Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[Ronald Nolette]

The term adelphos in Koine Greek has a broad semantic range: “a brother, near kinsman, or relative.” Paul’s reference to “James, the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19) shows that James was both a relative of Jesus and an apostle, since Paul explicitly includes him among the Twelve he met. This immediately rules out the idea that he was a younger biological son of Mary, because the Gospels list no such James in the apostolic circle. And since among the Twelve only James of Alphaeus had a brother named Judas (Thaddeus), the contextual evidence strongly suggests that Paul’s James — the James mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:19 — is James of Alphaeus, one of the Twelve.

Let us put to rest this lie you are trying to promote about "adelphoi" Four different koine greek dictionary do not say adelphoi is near kinsmen! At the time of Jesus there was a word for near kinsmen that was in common use! that word is "syngenes".

The four major and most widely used koine dictionaries as well as lexicons define adelphos thusly:

Transliteration
adelphos (Key)
Pronunciation
ad-el-fos'

Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From ἄλφα (G1) (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb)

KJV Translation Count — Total: 346x
The KJV translates Strong's G80 in the following manner: brethren (226x), brother (113x), brother's (6x), brother's way (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   1. his brothers by blood
   2. all men
   3. apostles
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

The only time that adelphos is used of cousins are in the apocryphal gospels which are recognized as heretical even by Romanism. This lie needs to end.

 

[Moonwood]

Let us put to rest this lie you are trying to promote about "adelphoi" Four different koine greek dictionary do not say adelphoi is near kinsmen! At the time of Jesus there was a word for near kinsmen that was in common use! that word is "syngenes".

The four major and most widely used koine dictionaries as well as lexicons define adelphos thusly:

Transliteration
adelphos (Key)
Pronunciation
ad-el-fos'

Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From ἄλφα (G1) (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb)

KJV Translation Count — Total: 346x
The KJV translates Strong's G80 in the following manner: brethren (226x), brother (113x), brother's (6x), brother's way (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   1. his brothers by blood
   2. all men
   3. apostles
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

The only time that adelphos is used of cousins are in the apocryphal gospels which are recognized as heretical even by Romanism. This lie needs to end.

Which four major lexicons? What you've posted is the Strong's G80 entry from Blue Letter Bible, not four separate Greek dictionaries.

And even the definition you quoted does not restrict adelphos to a biological sibling. It explicitly includes broader relationships such as countrymen, fellow believers, and associates. In other words, your own source acknowledges that the term can be used beyond a literal brother born of the same mother. Likewise, Mounce's Greek Dictionary defines adelphos as "a brother, near kinsman or relative" and also notes broader uses such as fellow countryman and fellow believer.

My argument does not require adelphos to mean "cousin." My point is much simpler: adelphos does not, by itself, prove "son of Mary."

The existence of syngenes ("relative" or "kinsman") does not prove that adelphos can never be used more broadly. Languages routinely contain overlapping vocabulary, and the existence of one term does not eliminate the semantic range of another.

More importantly, your argument assumes the very thing that must be proven. Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 call James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas Jesus' adelphoi, but neither passage identifies them as sons of Mary. If that is your claim, you must demonstrate it from the text itself, not merely assert it from a dictionary entry.

The real question is not whether adelphos can mean "brother." It certainly can. The question is whether the New Testament ever identifies James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as Mary's sons. Simply citing Strong's does not answer that question. It tells us the possible meanings of the word, but it does not establish the precise relationship intended in these passages.

 

[Moonwood]

The Bible is clear that Joseph waited until Jesus was born to have sex with Mary, which produced brothers and sisters of Jesus.

Matthew 13:55,56

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Read the opening post of this thread, please. Thank you.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Which four major lexicons? What you've posted is the Strong's G80 entry from Blue Letter Bible, not four separate Greek dictionaries.

And even the definition you quoted does not restrict adelphos to a biological sibling. It explicitly includes broader relationships such as countrymen, fellow believers, and associates. In other words, your own source acknowledges that the term can be used beyond a literal brother born of the same mother. Likewise, Mounce's Greek Dictionary defines adelphos as "a brother, near kinsman or relative" and also notes broader uses such as fellow countryman and fellow believer.

Wuest Word
Studies, Kittels 10 volume Greek New Testament, Strongs,Vines Lexicon, et. al.

And yes adelphoi can refer to fellow believers or country men, but it never has been used in the NT to denote cousins, uncles aunts etc.

You should ask why Mounce goes against the super majority of Koine Greek scholars.

My argument does not require adelphos to mean "cousin." My point is much simpler: adelphos does not, by itself, prove "son of Mary."

Once again, that was and is the normal understanding in situations espoused by the passage. You ne3ed to prove it doesn't mean what is the commonly understood meaning.

The existence of syngenes ("relative" or "kinsman") does not prove that adelphos can never be used more broadly. Languages routinely contain overlapping vocabulary, and the existence of one term does not eliminate the semantic range of another.

Yes they do at times. but you must prove that James, Joses, Simon, Judah and sisters meant cousins especially in light of the fact Joseph is mentioned Maybe calling Jesus the carpenters son meant the carpenters nephew? That is your line of reasining by how you want to use adelphoi here.

More importantly, your argument assumes the very thing that must be proven. Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 call James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas Jesus' adelphoi, but neither passage identifies them as sons of Mary. If that is your claim, you must demonstrate it from the text itself, not merely assert it from a dictionary entry.

