Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[Moonwood]

Take it up with Koperski ...

I already did — I sent him a message laying out exactly what I explained to you. If he replies, I’ll let you know.

You're correct but your conclusion is wrong.
The obvious reading of Mat 13:53-58 is that it is a reference to Jesus' immediate family ... James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas are the children of Joseph & Mary.
Forcing some cousins into that context makes no sense at all.

You’re saying two incompatible things at the same time.

On the one hand, you agree with me — and with Hegesippus — that:

Clopas was Joseph’s brother.
Which means:

• Clopas = Jesus’s uncle
• Clopas’s sons = Joseph’s nephews
• Joseph’s nephews = Jesus’s cousins
• These cousins = the men called Jesus’s adelphoi

That is the genealogy Hegesippus gives.
You said yourself: “You’re correct.”

But then you claim:

“The obvious reading of Matt 13:53–58 is that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas are the children of Joseph & Mary.”

That is impossible if you accept Hegesippus’s genealogy.

Hegesippus explicitly identifies Symeon (Simon) — one of the same “brothers” — as:

“the son of Clopas… the Lord’s cousin.” (Hist. Eccl. III.11.2)

And Jude is grouped with Symeon (Simon) as one of the same “brothers.”

So if Symeon is Clopas’s son and Jesus’s cousin, and Jude is one of the same “brothers,” then Jude cannot be Mary’s biological son.

You cannot accept Hegesippus’s genealogy and interpret Jude as Mary’s child.
Hegesippus himself tells you what “brother” means in this context: cousin, exactly as in Jewish kinship usage and exactly as in the New Testament’s use of adelphos.

The contradiction is not in Hegesippus.
It’s in your interpretation.

This is why Koperski’s argument collapses:
He quotes the very sentence that proves Jude was not Mary’s son.

Either you don’t realize Hegesippus is using “brother” in the broad Semitic sense, or you do realize it and simply prefer your conclusion over Hegesippus’s actual genealogy.

 

[markalan]

I already did — I sent him a message laying out exactly what I explained to you. If he replies, I’ll let you know.

The only interest I have in what Koperski said about Hegesippus is that it shows appealing to extra-biblical sources is not a persuasive argument because there can be as much debate about their meaning as about the Bible itself.

Clopas was Joseph’s brother.
Which means:

• Clopas = Jesus’s uncle
• Clopas’s sons = Joseph’s nephews
• Joseph’s nephews = Jesus’s cousins
• These cousins = the men called Jesus’s adelphoi

1, 2 & 3 ... ok ... then you make a wild claim that contradicts all the Scripture presented.

Every time Matthew uses "adelphos" in reference to named individuals, he is referring to biological siblings.

 

[Moonwood]

Commenting on Hegesippus' use of "according to the flesh", Andrew Koperski writes:

"What would this all mean for Mary and the family of Jesus? To put it conservatively, it means we have a reputable, identifiable Christian source, active in the mid-100s, claiming that Jude was known at the time as the Lord’s blood sibling. This may be our earliest post-NT source to offer commentary on Jesus’ family one way or the other."

The only interest I have in what Koperski said about Hegesippus is that it shows appealing to extra-biblical sources is not a persuasive argument because there can be as much debate about their meaning as about the Bible itself.

You’re saying — via Koperski — that appealing to extra‑biblical sources “is not persuasive,” but Koperski himself appealed to Hegesippus, and you used that appeal as part of your argument. You specifically cited Koperski’s claim that Hegesippus called Jude a “blood sibling,” and I responded directly to that claim by showing that Hegesippus’s own genealogy — and Scripture — contradict that interpretation. So if appealing to Hegesippus isn’t persuasive, then Koperski’s argument collapses by his own standard, and by yours, since you relied on his appeal as your evidence. I simply addressed the exact line you quoted.

1, 2 & 3 ... ok ... then you make a wild claim that contradicts all the Scripture presented.

Every time Matthew uses "adelphos" in reference to named individuals, he is referring to biological siblings.

You’re claiming that every time Matthew uses adelphos for named individuals, it means biological siblings. But that’s simply not true. Matthew uses adelphos for named individuals who are not biological siblings:

• Matthew 12:49-50 — Jesus points to His named disciples and says, “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — “You are all brothers” — addressed to His named followers.
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus tells the women to go and tell His brothers — the named apostles.

If adelphos = biological sibling “every time… in reference to named individuals,” then Jesus had:

• 12 biological brothers (the apostles)
• every disciple as a biological brother

Your rule collapses instantly.

You can’t apply “adelphos always means biological sibling” to Matthew 13:55 and then ignore the places where Matthew uses the same word for non‑siblings.

Your interpretation contradicts:

• Matthew’s own usage
• the rest of the New Testament
• Hegesippus’s genealogy
• the early Christian writers
• basic Greek semantics

And it contradicts your own admission that Clopas was Joseph’s brother — which makes Clopas’s sons Jesus’s cousins by marriage, not Mary’s children.

