven’t provided the textual evidence needed to support that claim.

In a debate, the burden of proof lies with the one asserting a biological relationship, not with the one questioning it. Until you can show that the New Testament uses adelphoi here in a strictly biological sense—rather than in the broader kinship sense common in Semitic and LXX usage—your conclusion doesn’t follow.

 

[Aunty Jane]

You’re dismissing my points without addressing them. If you believe they prove nothing, then show specifically where the argument fails. Simply asserting that they "prove nothing" isn’t a rebuttal.



Your argument assumes as proven the very point under dispute. You speak as though Jesus’ biological siblings are an established fact, yet you haven’t provided the evidence that would make that claim stand. In a debate, the burden of proof rests on the person asserting a biological relationship, not on the one questioning it. Until you demonstrate that the New Testament uses “brothers” in a strictly biological sense—rather than the broader kinship usage common in Semitic cultures—your conclusion doesn’t follow.

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish.....but you have to first prove that your church’s interpretation of Scripture is accurate.
My years of Bible study rule out everything the RCC has presented as “Christianity” because I cannot find any of its doctrines to be supported by the teachings of Jesus and his apostles....all are later adoptions whose source become obvious with a little research.....all pagan ideas, grafted over ambiguous Scripture.

See Posts #4, #6 and #19....it’s all been said...no further arguments from me are necessary.

We will all be judged on what we accept as truth because that comes from the heart, not just from the head.
No one can come to the Son without an invitation from his Father....(John 6:44; 65)

 

[shepherdsword]

LOL…

Utter man-MADE nonsense.

Jesus is FROM Above.
Humans are FROM the Earth, Below the Above!

Jesus’ Spirit is FROM Above.
Jesus’ Soul is FROM Above.
Jesus’ PREPARED BODY is FROM Above.

Sounds like you have an antichrist position:

1 Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

This proves Jesus came in the flesh and was of the seed of David:

Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

 

[Taken]

Sounds like you have an antichrist position:

Appears you are a false accuser.

1 Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

This proves Jesus came in the flesh and was of the seed of David:

Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

And?

Origin …

What did Jesus say?

John 17:
[1] These words spake Jesus..

[8] For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that
I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Again… origin.

 

[shepherdsword]

Appears you are a false accuser.

Do you confess that Jesus came in the flesh?

And?

Origin …

What did Jesus say?

John 17:
[1] These words spake Jesus..

[8] For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that
I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Again… origin.

Yes, the Father sent Jesus and He came through the seed of David:

Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

 

[Taken]

Do you confess that Jesus came in the flesh?

Yep…

Yes, the Father sent Jesus and He came through the seed of David:

Sent, from where?
What do you mean “through”?

Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
[/QUOTE]

What does MADE (of the seed) mean to you?

 

[shepherdsword]

Yep…

Then stop denying it.

Sent, from where?
What do you mean “through”?

Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

What does MADE (of the seed) mean to you?

It meant He was MADE from the seed of David. What does it mean to you

 

[Taken]

Then stop denying it.

It ….”that Jesus came in the flesh”

Gaslighter, hard for me to deny what I never said.

Where is your “proof”… quote me what you claimed for me..

It meant He was MADE from the seed of David. What does it mean to you

MADE a
Genealogical / legal descendant of Mary of the House of (king) David..(ancestor of Jacob, Issac, Abraham…)…
Lawfully entitled to be king over Abraham’s Promised Land.

Heb 2:
[16] For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

 

[Mosheli]

· "Is this not the carpenter’s Son? Is not His Mother called Mary? Are not James and Joseph and Simon and Judas His brothers?" (Matt. 13:55)

· "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?" (Mk. 6:3)

....

· “When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less), and Salome (the mother of the sons of Zebedee), bought spices, so that they might come and anoint him” (Mk. 16:1)

· Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less). The other women with them told these things to the apostles" (Lk. 24:10)

· “Mary Magdalene, Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less) and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Salome)” (Matt. 27:56)

· “Mary Magdalene, Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James the Less and Joseph, and Salome (the mother of the sons of Zebedee)” (Mk. 15:40)

· “His Mother (Mary of Joseph), His (Jesus's) Mother’s sister Mary, the wife of Clopas/Cleophas (and the mother of James the Less and Joseph), and Mary Magdalene” (Jn. 19:25)

The first two verses:

· "Is this not the carpenter’s Son? Is not His Mother called Mary? Are not James and Joseph and Simon and Judas His brothers?" (Matt. 13:55)

· "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?" (Mk. 6:3)

Note they mention the father, the mother and the brothers which surely forms a family unit. The brothers are related to the former and can't just be cousins (no aunty/uncle mentioned) and can't just be fellow countrymen or "brothers" in the faith.
And they can't be half brothers as only one father and one mother mentioned.