It is not an assertion but a simple understanding of the passage without a predisposed indoctrination.

Matthew 13:55-56 King James Version​

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

The subject is Jesus. then Jospeh(carpenter) Mary (his mother) and his brothers and sisters. The pharisees were extremely familiar with the word syngenes and they were extremely familiar with the local families! Once again you argue from silence and do not provide biblical proof. especially inlight of the fact that Elizabeth was called syngenes in Scripture Luke:

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Sorry but your arguments are not supported by Scripture, but by unproved inferences and ephemeral musings.

 

[Moonwood]

Wuest Word
Studies, Kittels 10 volume Greek New Testament, Strongs,Vines Lexicon, et. al.

And yes adelphoi can refer to fellow believers or country men, but it never has been used in the NT to denote cousins, uncles aunts etc.

You should ask why Mounce goes against the super majority of Koine Greek scholars.

Once again, that was and is the normal understanding in situations espoused by the passage. You ne3ed to prove it doesn't mean what is the commonly understood meaning.

Yes they do at times. but you must prove that James, Joses, Simon, Judah and sisters meant cousins especially in light of the fact Joseph is mentioned Maybe calling Jesus the carpenters son meant the carpenters nephew? That is your line of reasining by how you want to use adelphoi here.

It is not an assertion but a simple understanding of the passage without a predisposed indoctrination.

Matthew 13:55-56 King James Version​

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

The subject is Jesus. then Jospeh(carpenter) Mary (his mother) and his brothers and sisters. The pharisees were extremely familiar with the word syngenes and they were extremely familiar with the local families! Once again you argue from silence and do not provide biblical proof. especially inlight of the fact that Elizabeth was called syngenes in Scripture Luke:

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Sorry but your arguments are not supported by Scripture, but by unproved inferences and ephemeral musings.

A few points.

First, Wuest Word Studies is not a Greek lexicon. It is a devotional and exegetical commentary series.

Kittel's TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) is also not a standard lexical dictionary in the same sense as BDAG, Liddell-Scott, or other lexicons. It is a theological word-study reference that discusses usage and concepts in great detail.

Strong's is fundamentally a concordance system with brief glosses attached. Even Strong himself never intended it to function as the final authority on lexical semantics.

Vine's Expository Dictionary is likewise an English-language theological reference work, not a technical Koine Greek lexicon.

So when you say "four major Greek dictionaries," you're actually citing a mix of a concordance, an English expository dictionary, a theological word-study set, and a commentary series. Those are useful resources, but they are not four independent Greek lexicons all reaching the same lexical conclusion.

Second, my appeal to Mounce was not because Mounce is infallible. It was to show that the statement "adelphos never carried a broader kinship sense" is simply too strong. Personally, I think Mounce and other lexicographers who include "kinsman" or "relative" are recognizing an important linguistic reality: the Septuagint (LXX) frequently uses adelphos when translating the Hebrew Old Testament in passages involving extended kinship, not merely biological brothers. In other words, the broader kinship sense was not invented by modern scholars; it was already present in the Greek of the Scriptures used by many Jews and early Christians. For that reason, I do not think the lexical question is as settled or as narrow as you portray it.

That does not prove that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were cousins. I have never claimed it does. It simply means that the word adelphoi itself is not restricted exclusively to sons of the same mother, and therefore the meaning in Matthew 13:55 must be established from the context rather than asserted as a lexical certainty.

Third, you keep insisting that I must prove James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were cousins. I have never claimed they were cousins. That is a different argument. My point remains that the lexical meaning of adelphoi does not by itself prove they were sons of Mary.

Finally, if we're going to appeal to scholarly consensus, the standard question isn't what Strong's, Vine's, Wuest, and Kittel say. The question is what the major critical lexicons say, especially BDAG, LSJ, Louw-Nida, and other primary lexical authorities. Simply listing popular reference works does not settle the issue.

In other words, your argument assumes that establishing the normal meaning of adelphoi automatically establishes the identity of the people in Matthew 13:55. Those are two different questions. The first is lexical; the second is historical and exegetical.

Fourth, you keep demanding that I prove James, Joses, Simon, and Judas were cousins. But that is not the claim under dispute.

My original argument was that the men called Jesus's adelphoi are never identified in Scripture as sons of Mary, while James and Joseph are elsewhere associated with another Mary, namely Mary of Clopas (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25). Whether one ultimately concludes they were cousins, stepbrothers, nephews, or some other close relatives is a separate question.

The immediate issue is much simpler: where does Scripture explicitly call James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas the sons of Mary?

Matthew 13:55-56 does not do so. It identifies Jesus as the carpenter's son, identifies Mary as His mother, and then names His adelphoi. The text never says, "Mary bore James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas."

Therefore, the conclusion that they were Mary's biological sons is an inference from the passage, not an explicit statement of the passage itself.

You repeatedly say that your interpretation is the "normal" or "commonly understood" reading. Even if I grant that, a common interpretation is not the same thing as proof.

The Arians claimed their reading of Proverbs 8 was the plain reading. Protestants and Catholics disagree over the "plain reading" of John 6. Christians disagree over the "plain reading" of baptismal texts, eschatological texts, and predestination texts.