You can’t affirm:

Clopas/Cleophas = Joseph’s brother
Symeon (Simon) = Clopas's son
James = Clopas's son
Jude (Judas) = Clopas’s son

and also claim
Jude (Judas) = Mary’s son

Those two statements cannot both be true.

And it’s obvious why you added the “named individuals by Matthew” limitation — because you know adelphoi is used elsewhere in the New Testament for large groups like the 500 believers, and Jesus obviously didn’t have 500 biological siblings. But even with your limitation, the rule still collapses, because Matthew himself uses adelphos for named individuals who are not biological siblings (the apostles, the disciples). So the exception doesn’t save your argument; it just shows you’re trying to protect a conclusion that Matthew’s own usage doesn’t support.

Your rule about adelphos doesn’t work in Matthew, doesn’t work in the NT, and doesn’t work with Hegesippus.
It only works if you selectively apply it to one verse and ignore the rest of Scripture.

 

[markalan]

You’re saying that appealing to extra‑biblical sources “is not persuasive,” but Koperski himself appealed to Hegesippus — and you quoted that appeal as part of your argument. You specifically cited Koperski’s claim that Hegesippus called Jude a “blood sibling,” and I responded directly to that claim by showing that Hegesippus’s own genealogy — and Scripture — contradict that interpretation. So if appealing to Hegesippus isn’t persuasive, then Koperski’s argument collapses by his own standard, and by yours, since you used his appeal as your evidence. I simply relayed my counter‑argument to Koperski addressing the exact line you quoted.

I referenced Koperski to show you that you cannot rely on extra-biblical sources ... sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong ... the Bible is the only infallible source of authority.

You’re claiming that every time Matthew uses adelphos for named individuals, it means biological siblings. But that’s simply not true. Matthew uses adelphos for named individuals who are not biological siblings:

• Matthew 12:49-50 — Jesus points to His named disciples and says, “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — “You are all brothers” — addressed to His named followers.
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus tells the women to go and tell His brothers — the named apostles.

The fact that the disciples had names is not very convincing ... everyone has a name ... to state the obvious.

See if I can make it simpler ... every time Matthew uses adelphos for individuals personally named in the immediate context of the word, it refers to biological siblings.

And it contradicts your own admission that Clopas was Joseph’s brother — which makes Clopas’s sons Jesus’s cousins, not Mary’s children.

You can’t affirm:
Clopas/Cleophas = Joseph’s brother
and also claim
Jude (Judas) = Mary’s son

You are confused by how similar or the same names are commonly used in the NT ... Wikipedia says 4-6 for Jude/Judas and about the same number for James, and a lot more for Joseph.

Mat 27:56 (Mary the mother of James and Joseph) does not contradict Matthew 25:55-56 where the biological children of Mary & Joseph are mentioned.

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?​

And are not all his sisters with us?​

 

[Moonwood]

I referenced Koperski to show you that you cannot rely on extra-biblical sources ... sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong ... the Bible is the only infallible source of authority.

You’re saying you only referenced Koperski to show that extra‑biblical sources “cannot be relied on,” but that doesn’t resolve the contradiction I pointed out. You didn’t cite Koperski as a warning — you cited him as evidence, specifically his claim that Hegesippus called Jude a “blood sibling":

Commenting on Hegesippus' use of "according to the flesh", Andrew Koperski writes:

"What would this all mean for Mary and the family of Jesus? To put it conservatively, it means we have a reputable, identifiable Christian source, active in the mid-100s, claiming that Jude was known at the time as the Lord’s blood sibling. This may be our earliest post-NT source to offer commentary on Jesus’ family one way or the other."​

After I refuted that interpretation with Hegesippus’s own genealogy, you didn’t say “extra‑biblical sources aren’t reliable.” Instead, you doubled down and appealed to Koperski again:

I prefer the extensive scholarship of Andrew Koperski on Hegessipus's conclusion that Jude was a biological brother of Jesus.

And again:

Take it up with Koperski ... he can translate from ancient Greek better than I can ... and possibly you.

These are not statements of caution.
These are appeals to authority — you were relying on Koperski as a credible source.

In the same post, you made two contradicting statements:

You're correct but your conclusion is wrong.
The obvious reading of Mat 13:53-58 is that it is a reference to Jesus' immediate family ... James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas are the children of Joseph & Mary.

Only after I replied pointing out why you cannot accept Hegesippus’s genealogy and interpret Jude as Mary’s child did you retreat to:

I referenced Koperski to show you that you cannot rely on extra-biblical sources ... sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong ... the Bible is the only infallible source of authority.

But you didn’t show Hegesippus to be unreliable in this case — because he supports exactly what Scripture says. The genealogy he gives (Clopas = Joseph’s brother; Symeon (Simon), James, Jude (Judas), and Joseph = Clopas’s sons) aligns perfectly with the Gospel identifications of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas and her children. It contradicts your claim, not mine.

