Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[Ronald Nolette]

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.

You conveniently skipped over Thayer's definition that adelphos was used of ach for it was the only available word to use by the 70 Hebrews who wrote the Septuigant. YOu also ssskipped that Thayer does ot say adelphos can mean a kinsmen other than a brother or in Jesus case- half brothers. YOu cherry picked his statement out of its context. that is beneanth you.



Thayer does accept the lexical meaning. Lexical meanings come from the language and its usage ! C'mon, you can't be that ignorant.

Mounce has no degree in Greek! His bachelors was a major in theology and a minor in Greek. Heck, I have that also for I took a year of Greek.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon [?](Jump to Scripture Index)
STRONGS G80:
ἀδελφός, -οῦ, ὁ (from α 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]; Matthew 13:55f; 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 Alphæus 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. Bp. 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 23:22, 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 υἱὸν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱὸν 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 Brother; 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.]

If you kept that passage in context, you would se Thayer argues against it.

Also, if James, Joses, Simon , Judah and at least two females were kinsmen, why do 48 English translations, including four Romanist translations all define it as brothers and sisters. What do they know that you do not?????????????????

And stop trying to downplay lexicons and dictionaries, they give us the meaning of the words we use so we can understand each other.

If you read Matthew 13:55 and wre not indoctrinated with Romanist doctrine, you would say Jesus had 4 brothers and at least two sisters!

Same with Matt. 1:25. Any person without any doctrinal inculcation would read that as meaning that after Jesus' birth, Jospeh had sex with Mary. Don't believe me? Put both verses in modern English and not use book, chapter and verse ( so people would not assume it is biblical). Go show it to 100 hundred people and see how many agree with your Romanist position.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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'!

First using Gen as an example is disingenuous. I have shown from Greek experts that the Septuagint used adelphos for Ach for it was the only word available at the time of the writing of the Septuagint by the Hebrew authors. The super majority of Koine Greek scholars do not say adelphos means kinsmen.

And I have posted several times that brethren can mean associates of a common bond.

Vine's Expository Dictionary: View Entry
TDNT Reference: 1:144,22
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
7. No cousins, aunts, uncles or near or far kinsmen here.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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'!

From Vines lexicon:

Brotherhood, Brotherly - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words​

Brother, Brethren, Brotherhood, Brotherly
[ 1,,G80, adelphos ]
denotes a brother, or near kinsman;" in the plural, "a community based on identity of origin or life." It is used of:



(1) male children of the same parents, Matthew 1:2; Matthew 14:3;

(2) male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, Acts 7:26; Hebrews 7:5;
(3) male children of the same mother, Matthew 13:55; 1 Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19;

(4) people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, Acts 3:22; Romans 9:3. With "men" (aner, "male"), prefixed, it is used in addresses only, Acts 2:29, Acts 2:37, etc.;

(5) any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22; Matthew 7:3;

(6) persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47;

(7) persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9;

(8) mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17;

(9) the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10; John 20:17;
(10) believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word "sisters" is used of believers, only in 1 Timothy 5:2);
(11) believers, with aner, "male," prefixed, and with "or sister" added, 1 Corinthians 7:14 (RV), 15; James 2:15, male as distinct from female, Acts 1:16; Acts 15:7, Acts 15:13, but not Acts 6:3. * [* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 32.]

And before you pull near kinsmen out of context, the operative word is "near" and vines defines what near kinsmen means in 1-3

no mention of cousins or aunts or uncles in the definition and its usage in the bible.

 

[Moonwood]

You conveniently skipped over Thayer's definition that adelphos was used of ach for it was the only available word to use by the 70 Hebrews who wrote the Septuigant. YOu also ssskipped that Thayer does ot say adelphos can mean a kinsmen other than a brother or in Jesus case- half brothers. YOu cherry picked his statement out of its context. that is beneanth you.

Thayer does accept the lexical meaning. Lexical meanings come from the language and its usage ! C'mon, you can't be that ignorant.

Mounce has no degree in Greek! His bachelors was a major in theology and a minor in Greek. Heck, I have that also for I took a year of Greek.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon [?](Jump to Scripture Index)STRONGS G80:ἀδελφός, -οῦ, ὁ

If you kept that passage in context, you would se Thayer argues against it.

Also, if James, Joses, Simon , Judah and at least two females were kinsmen, why do 48 English translations, including four Romanist translations all define it as brothers and sisters. What do they know that you do not?????????????????

And stop trying to downplay lexicons and dictionaries, they give us the meaning of the words we use so we can understand each other.

If you read Matthew 13:55 and wre not indoctrinated with Romanist doctrine, you would say Jesus had 4 brothers and at least two sisters!