The question is not what seems most obvious at first glance. The question is what conclusion best accounts for all of the biblical data.

In my opening post I did not rest my case on the lexical range of adelphos alone. The lexical argument merely establishes possibility.
My actual case was cumulative:

• James and Joseph are associated with another Mary.
• James the Lord's brother appears to be identified with James of Alphaeus.
• The New Testament never explicitly calls these men sons of Mary.
• Early Christian witnesses such as Papias, Hegesippus, and others consistently identify the Lord's brothers with the family of Clopas.

You have focused almost exclusively on the word adelphoi, but you have not interacted with the larger argument. Even if I granted that adelphoi ordinarily means "brothers," the questions raised by the identity of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas would still remain.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

A few points.

First, Wuest Word Studies is not a Greek lexicon. It is a devotional and exegetical commentary series.

Kittel's TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) is also not a standard lexical dictionary in the same sense as BDAG, Liddell-Scott, or other lexicons. It is a theological word-study reference that discusses usage and concepts in great detail.

Strong's is fundamentally a concordance system with brief glosses attached. Even Strong himself never intended it to function as the final authority on lexical semantics.

Vine's Expository Dictionary is likewise an English-language theological reference work, not a technical Koine Greek lexicon.

So when you say "four major Greek dictionaries," you're actually citing a mix of a concordance, an English expository dictionary, a theological word-study set, and a commentary series. Those are useful resources, but they are not four independent Greek lexicons all reaching the same lexical conclusion.

A dictionary is a word study first off.

And Kittels ten volume New Testament delves deeply into Greek

Wuest is a Greek scholar and His work goes into depth in greek HIs four volume is not a devotion but an exegetical look at the Greek /English.

Vines is an expository dictionary of the Greek. So it defines Greek wordsa for us. Just like an english dictionary does.

Strongs is a dictionary of the greek showing the Greek from the English. And semantics is the argument of those who wish not to accept the normal accepted meanings of words. All words havean accepted common normal usage and definition. It is specific context that would cause a word to take on a semantical meaning. This is usual for parables in Scripture. You fail here.

"The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is the most complete, easy-to-use, and understandable concordance for studying the original languages of the Bible"

You pooh pooh excellent tools for knowing the Greek behind teh English words all to defend an undefensible position that Mary never had sexs with Joseph.

I could also speak of Spiros Zodhiates, another PHD Scholar.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum a Masters in Koine Greek.

I could also mention Kurt Aland,AT Robertson,

• Lexicons (e.g., Bauer, Gingrich, Mounce)
• Textual criticism (e.g., Aland, Kriiger)
• Grammar and syntax (e.g., Wallace, Porter)
• Biblical studies (e.g., Robertson, Zodhiates)

YOu show disdain for those who have mastery of koine Greek and defy your Romanist fable that Matt. 13 means cousin.


From AI:

Does adelphos Ever Specifically Mean “Cousin”?​

No.
While adelphos can refer to a kinsman, lexicons explicitly state that it does not mean “cousin” in Greek usage. The idea that Jesus’ “brothers” were “cousins” is a later interpretive tradition (Jerome, Augustine), not a lexical meaning of the word.

And the only place you will find adelphos meaning cousin is in the Septuigant. It was translated thus from teh 70 Hebrews who chose the best word available for the Hebrew word meaning kinsmen. but in Greek culture it never was used to speak of near kinsmen- that was syngenes.

 

[Moonwood]

A dictionary is a word study first off.

And Kittels ten volume New Testament delves deeply into Greek

Wuest is a Greek scholar and His work goes into depth in greek HIs four volume is not a devotion but an exegetical look at the Greek /English.

Vines is an expository dictionary of the Greek. So it defines Greek wordsa for us. Just like an english dictionary does.

Strongs is a dictionary of the greek showing the Greek from the English. And semantics is the argument of those who wish not to accept the normal accepted meanings of words. All words havean accepted common normal usage and definition. It is specific context that would cause a word to take on a semantical meaning. This is usual for parables in Scripture. You fail here.

"The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is the most complete, easy-to-use, and understandable concordance for studying the original languages of the Bible"

You pooh pooh excellent tools for knowing the Greek behind teh English words all to defend an undefensible position that Mary never had sexs with Joseph.

I could also speak of Spiros Zodhiates, another PHD Scholar.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum a Masters in Koine Greek.

I could also mention Kurt Aland,AT Robertson,

• Lexicons (e.g., Bauer, Gingrich, Mounce)
• Textual criticism (e.g., Aland, Kriiger)
• Grammar and syntax (e.g., Wallace, Porter)
• Biblical studies (e.g., Robertson, Zodhiates)

YOu show disdain for those who have mastery of koine Greek and defy your Romanist fable that Matt. 13 means cousin.


From AI:

Does adelphos Ever Specifically Mean “Cousin”?​

No.
While adelphos can refer to a kinsman, lexicons explicitly state that it does not mean “cousin” in Greek usage. The idea that Jesus’ “brothers” were “cousins” is a later interpretive tradition (Jerome, Augustine), not a lexical meaning of the word.

And the only place you will find adelphos meaning cousin is in the Septuigant. It was translated thus from teh 70 Hebrews who chose the best word available for the Hebrew word meaning kinsmen. but in Greek culture it never was used to speak of near kinsmen- that was syngenes.