The other verses about mother of James the Less:
What proof from bible (not fathers) do we have that James the apostle was the same as James brother of Jesus? Bible says his brothers didn't accept him until after the Crucifiction, so how could they be among the 12 disciples/apostles? Does the epistle of James and Jude say they were apostles?

 

[Soul.og]

See Posts #4, #6 and #19....it’s all been said...no further arguments from me are necessary.

You’ve been treating Jesus’ biological siblings as an established fact, yet in posts #4, #6, and #19— and elsewhere—you still haven’t provided the evidence required to support that claim. This is a debate forum, and assertions need to be substantiated.

Until you can demonstrate that the New Testament uses adelphoi in an exclusively biological sense—rather than in the broader kinship sense common in Semitic cultures and reflected throughout the LXX—your conclusion doesn’t follow.

 

[Soul.og]

The first two verses:

· "Is this not the carpenter’s Son? Is not His Mother called Mary? Are not James and Joseph and Simon and Judas His brothers?" (Matt. 13:55)

· "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?" (Mk. 6:3)

Note they mention the father, the mother and the brothers which surely forms a family unit.

The context in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 certainly presents a household, but calling Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas Jesus’ “brothers” makes them no more His biological siblings than calling Jesus “the carpenter’s Son” makes Joseph His biological father.

Both statements reflect how the townspeople perceived the relationships, not what the Gospel writers are asserting biologically. The text reports their assumptions; it does not confirm them.

If “carpenter’s Son” does not prove biological paternity, then “brothers” in the same sentence cannot, by itself, prove biological maternity.

The other verses about mother of James the Less:
What proof from bible (not fathers) do we have that James the apostle was the same as James brother of Jesus?

You asked what scriptural proof exists that the James called Jesus’ adelphos is the same James known as “the Less” and “the son of Alphaeus.” The relevant passages are these:

• “Is this not the carpenter’s Son? Is not His Mother called Mary? Are not James and Joseph and Simon and Judas His brothers?” (Matthew 13:55)
• “Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?” (Mark 6:3)
• “I saw none of the other apostles except James, the brother of the Lord.” (Galatians 1:18-19)

The key issue is the meaning of adelphos. In Koine Greek, adelphos has a wide semantic range: it can mean a biological brother, but it can also mean a kinsman, a relative, a fellow Israelite, or a fellow believer. The Septuagint uses adelphos for many non‑sibling relationships (Abraham and Lot; Jacob and Laban; Eleazar’s daughters and their cousins). So the word itself does not settle the question.

What does matter is the contextual evidence. The Gospels explicitly identify another Mary—not Mary the Mother of Jesus—as the mother of a James and a Joseph:

• Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas), the mother of James (Mark 16:1)
• Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas), the mother of James (Luke 24:10)
• Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas), the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56)
• Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas), the mother of James the Less and Joseph (Mark 15:40)
• Mary the wife of Clopas (Cleophas), identified as the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus (John 19:25)

These passages consistently distinguish:

• Mary the Mother of Jesus, and
• Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Mary of Clopas/Cleophas)

Since the Gospels name this Mary as the mother of a James and a Joseph, and since Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 list a James and Joseph among Jesus’ adelphoi, the most natural reading is that these are the same individuals.

There were only two apostles named James:

1. James son of Zebedee, and
2. James son of Alphaeus.

James son of Zebedee had a brother named John—not Joseph. James son of Alphaeus, however, had a brother named Judas/Thaddeus—matching the list in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3.

This makes James son of Alphaeus the only candidate who fits all the data.

So the scriptural case is:

• The Gospels list a James and Joseph as Jesus’ adelphoi.
• The Gospels also list a James and Joseph as the sons of Mary of Clopas, not Mary the Mother of Jesus.
• Paul calls this James an apostle (Galatians 1:19).
• The only apostle named James who fits the family pattern is James son of Alphaeus.

This is not based on later tradition—it is based on the internal evidence of the New Testament itself.