So the problem isn’t that extra‑biblical sources “aren’t reliable.” The problem is that you only call them unreliable when they contradict your conclusion — even though you explicitly said you “prefer” Koperski’s scholarship and even appealed to his Greek expertise when you believed it supported your position.

The fact that the disciples had names is not very convincing ... everyone has a name ... to state the obvious.

...every time Matthew uses adelphos for individuals personally named in the immediate context of the word, it refers to biological siblings.

You’ve now changed your rule again — from “named individuals” to “individuals personally named in the immediate context.” But Matthew still uses adelphos for personally named individuals in the immediate context who are not biological siblings.

For example:

• Matthew 12:49–50 — Jesus points to the disciples standing right in front of Him, men personally present in the immediate context, and says: “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus addresses His followers directly, men personally present in the immediate context, and says: “you are all brothers.”
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus tells the women to go and tell His brothers — the apostles personally named in the immediate context of the narrative.

These are not vague groups. These are specific individuals present in the scene, personally identified in the immediate context of the word adelphos. And none of them are biological siblings.

So your revised rule collapses just like the earlier one. You’re not defending a linguistic principle; you’re creating ad‑hoc limitations to protect a conclusion that Matthew’s own usage does not support.

And it’s obvious why you’re adding and changing these limitations — because you know adelphoi is used elsewhere in the New Testament for large groups like the 500 believers, and Jesus obviously didn’t have 500 biological siblings. But even with your limitation, the rule still collapses, because Matthew himself uses adelphos for named individuals who are not biological siblings (the apostles, the disciples). So the exception doesn’t save your argument; it just shows you’re trying to protect a conclusion that Matthew’s own usage doesn’t support.

You are confused by how similar or the same names are commonly used in the NT ... Wikipedia says 4-6 for Jude/Judas and about the same number for James, and a lot more for Joseph.

Mat 27:56 (Mary the mother of James and Joseph) does not contradict Matthew 25:35 where the biological children of Mary & Joseph are mentioned.

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?

You’re shifting the issue to “similar names in the NT,” but that doesn’t address the actual point. Hegesippus doesn’t give us vague names — he gives us a genealogy, and genealogies identify which James, which Symeon (Simon), which Jude/Judas, and thus which Joseph he is talking about.

Hegesippus explicitly says:

• Clopas = Joseph’s brother
• Symeon = Clopas’s son
• James = Clopas’s son
• Judas = Clopas’s son
• Joseph = Clopas's son

That’s not a name‑confusion problem.
That’s a family tree.

And the passage you quoted actually reinforces this, not your conclusion. Hegesippus says:

“the descendants of Jude… said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh,” (Hist. Eccl. III.19)

and then:

“Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude… said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.” (Hist. Eccl. 20.1

This Jude is not ambiguous.
Hegesippus identifies him by:

• his father (Clopas),
• his brothers (James, Symeon (Simon), Joseph),
• his descendants (his grandchildren under Domitian).

There is no mistaking which Jude he means.
He is Clopas’s son, not Mary’s.

So you can’t affirm:

Clopas/Cleophas = Joseph’s brother
Symeon/Simon = Clopas’s son
James = Clopas’s son
Jude/Judas = Clopas’s son
Joseph = Clopas's son

and also claim:

Jude/Judas of Clopas = Mary’s son

Those two positions cannot both be true. If Hegesippus is right about Clopas’s genealogy, then the Jude/Judas he mentions is Clopas’s son, not Mary’s.

Appealing to “similar names” doesn’t solve the contradiction — it avoids it. The issue isn’t that there are multiple Judes; the issue is that Hegesippus identifies which Jude he means, and the Jude he identifies is not Mary’s child.

And Matthew 27:56 doesn’t help your case, because Matthew never says that “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” is the same woman as Mary the mother of Jesus in Matthew 13:55. In fact, Matthew, Mark, and John all describe the same group of women at the crucifixion, and together they identify her as Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas, the mother of Joseph and James — two of the individuals listed among Jesus’s adelphoi:

• “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matthew 27:56)
• "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James (the younger) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome.” (Mark 15:40)
• “His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25)

Because all three accounts refer to the same scene and the same women, the identifications reinforce each other: Mary the mother of James and Joseph is Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus.

John calls her Mary’s adelphe (“sister”), which in context means sister‑in‑law, since two biological sisters would not both be named Mary. She is the wife of Clopas/Cleophas, Joseph’s brother. That makes her sons — Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — Jesus’s cousins by marriage, not Mary’s children, a relationship fully covered by the semantic range of adelphos.

So the genealogy you just affirmed (Clopas’s sons) directly contradicts your assumption.

You agreed with the genealogy.
The conclusion follows from the genealogy.
If Clopas is Joseph’s brother, then Clopas’s sons are Jesus’s cousins by marriage — not Mary’s children.