You're changing the subject.

I never said Wuest, Kittel, Vine, Strong's, Robertson, Zodhiates, Fruchtenbaum, or Aland were unqualified scholars. Of course many of them were accomplished scholars. What I said was that they are not all lexicons, and therefore simply listing them does not establish that "four major Greek dictionaries" all define adelphos the way you claim. A scholar may be an excellent grammarian, commentator, textual critic, theologian, or expositor without writing a lexicon. Those are different disciplines.

More importantly, notice how your argument has shifted. Originally you claimed that adelphos does not mean "kinsman" or "relative." Now you're saying it can refer to a kinsman in the Septuagint but not in Greek culture. But that concession is significant because the Septuagint is not some irrelevant Greek text. It was the Greek Old Testament used by many Jews and early Christians. If Greek-speaking Jews were accustomed to seeing adelphos used for extended kinship relationships in the Scriptures they read, then the claim that adelphos could only communicate a biological brother is simply too absolute.

When lexicographers such as Mounce include "kinsman" or "relative" among the possible senses of adelphos, they are recognizing a usage that already existed in the Greek Scriptures themselves. The broader kinship sense was not invented by modern scholars.

That does not prove Matthew 13:55 refers to cousins. It does prove, however, that the semantic range of adelphos cannot be restricted to your preferred definition merely by appealing to Greek usage.

More importantly, you're still arguing against a position I have not taken. I did not claim that adelphos lexically means "cousin." I did not claim that Matthew 13:55 can be settled by a dictionary definition. I did not claim that the word itself proves a cousin relationship. My argument is that adelphos alone does not prove that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were sons of Mary. That is a completely different claim.

You also accuse me of defending "the Romanist fable that Matthew 13 means cousin." But if you read my post carefully, my argument was never based solely on the word adelphoi. My argument was cumulative:

• The term adelphos has a broader semantic range than "uterine brother" alone.
• James and Joseph are associated elsewhere with another Mary.
• James the Lord's brother appears to be identified with James of Alphaeus.
• Scripture never explicitly says that James, Joses, Simon, and Judas are sons of Mary.
• Early Christian sources repeatedly connect the Lord's brothers with the family of Clopas.

You have spent most of your time debating the lexical range of one Greek word while largely ignoring the historical and textual evidence that formed the bulk of my argument.

Finally, saying "this is the normal understanding" is not an argument. It's an observation about what many readers conclude.

The question is not whether your interpretation is common. The question is whether it accounts for all the evidence better than the alternatives.

At this point, the central question remains unanswered:

Where does Scripture explicitly identify James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as sons of Mary?

Not where they are called adelphoi.
Not where they are listed alongside Jesus.
Not where a commentator or theologian says they were brothers.
Where does the text itself state that Mary is their mother?

Matthew 13:55-56 does not do so. It identifies Jesus as the carpenter's son, identifies Mary as His mother, and then names His adelphoi. The text never says, "Mary bore James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas." Therefore, the conclusion that they were Mary's biological sons is an inference from the passage, not an explicit statement of the passage itself.

In my opening post I did not rest my case on the lexical range of adelphos alone. The lexical argument merely establishes possibility. My actual case was cumulative: James and Joseph are associated with another Mary; James the Lord's brother appears to be identified with James of Alphaeus; the New Testament never explicitly calls these men sons of Mary; and early Christian witnesses such as Papias and Hegesippus consistently identify the Lord's brothers with the family of Clopas. Even if I granted, for the sake of argument, that adelphoi ordinarily means biological brothers, those questions would still remain. And those are the questions my original post raised, yet they remain largely unaddressed.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I never said Wuest, Kittel, Vine, Strong's, Robertson, Zodhiates, Fruchtenbaum, or Aland were unqualified scholars. Of course many of them were accomplished scholars. What I said was that they are not all lexicons, and therefore simply listing them does not establish that "four major Greek dictionaries" all define adelphos the way you claim. A scholar may be an excellent grammarian, commentator, textual critic, theologian, or expositor without writing a lexicon. Those are different disciplines.

Straw man and red herring!

Not where they are called adelphoi.
Not where they are listed alongside Jesus.
Not where a commentator or theologian says they were brothers.
Where does the text itself state that Mary is their mother?

Matthew 13:55-56 does not do so. It identifies Jesus as the carpenter's son, identifies Mary as His mother, and then names His adelphoi. The text never says, "Mary bore James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas." Therefore, the conclusion that they were Mary's biological sons is an inference from the passage, not an explicit statement of the passage itself.

Yes Matthew does by calling James, Joses, Simon and Juda Jesus' brothers and at least 2 unnamed sisters. Because of your romanist indoctrination, you demand lengthy passages. Scriptuer merely shows us, Jospeh and Mary had sex after jesus was born and like good jewish parents bore at leasst 6 other children.

It is you that is challenging the normal, usual, explicit and accepted usage of language of Scriptue. You need to prove your case. Not go ont eh rabbit trails and pick a crumb from what I write and go off on a tangent.

All tehse aiuthos all say these were jesus brothers, not cousins or whatever. Context also rejects just fellow country men.

So prove your case. I stand by my position and by the fact that concordances, lexicons, expanded Greek/English NT volumes with extensive linguistic work all reject your opiniosn.