Finally, you asked why the writings of the early Church Fathers matter. They matter because they confirm that the earliest Christians—those closest to the apostolic age—understood Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas to be the sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas (or Alphaeus), making them Jesus’ relatives, not the biological children of Mary of Nazareth.

But even without the Fathers, the scriptural text already points in that direction.

 

[Mosheli]

The context in Matt. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3 does strongly suggest a familial relationship, but calling Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas Jesus’s "brothers" makes them no more His biological siblings than calling Jesus the "the carpenter's Son" makes Joseph His biological father.



· "Is this not the carpenter’s Son? Is not His Mother called Mary? Are not James and Joseph and Simon and Judas His brothers?" (Matt. 13:55)

· "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?" (Mk. 6:3)

· "Then after three years, I did go up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas (Peter), and I stayed with him for fifteen days. However, I did not set eyes on any of the other apostles, except for James, the brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1:18-19)

The Koine Greek word ἀδελφός (adelphos), usually translated as 'brother' in English, has a wide range of definitions: "a brother, near kinsman, or relative, e.g., cousin, nephew, etc.", "a fellow countryman", "a fellow member of the Christian community", or "an associate". In the plural, ἀδελφοί (adelphoi) often functions as a gender-inclusive term meaning "brothers and sisters".

Contextual evidence strongly suggests that the James mentioned in the Gospels (Matt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3) and by Paul (Gal. 1:19) was the same individual—a kinsman/relative of Jesus who was also one of the Twelve Apostles. Given that there were only two apostles named James (of Zebedee and of Alphaeus), and that the latter had a brother named Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), it is reasonable to conclude that James son of Alphaeus was the 'Lord’s brother' referenced in early church tradition.

Additionally, there's another Mary, the sister-in-law of Jesus's Mother, and wife of Clopas/Cleophas, who was the mother of at least two sons named "James" and "Joseph":

· “When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less), and Salome (the mother of the sons of Zebedee), bought spices, so that they might come and anoint him” (Mk. 16:1)

· Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less). The other women with them told these things to the apostles" (Lk. 24:10)

· “Mary Magdalene, Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less) and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Salome)” (Matt. 27:56)

· “Mary Magdalene, Mary (of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James the Less and Joseph, and Salome (the mother of the sons of Zebedee)” (Mk. 15:40)

· “His Mother (Mary of Joseph), His (Jesus's) Mother’s sister Mary, the wife of Clopas/Cleophas (and the mother of James the Less and Joseph), and Mary Magdalene” (Jn. 19:25)

Lastly, what is your reason for not wanting to discuss the writings of the early Church Fathers on this topic, one of whom wrote that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were the sons of Mary and Clopas/Cleophas (or Alphaeus), and thus Jesus's cousins?

I note that Mary mother of James and Joseph isn't called mother of Judas/Jude which would suggest not the same as the "brother" of Jesus? (Though it is possible that they only listed two of the four brothers.)

I grant that Gal. 1:18-19 would appear to imply that James brother of the lord is an apostle but it is possible that Gal. 1:18-19 is saying he didn't see any other apostles except for Cephas/Peter and that he also saw James? I'd have to check the interlinear to be sure. Or maybe there were more than 12 apostles since Paul is also called an apostle?

I just preferred to keep to canonical biblical evidence aside from later church fathers which are not canonical biblical.

 

[Soul.og]

I note that Mary mother of James and Joseph isn't called mother of Judas/Jude [...] (Though it is possible that they only listed two of the four brothers.)

It’s possible, and it’s not unusual. The Gospels often mention only two or three of the four brothers at a time, so selective naming is already part of the pattern.

I grant that Gal. 1:18-19 would appear to imply that James brother of the lord is an apostle but it is possible that Gal. 1:18-19 is saying he didn't see any other apostles except for Cephas/Peter and that he also saw James? I'd have to check the interlinear to be sure. Or maybe there were more than 12 apostles since Paul is also called an apostle?

Galatians 1:18-19 is one of the clearest indications that James, “the brother of the Lord,” belonged to the recognized group of apostles. Paul writes:

“I saw none of the other apostles except Peter and James, the brother of the Lord.”

The Greek phrase εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον (“except James”) is inclusive—it places James within the category Paul just mentioned. If Paul meant, “I saw no other apostles; I also happened to see James,” he had far simpler and more natural ways to say that. The syntax he actually uses treats James as part of the apostolic group.