Same with Matt. 1:25. Any person without any doctrinal inculcation would read that as meaning that after Jesus' birth, Jospeh had sex with Mary. Don't believe me? Put both verses in modern English and not use book, chapter and verse ( so people would not assume it is biblical). Go show it to 100 hundred people and see how many agree with your Romanist position.

I think you're conflating several different issues.

First, I did not take Thayer out of context. I explicitly acknowledged his conclusion. My point is that your own quotation demonstrates the distinction I've been making all along.
Thayer writes:

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

That is a statement about the lexical range of the word.
He then argues that Jesus' brothers were:

"own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, Acts 1:14, and John 7:5."

That is no longer a lexical definition. It is an exegetical argument based on other passages. In other words, Thayer first acknowledges that adelphos can denote a blood relative or kinsman, and then argues that in Jesus' case the evidence points to biological brothers. Whether one agrees with Thayer's conclusion or not, the fact remains that even Thayer did not believe the lexical meaning of adelphos alone settled the issue. If it did, he would never have needed to appeal to Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, Acts 1:14, and John 7:5. That is precisely the distinction I have been making from the beginning.

Second, you object that the Septuagint translators used adelphos for broader kinship only because it was the best available Greek word. Even if I granted that entirely, it would not help your case. Lexicons are based on actual usage, not hypothetical alternative words someone could have used. The historical fact remains that the Greek Scriptures use adelphos for relationships broader than a biological brother. That is why Thayer, Strong's, Mounce, and others acknowledge a broader kinship sense. The question is not why the Septuagint translators used adelphos. The question is whether they did. They clearly did.

Third, you say:

"Thayer does not say adelphos can mean a kinsman other than a brother."
But that is exactly what Thayer says:

"adelphos like the Hebrew ach denotes any blood-relation or kinsman."

Those are Thayer's words, not mine.

Fourth, Mounce's academic credentials are beside the point. Even if we removed Mounce entirely from the discussion, the argument would remain unchanged because:

• Strong's acknowledges broader usage.
• Thayer acknowledges broader usage.
• The Septuagint demonstrates broader usage.
• Other lexical authorities acknowledge broader usage.

Lexical definitions stand or fall on evidence, not on whether a particular scholar has a doctorate.

Fifth, your appeal to 48 English translations proves far less than you think. Every translation you cited translates adelphoi as "brothers." I agree with them.

The Douay-Rheims says "brethren."
The NAB says "brothers."
The NRSV says "brothers."
The KJV says "brethren."

I have no disagreement with any of that. But you're conflating translation with interpretation. A translator translates the Greek word. An exegete determines the precise relationship intended in the passage. Those are not the same task. Abraham and Lot illustrate the issue perfectly. Lot was Abraham's nephew, yet the Septuagint uses adelphos and translators still render it "brother." Therefore, the fact that a translation says "brother" does not automatically establish biological brotherhood.

Sixth, you say that if Matthew 13:55 were shown to 100 people with no doctrinal background, they would conclude that Jesus had biological brothers. Perhaps many would. But appeals to modern intuition are not how historical exegesis is done. The question is not what a modern reader initially assumes. The question is what conclusion best accounts for all of the textual, historical, genealogical, and linguistic evidence.

Finally, I think you're still misunderstanding my actual argument. I have never argued that adelphos lexically means "cousin." Nor have I argued that Matthew 13:55 can be settled by a dictionary entry. My lexical argument is much more modest:

adelphos can denote a broader familial relationship such as a kinsman or relative.

That point is acknowledged by the Septuagint, Thayer, Strong's, and other authorities. My conclusion that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were specifically relatives of Jesus, and more precisely cousins by marriage, was not derived from the lexical meaning of adelphos alone. It comes from a cumulative case:

1. Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 never identify James, Jose[h, Simon, and Judas as sons of Mary.
2. James and Joseph 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 place these men within the family of Clopas.
5. Early Christian witnesses such as Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome repeatedly connect the Lord's brothers with the family of Clopas.

In other words:

"Kinsman or relative" is the lexical category.
"Cousin by marriage" is my historical conclusion after examining the textual, genealogical, and historical evidence.

Those are not the same claim.
So I'll ask again:

Which of those five arguments is wrong, and why?

If James and Joses are not connected with Mary of Clopas, explain the Gospel evidence.
If James the Lord's brother is not James of Alphaeus, explain the identification.
If the genealogical argument fails, explain where it fails.
If Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome are mistaken, explain why.

Because simply repeating that adelphoi is translated "brothers" does not answer any of those questions. And, ironically, your own Thayer quotation demonstrates why: even Thayer had to move beyond the lexical definition of adelphos and make a separate exegetical argument. That has been my point from the beginning:

The lexical question ("What can adelphos mean?") and the identity question ("Who were Jesus' adelphoi?") are not the same question.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I think you're conflating several different issues.