 

[Moonwood]

I read it (the opening post) for the second time and I still do not find the Holy Spirit that resides in my heart giving me assurance that your position is correct.

Saying,

"I still do not find the Holy Spirit that resides in my heart giving me assurance that your position is correct,"

does not actually address any of the arguments I made.

Someone can read an argument carefully and remain unconvinced. That's perfectly fair.

What I would expect, however, is some interaction with the evidence itself.

For example:

• Which specific premise do you believe is false?
• Where have I misidentified James?
• Where have I mishandled the Gospel family data?
• Which of the patristic sources do you think is unreliable or irrelevant?
• At what point does the argument fail?

Simply appealing to a lack of personal assurance from the Holy Spirit does not tell me whether the argument is right or wrong. It only tells me that you remain unconvinced.

If the position is mistaken, then I would be interested in seeing where the reasoning breaks down. Otherwise, all you've really said is that you've read it and do not agree with it.

 

[BillTaylor]

Saying,

"I still do not find the Holy Spirit that resides in my heart giving me assurance that your position is correct,"

does not actually address any of the arguments I made.

Someone can read an argument carefully and remain unconvinced. That's perfectly fair.

What I would expect, however, is some interaction with the evidence itself.

For example:

• Which specific premise do you believe is false?
• Where have I misidentified James?
• Where have I mishandled the Gospel family data?
• Which of the patristic sources do you think is unreliable or irrelevant?
• At what point does the argument fail?

Simply appealing to a lack of personal assurance from the Holy Spirit does not tell me whether the argument is right or wrong. It only tells me that you remain unconvinced.

If the position is mistaken, then I would be interested in seeing where the reasoning breaks down. Otherwise, all you've really said is that you've read it and do not agree with it.

You ave chosen the World's Model. I do not.

 

[Moonwood]

Straw man and red herring!

That's neither a straw man nor a red herring.

You claimed that "four major Greek dictionaries" define adelphos a certain way. In support of that claim, you listed Wuest, Kittel, Vine, Strong's, Robertson, Zodhiates, Fruchtenbaum, and Aland.

My point was simple: not all of those works are lexicons or Greek dictionaries. Some are commentaries, theological works, grammatical studies, concordances, textual criticism, or expository resources. Whether they are respected scholars is beside the point. The issue is whether they support your specific claim about "four major Greek dictionaries."

Correcting the nature of your sources is neither a straw man nor a red herring. It is directly relevant to the claim you made.

Yes Matthew does by calling James, Joses, Simon and Juda Jesus' brothers and at least 2 unnamed sisters. Because of your romanist indoctrination, you demand lengthy passages. Scriptuer merely shows us, Jospeh and Mary had sex after jesus was born and like good jewish parents bore at leasst 6 other children.

It is you that is challenging the normal, usual, explicit and accepted usage of language of Scriptue. You need to prove your case. Not go ont eh rabbit trails and pick a crumb from what I write and go off on a tangent.

All tehse aiuthos all say these were jesus brothers, not cousins or whatever. Context also rejects just fellow country men.

So prove your case. I stand by my position and by the fact that concordances, lexicons, expanded Greek/English NT volumes with extensive linguistic work all reject your opiniosn.

Notice that you still haven't answered the question.

I asked where Scripture explicitly identifies James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as sons of Mary.
Your answer was:

"Matthew does by calling James, Joses, Simon and Juda Jesus' brothers..."

But that simply repeats the disputed point.
Matthew calls them Jesus' adelphoi. The question is whether adelphoi alone establishes that they were sons of Mary.
If your proof that they were Mary's sons is that they are called adelphoi, then you're assuming the very conclusion you're trying to prove.

You say I must prove they were cousins. But my argument is not that Matthew 13:55 explicitly says "these men were cousins."
My argument is that Matthew 13:55 does not explicitly say they were sons of Mary.
Those are two different claims.

You are making the positive assertion that these men were additional children born to Mary and Joseph. Therefore the burden is on you to show where Scripture makes that identification.
More importantly, you have not addressed the majority of my argument:

• Why are James and Joseph associated elsewhere with another Mary?
• Why is James the Lord's brother identified by many early Christian sources with James of Alphaeus?
• Why do Hegesippus and other early witnesses connect the Lord's relatives to the family of Clopas?
• Why does Scripture never directly call James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas "sons of Mary"?

Instead, you keep returning to the single assertion that adelphoi means brothers.
Even if I grant, for the sake of argument, that adelphoi ordinarily means biological brothers, those questions would still remain unanswered.

Because of your romanist indoctrination...

Calling my position "Romanist indoctrination" is not an argument. Neither is repeatedly asserting that adelphoi means brothers. The question is where Scripture explicitly identifies James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as sons of Mary. So far, you've responded by repeating adelphoi rather than demonstrating Mary's motherhood from the text itself. Until that identification is shown, your conclusion remains an inference, not an explicit statement of Scripture.

 

[Moonwood]

You ave chosen the World's Model. I do not.

"You have chosen the world's model. I do not" is not an argument. It's a label.

I presented specific textual, historical, and patristic evidence. If that evidence is wrong, then show where it's wrong. Which fact is incorrect? Which source is unreliable? Which conclusion does not follow from the evidence?

Simply calling my position "the world's model" does not actually engage any part of the argument. It only states that you disagree with it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That's neither a straw man nor a red herring.