This matters because in Galatians 1-2 Paul is using “apostle” in its narrow, authoritative sense—the same category as Peter. He is not using the broader, looser sense he sometimes uses elsewhere. So the James he names here is part of the central leadership circle in Jerusalem.

Now, within the New Testament there are only two apostles named James:

1. James son of Zebedee
2. James son of Alphaeus

James son of Zebedee is never called “the brother of the Lord,” and he had a brother named John—not Joseph, not Simon, not Judas.

James son of Alphaeus, however, fits the pattern. His brother was Judas/Thaddeus, which matches the list of Jesus’ adelphoi in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. And the Gospels explicitly identify another Mary—Mary of Clopas/Cleophas—as the mother of James and Joseph, the same names found in the “brothers” list.

• Matthew 27:56
• Mark 15:40; 16:1
• Luke 24:10
• John 19:25

All four Gospels distinguish:

• Mary the Mother of Jesus, and
• Mary of Clopas, the mother of James and Joseph.

This is not theological speculation—it is the plain wording of the text.

So when you put the pieces together:

• Paul calls James “the brother of the Lord” and an apostle.
• Only one apostle named James fits the family pattern: James son of Alphaeus.
• The Gospels identify his mother as Mary of Clopas, not Mary the Mother of Jesus.
• The names in the “brothers of Jesus” list match the children of Mary of Clopas.
• Adelphos in scriptural Greek includes close relatives, not only biological siblings.

The most coherent reading—linguistically, contextually, and textually—is that the men called Jesus’ “brothers” were not children of Mary of Nazareth but close relatives, specifically the sons of Mary of Clopas.

I just preferred to keep to canonical biblical evidence aside from later church fathers which are not canonical biblical.

I understand your preference to stay strictly within the canonical text. But the question we’re discussing isn’t merely a literary one—it’s a historical one: Were Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas the biological sons of Mary of Nazareth?

If we’re answering a historical question, then it’s reasonable to consider all early historical evidence, not just the verses themselves.

The Church Fathers aren’t being treated as Scripture; they’re early witnesses to how the first generations of Christians—people far closer to the apostles than we are—understood these same passages. Their testimony is part of the historical record, just like Josephus, Tacitus, or Philo.

So the issue isn’t about elevating their writings to the level of Scripture. The issue is: Why exclude relevant historical evidence altogether when the topic is historical?

If the earliest Christians unanimously understood these “brothers” as relatives rather than children of Mary, that’s historically significant. Ignoring that evidence doesn’t strengthen your position—it simply removes data from the discussion.

So my question stands: What is your reason for limiting the debate only to the scriptural text when the subject involves how early Christians understood these relationships?

 

[TazzJazz]

@Soul.og , Wrangler pointed it out clearly...

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

The problem is, my friend, that you have an agenda. And you're letting it cloud your reasoning on a very clear-cut passage.

 

[Soul.og]

@Soul.og , Wrangler pointed it out clearly...

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

The problem is, my friend, that you have an agenda. And you're letting it cloud your reasoning on a very clear-cut passage.

I’m not approaching the passage with an agenda—I’m pointing out a basic linguistic fact: adelphos in Koine Greek does not always mean a biological sibling. That’s not controversial; it’s a well‑attested feature of the language, especially in Jewish‑Greek contexts shaped by the Septuagint.

Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 clearly show that Jesus had relatives named Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas. What the passage does not specify is the exact nature of that kinship. That’s why the broader linguistic, cultural, and historical context matters.

If you want to call the passage “clear‑cut,” then we need to be precise:

• Clear that these men were related to Jesus? Yes.
• Clear that they were biological children of Mary? No—that is exactly what the text never states.

So this isn’t about agendas. It’s about reading an ancient text in its ancient language rather than assuming modern English kinship categories automatically apply.

 

[TazzJazz]

I’m not approaching the passage with an agenda — I’m simply recognizing that adelphos in Koine Greek doesn’t always mean a biological sibling.

That's true, it can at times.
But in this instance? Not according to the context.....

If you believe the passage is “clear‑cut", then the question is: clear‑cut in what sense?

The account at Matthew 13:55 mentions Jesus' mother and brothers, together.
Verses 54-57 says those He was teaching, "were astonished....they began to find cause for stumbling." Ask yourself: Why? Because they knew His family!

Many times, context (in the Bible) can clear up misunderstandings, and put to rest false ideas.