First, I did not take Thayer out of context. I explicitly acknowledged his conclusion. My point is that your own quotation demonstrates the distinction I've been making all along.
Thayer writes:

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

That is a statement about the lexical range of the word.
He then argues that Jesus' brothers were:

"own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, Acts 1:14, and John 7:5."

That is no longer a lexical definition. It is an exegetical argument based on other passages. In other words, Thayer first acknowledges that adelphos can denote a blood relative or kinsman, and then argues that in Jesus' case the evidence points to biological brothers. Whether one agrees with Thayer's conclusion or not, the fact remains that even Thayer did not believe the lexical meaning of adelphos alone settled the issue. If it did, he would never have needed to appeal to Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, Acts 1:14, and John 7:5. That is precisely the distinction I have been making from the beginning.

Wrong again! You are making an argument from a translation from the Hebrew and trying to force it to mean the same in the untranslated Greek. But given Thayer is an excellent Greek scholar and you aren't, I agree with his conclusion that in a Greek manuscript (not the Septuagint, based on the proof I gave you) adelphos does not mean cousin or aunt or uncle.

Once again 48 English bibles, including four Romanist bibles all translate it as brothers and sisters and not kin folk. Thayer uses other verses to show why adelphos cannot mean kinfolk, IOW he does scholarly work!

And once again you are being disingenuous in the cite about adelphos and ach. He writes it only of the OT usage and not the NT usage! Stop pulling passages out of their context- that is lying.

​

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That is no longer a lexical definition. It is an exegetical argument based on other passages. In other words, Thayer first acknowledges that adelphos can denote a blood relative or kinsman, and then argues that in Jesus' case the evidence points to biological brothers. Whether one agrees with Thayer's conclusion or not, the fact remains that even Thayer did not believe the lexical meaning of adelphos alone settled the issue. If it did, he would never have needed to appeal to Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, Acts 1:14, and John 7:5. That is precisely the distinction I have been making from the beginning.

So prove that Jesus' borthers and sisters in Matt. 13 are cousins.

And please do not use the James, Joses argument. Those were extraordinary common names and Clophas had sons using those very common names. But you need to prove that those two mentioned with clophas are in fact the same mentioned in Matt. 13. Jesus had 2 apotles named James!

The lexical meaning is definitive and absolute. Near kinsmen denoted brothers, sisters or parents in its NT usage! In its Septuagint usage (written by natural Hebrew speakers) the best greek word available at the time for "ACH" was adelphos.

Here is a website showing the use of Adelphos, anepsos and syngenes in the NT. It shatters your argument that Matt. 13 means cousin when the two words for near kinsmen are used widely in the NT.

 

[Moonwood]

Wrong again! You are making an argument from a translation from the Hebrew and trying to force it to mean the same in the untranslated Greek. But given Thayer is an excellent Greek scholar and you aren't, I agree with his conclusion that in a Greek manuscript (not the Septuagint, based on the proof I gave you) adelphos does not mean cousin or aunt or uncle.

Once again 48 English bibles, including four Romanist bibles all translate it as brothers and sisters and not kin folk. Thayer uses other verses to show why adelphos cannot mean kinfolk, IOW he does scholarly work!

And once again you are being disingenuous in the cite about adelphos and ach. He writes it only of the OT usage and not the NT usage! Stop pulling passages out of their context- that is lying.

So prove that Jesus' borthers and sisters in Matt. 13 are cousins.

And please do not use the James, Joses argument. Those were extraordinary common names and Clophas had sons using those very common names. But you need to prove that those two mentioned with clophas are in fact the same mentioned in Matt. 13. Jesus had 2 apotles named James!

The lexical meaning is definitive and absolute. Near kinsmen denoted brothers, sisters or parents in its NT usage! In its Septuagint usage (written by natural Hebrew speakers) the best greek word available at the time for "ACH" was adelphos.

Here is a website showing the use of Adelphos, anepsos and syngenes in the NT. It shatters your argument that Matt. 13 means cousin when the two words for near kinsmen are used widely in the NT.

You're still missing the point. I am not arguing that because adelphos is used for broader kinship in the Septuagint, therefore Matthew 13:55 must mean cousin. I have repeatedly said the exact opposite. My point is that the Septuagint demonstrates that adelphos was capable of being used for broader kinship relationships. In fact, even your own Thayer citation acknowledges this:

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

Those are Thayer's words, not mine.

You say:

"Thayer writes this only of the OT usage and not the NT usage."

Correct. But that is enough to refute the claim that adelphos is lexically incapable of denoting broader kinship. In other words, we have now moved beyond the lexical question. Once Thayer acknowledges that adelphos can denote "any blood-relation or kinsman," the debate is no longer:

"Can adelphos ever have a broader kinship sense?"

The debate becomes:

"Does Matthew 13:55 use it that way?"