You claimed that "four major Greek dictionaries" define adelphos a certain way. In support of that claim, you listed Wuest, Kittel, Vine, Strong's, Robertson, Zodhiates, Fruchtenbaum, and Aland.

My point was simple: not all of those works are lexicons or Greek dictionaries. Some are commentaries, theological works, grammatical studies, concordances, textual criticism, or expository resources. Whether they are respected scholars is beside the point. The issue is whether they support your specific claim about "four major Greek dictionaries."

Correcting the nature of your sources is neither a straw man nor a red herring. It is directly relevant to the claim you made.



Notice that you still haven't answered the question.

I asked where Scripture explicitly identifies James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as sons of Mary.
Your answer was:

"Matthew does by calling James, Joses, Simon and Juda Jesus' brothers..."

But that simply repeats the disputed point.
Matthew calls them Jesus' adelphoi. The question is whether adelphoi alone establishes that they were sons of Mary.
If your proof that they were Mary's sons is that they are called adelphoi, then you're assuming the very conclusion you're trying to prove.

You say I must prove they were cousins. But my argument is not that Matthew 13:55 explicitly says "these men were cousins."
My argument is that Matthew 13:55 does not explicitly say they were sons of Mary.
Those are two different claims.

You are making the positive assertion that these men were additional children born to Mary and Joseph. Therefore the burden is on you to show where Scripture makes that identification.
More importantly, you have not addressed the majority of my argument:

• Why are James and Joseph associated elsewhere with another Mary?
• Why is James the Lord's brother identified by many early Christian sources with James of Alphaeus?
• Why do Hegesippus and other early witnesses connect the Lord's relatives to the family of Clopas?
• Why does Scripture never directly call James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas "sons of Mary"?

Instead, you keep returning to the single assertion that adelphoi means brothers.
Even if I grant, for the sake of argument, that adelphoi ordinarily means biological brothers, those questions would still remain unanswered.



Calling my position "Romanist indoctrination" is not an argument. Neither is repeatedly asserting that adelphoi means brothers. The question is where Scripture explicitly identifies James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as sons of Mary. So far, you've responded by repeating adelphoi rather than demonstrating Mary's motherhood from the text itself. Until that identification is shown, your conclusion remains an inference, not an explicit statement of Scripture.

UNTIL you can prove from Scripture that Matt.13 means a kinsmen, there is no point going further.

The very fact they are called jesus sisters and brothers is enough for the normal person. I will not answer until you bring positive proof.

 

[Moonwood]

UNTIL you can prove from Scripture that Matt.13 means a kinsmen, there is no point going further.

You cannot reasonably assert that adelphos in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 must mean a biological brother rather than a kinsman or relative until you reconcile your interpretation with the Septuagint, where the same Greek word is used for kinsmen and relatives.

I will not answer until you bring positive proof.

I have already presented textual, linguistic, scriptural, and historical evidence. You have refused to engage with it. You cannot demand positive proof while ignoring the evidence already presented. If you believe my argument fails, identify the specific evidence you dispute and explain why it fails.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You cannot reasonably assert that adelphos in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 must mean a biological brother rather than a kinsman or relative until you reconcile your interpretation with the Septuagint, where the same Greek word is used for kinsmen and relatives.



I have already presented textual, linguistic, scriptural, and historical evidence. You have refused to engage with it. You cannot demand positive proof while ignoring the evidence already presented. If you believe my argument fails, identify the specific evidence you dispute and explain why it fails.

No you have not! YTou brought one man who is very sketchy.

I brought you tonsmore. Still waiting for biblical evidence.

 

[Moonwood]

No you have not! You brought one man who is very sketchy.

I brought you tons more. Still waiting for biblical evidence.

At this point it may be helpful to take stock of what each of us has actually brought to the discussion.

What I have brought:

1. A lexical argument that adelphos is not restricted exclusively to a biological brother and can have a broader kinship range. This was supported by lexicographical evidence and by Septuagint usage.
2. A textual argument that Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 never explicitly identify James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as sons of Mary. They are called Jesus's adelphoi, but the text never says Mary bore them.
3. A Gospel-based argument that James and Joseph are associated with another Mary, namely Mary of Clopas/Cleophas.
4. An identification argument connecting James the Lord's brother with James of Alphaeus and Judas/Thaddeus.
5. A historical argument from early Christian sources including Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome, who connect the Lord's brothers with the family of Clopas.
6. A cumulative case arguing that all of the foregoing evidence should be considered together, not reduced to a single dictionary definition.

What you have brought:

1. The claim that the normal reading of Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 is that these men were biological brothers of Jesus.
2. The argument that adelphoi ordinarily means brothers and that the burden is on me to prove otherwise.
3. The argument that Greek possessed the word syngenes for relatives and kinsmen.
4. Citations to Strong's, Vine's, Wuest, Kittel, Zodhiates, Fruchtenbaum, Robertson, and other scholars whom you believe support your interpretation.
5. The assertion that adelphos is not used in the New Testament to mean cousin, uncle, or aunt.

What you have not done:

• You have not addressed my argument regarding Mary of Clopas and the identification of James and Joseph.
• You have not addressed my argument connecting James the Lord's brother with James of Alphaeus.
• You have not addressed the early Christian testimony of Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome.
• You have not addressed my point that the Septuagint uses adelphos for broader kinship relationships. In fact, you eventually acknowledged that such usage exists in the Septuagint.
• Most importantly, you have not produced a verse that explicitly identifies James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as sons of Mary.

So the issue is not that no evidence has been presented. The issue is that most of the evidence I presented has largely gone unanswered.
If my case is wrong, then tell me specifically:

• Why James and Joseph should not be identified with the sons of Mary of Clopas.
• Why James the Lord's brother cannot be James of Alphaeus.
• Why Papias, Hegesippus, and the other early witnesses should be rejected.
• And where Scripture explicitly says that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were sons of Mary.

Those are the central pillars of my argument. Repeating that adelphoi usually means "brothers" does not, by itself, answer them.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What I have brought:

1. A lexical argument that adelphos is not restricted exclusively to a biological brother and can have a broader kinship range. This was supported by lexicographical evidence and by Septuagint usage.

You brought Mounce which is denied by legions of scholars.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Maryam, and his brothers, Yaqob and Yose and Shimeon and Yehudah?”
NT Translations
Anderson New Testament
Is not this the son of the carpenter? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers, James and Joses and Simon and Judas?

Godbey New Testament
Is not He the son of the carpenter? is not His mother called Mary? are not His brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Haweis New Testament
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mace New Testament
is not this the carpenter's son? is not Mary his mother? and James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas, are they not his brothers?

Weymouth New Testament
Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers, James, Joseph, Simon and Judah?

Worrell New Testament
Is not This the carpenter's Son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?

Worsley New Testament
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Literal Standard Version
Is this not the carpenter’s Son? Is His mother not called Mary, and His brothers James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Berean Literal Bible
Is this not the son of the carpenter? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Young's Literal Translation
is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Smith's Literal Translation
Is not this the son of the carpenter? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Catholic Translations
Douay-Rheims Bible
Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:

Catholic Public Domain Version
Is this not the son of a workman? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude?

New American Bible
Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

New Revised Standard Version
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?
Translations from Aramaic
Lamsa Bible
Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers, James and Joses and Simon and Judah?

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary? Aren't his brothers' names James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

Good News Translation
Isn't he the carpenter's son? Isn't Mary his mother, and aren't James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas his brothers?

International Standard Version
This is the builder's son, isn't it? His mother is named Mary, isn't she? His brothers are James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, aren't they?

NET Bible
Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother named Mary? And aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

New Heart English Bible
Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Webster's Bible Translation
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Weymouth New Testament
Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers, James, Joseph, Simon and Judah?
Majority Text Translations
Majority Standard Bible
“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?

World English Bible
Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother called Mary, and his brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?

Even Roman bibles use brothers and not kinsmen. What do all these adept scholars not know that you do????

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 80: ἀδελφός

ἀδελφός, (οῦ, ὁ (from ἆ copulative and δελφύς, from the same womb; cf. ἀγάστωρ) (from Homer down);
1. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18, and often. That 'the brethren of Jesus,' Matthew 12:46, 47 (but WH only in marginal reading); f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i. e. Clopas) and Mary a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which ἀδελφός like the Hebrew אָח denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord's brethren are distinguished from the apostles. See further on this point under Ἰάκωβος, 3. (Cf. B. D. under the word ; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N. T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matthew 13:55.)

Prove he is wrong!




Like
Dislike

Does adelphos Mean “Cousin”?​

No — in Greek, adelphos (ἀδελφός) primarily means “brother” (someone from the same womb), and while it can occasionally be used loosely for other male relatives in the Septuagint, it is not the standard or exclusive term for “cousin” in the New Testament Catholic Answers+2.

Primary Meaning​

In Classical and Hellenistic Greek, adelphos literally means “a male of the same womb” — i.e., a brother mjkelley.org+1. This is its default and most common sense in the New Testament, and it is the term used in passages like Matthew 13:55–56, Mark 6:3, and John 7:5 when referring to Jesus’ “brothers” Catholic Answers+1.

Rare Extended Use​

The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) sometimes translates the Hebrew ach (“kinsman”) with adelphos in isolated cases, which can include cousins or other male relatives mjkelley.org+1. However, this is not the usual meaning and is marked by context. In the New Testament, when the writers wanted to mean “cousin” or “kinsman,” they often used a different word — suggenes (συγγενής) — which specifically denotes a relative from the same clan or ancestry but not from the same womb reformingfaith.wordpress.com.

Evidence from the New Testament​

• In John 19:25, “Mary the wife of Cleophas” is identified as a cousin of Jesus, but the text does not use adelphos there; instead, the relationship is described by other means Catholic Answers.
• In Luke 1:36, “your cousin Elizabeth” is explicitly called suggenes in the Greek, not adelphos reformingfaith.wordpress.com.
• When adelphos and suggenes appear together (e.g., Luke 21:16), they are distinct terms, not interchangeable reformingfaith.wordpress.com.

Only the roman church demands adelphos in MAtt. 13 means cousin. but normnal usage and context prove they are wrong!

 

[Moonwood]

You brought Mounce which is denied by legions of scholars.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
his brothers, Yaqob and Yose and Shimeon and Yehudah?”

NT Translations
Anderson New Testament
his brothers, James and Joses and Simon and Judas?

Godbey New Testament
His brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Haweis New Testament
his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mace New Testament
and James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas, are they not his brothers?

Weymouth New Testament
...his brothers, James, Joseph, Simon and Judah?

Worrell New Testament
His brothers, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?

Worsley New Testament
his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Literal Standard Version
His brothers James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Berean Literal Bible
His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Young's Literal Translation
his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Smith's Literal Translation
his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Catholic Translations
Douay-Rheims Bible
...his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:

Catholic Public Domain Version
his brothers, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude?

New American Bible
his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

New Revised Standard Version
his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Translations from Aramaic
Lamsa Bible
his brothers, James and Joses and Simon and Judah?

GOD'S WORD® Translation
his brothers' names James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

Good News Translation
James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas his brothers?

International Standard Version
His brothers are James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, aren't they?

NET Bible
his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

New Heart English Bible
his brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Webster's Bible Translation
his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Weymouth New Testament
his brothers, James, Joseph, Simon and Judah?

Majority Text Translations
Majority Standard Bible
His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?

World English Bible
his brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?

Even Roman bibles use brothers and not kinsmen. What do all these adept scholars not know that you do????

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 80: ἀδελφός

ἀδελφός
... according to that use of language by which ἀδελφός like the Hebrew אָח denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:2, etc.)

...but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5...

You keep arguing against a position I have never taken. I have not said, nor does the Catholic Church teach, that adelphos has the specific lexical definition "cousin." What I have repeatedly said is that adelphos has a broader semantic range than biological brother alone and can denote a kinsman or relative, something acknowledged by several of the very sources you cite. For example:

Mounce:
"a brother, near kinsman or relative"

Strong's:
"a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote"

Thayer:
"according to that use of language by which adelphos like the Hebrew ach denotes any blood-relation or kinsman"

Notice that last example carefully, because it is important. You challenged Mounce as though he were some lone outlier. Yet your own Thayer citation explicitly acknowledges a broader kinship usage. In fact, your Thayer quotation proves the distinction I've been making from the beginning. Thayer first acknowledges that adelphos can denote:

"any blood-relation or kinsman."

Only afterward does he argue that Jesus' brothers were biological brothers. In other words, Thayer's conclusion about the identity of Jesus' brothers is not derived from the lexical definition alone. It is an exegetical argument based on other passages such as Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7. That means even Thayer did not believe the lexical meaning of adelphos alone settled the question. That has been my point from the very beginning.

Likewise, your long list of Bible translations proves only that translators render adelphoi as "brothers." I have never disputed that. But you're conflating translation with interpretation. Every translation you cited is translating the same Greek word. None of those translators inserted:

"These were the biological sons of Mary."

Why? Because that statement is not found in the text. A translator translates the word adelphoi. A commentator interprets who those adelphoi were. Those are two different questions.

The Septuagint demonstrates this clearly. Abraham calls Lot his adelphos, yet Lot was Abraham's nephew. The Greek text uses adelphos, and translators still render it "brother." Therefore, translating a word as "brother" does not automatically establish the precise genealogical relationship.

To be clear, I did not reach the conclusion that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were cousins by marriage from the lexical meaning of adelphos alone.

My lexical argument is much more modest: adelphos is capable of denoting a broader familial relationship such as a kinsman or relative, a point acknowledged by the Septuagint, Mounce, Strong's, Thayer, and other lexical authorities.

My conclusion that these particular adelphoi were cousins by marriage is based on the cumulative textual, genealogical, and historical evidence. In other words, "kinsman or relative" is the lexical category; "cousin by marriage" is my historical conclusion after examining the evidence. Those are not the same claim.

Specifically, I concluded that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were Jesus' relatives based on the following evidence:

1. Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 never identify James, Joses, Simon, and Judas as sons of Mary. They are called Jesus' adelphoi, but the text never says Mary bore them.
2. James and Joses are associated elsewhere with another Mary, namely Mary of Clopas/Cleophas.
3. James the Lord's brother appears to be identifiable with James of Alphaeus and Judas/Thaddeus.
4. Genealogical considerations involving the family of Clopas/Cleophas place these men within Jesus' extended family rather than requiring them to be sons of Mary.
5. Early Christian witnesses such as Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome repeatedly connect the Lord's brothers with the family of Clopas.

You have spent pages arguing about the translation of one Greek word. What you have not done is interact with those arguments. So let me ask a straightforward question:

Which of those arguments is wrong, and why?

If James and Joses are not the sons of Mary of Clopas, explain the Gospel evidence.
If James the Lord's brother is not James of Alphaeus, explain the identification.
If Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome are mistaken, explain why.
Simply repeating that adelphoi is translated "brothers" does not answer those questions.

In fact, your own Thayer quotation demonstrates why the debate cannot be settled by the lexical meaning of adelphos alone. Even Thayer had to move beyond the dictionary and make an exegetical argument.
That's precisely what I've been saying all along:

The lexical question and the identity question are not the same question.

 

[beechan]

Only the roman church demands adelphos in MAtt. 13 means cousin. but normnal usage and context prove they are wrong!

Refer to Genesis 13:8
"So Abram said to Lot, 'Let’s not have any quarrelling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers.'

Abram called Lot 'brother'.
They are not the brothers in your meaning.

They are not even cousins, but they are all 'brothers'!