That is an exegetical question. Ironically, that is exactly what Thayer does. He does not argue:

"adelphos means biological brother, therefore the case is closed."

Rather, he acknowledges the broader kinship usage and then argues from Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, Acts 1:14, and John 7:5 that Jesus' brothers were biological brothers. That means even Thayer did not believe the lexical definition alone settled the matter. If he had believed that, there would have been no need to appeal to those additional passages. That has been my point from the beginning.

Likewise, your appeal to 48 English translations still misses the issue. I agree with all 48 translations translating adelphoi as "brothers." I agree with the Catholic translations translating adelphoi as "brothers." I agree with the Protestant translations translating adelphoi as "brothers." The question is not how adelphoi should be translated. The question is who those adelphoi were. Translation and identification are different questions. Abraham's nephew Lot could be called adelphos and translated "brother" without becoming Abraham's biological brother. So a translation does not automatically establish a genealogical relationship.

You also argue that the existence of anepsios and syngenes destroys my position. It does not. My position has never been that adelphos lexically means "cousin." Rather, my position is that adelphos can denote a broader familial relationship than a uterine brother, a point acknowledged by the Septuagint, Thayer, Strong's, and other lexical authorities. The existence of more specific kinship terms such as anepsios and syngenes proves that Greek possessed more precise vocabulary. It does not prove that adelphos could never be used in a broader kinship sense.

More importantly, you continue to ignore the actual basis of my conclusion. I did not conclude that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were relatives of Jesus because a dictionary told me so. I concluded that they were relatives, and specifically cousins by marriage, because of a cumulative case:

• Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 never identify them as sons of Mary.
• James and Joses are associated elsewhere with another Mary.
• James the Lord's brother appears identifiable with James of Alphaeus.
• The genealogical evidence points toward the family of Clopas.
• Early Christian witnesses such as Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome repeatedly connect the Lord's brothers with the family of Clopas.

You object that James and Joseph were common names. I agree. But that observation does not refute my argument. If common names automatically invalidated identification, we could never distinguish between the various Jameses, Judases, Simons, and Marys in the New Testament. The question is not whether the names were common. The question is whether multiple lines of evidence converge on the same identification.

My argument does not rest on the names alone. It rests on the Gospel data, the genealogical evidence, and the testimony of early Christian witnesses taken together. So we're back to the same unanswered question: Which of those arguments is wrong, and why? If James and Joseph are not connected with Mary of Clopas, explain the Gospel evidence. If James the Lord's brother is not James of Alphaeus, explain the identification. If the genealogical argument fails, explain where it fails. If Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome are mistaken, explain why. Because simply repeating that adelphoi is translated "brothers" does not engage any of those arguments. In fact, your own appeal to Thayer confirms the point I've been making all along:

The lexical question ("What can adelphos mean?") and the identity question ("Who were Jesus' adelphoi?") are not the same question.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That is no longer a lexical definition. It is an exegetical argument based on other passages. In other words, Thayer first acknowledges that adelphos can denote a blood relative or kinsman, and then argues that in Jesus' case the evidence points to biological brothers. Whether one agrees with Thayer's conclusion or not, the fact remains that even Thayer did not believe the lexical meaning of adelphos alone settled the issue. If it did, he would never have needed to appeal to Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, Acts 1:14, and John 7:5. That is precisely the distinction I have been making from the beginning.

And that is exactly what you are doing! It is not an exegetical argument but an eisegetical argument based on the evidence from Scripture.

Once again other than the Septuagint authors using adelphos in the OT, there is no explicit use of adelphos denoting cousins. You have completely failed to prove it, you have implied it, but failed to bring empirical evidence to the case you are trying to make.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

• Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 never identify them as sons of Mary.
• James and Joses are associated elsewhere with another Mary.
• James the Lord's brother appears identifiable with James of Alphaeus.
• The genealogical evidence points toward the family of Clopas.
• Early Christian witnesses such as Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome repeatedly connect the Lord's brothers with the family of Clopas.

Foolish arguments. They are called his brothers and sisters in the context desribing Joseph( carpenter) and Mary. It is foolishness for then to go to cousins using adelphos when syngenes or anepsios were the commonly used words! YOu have failed to prove this breach of common grammar.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You're still missing the point. I am not arguing that because adelphos is used for broader kinship in the Septuagint, therefore Matthew 13:55 must mean cousin. I have repeatedly said the exact opposite. My point is that the Septuagint demonstrates that adelphos was capable of being used for broader kinship relationships. In fact, even your own Thayer citation acknowledges this:

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

Those are Thayer's words, not mine.

You say:

"Thayer writes this only of the OT usage and not the NT usage."

Correct. But that is enough to refute the claim that adelphos is lexically incapable of denoting broader kinship. In other words, we have now moved beyond the lexical question. Once Thayer acknowledges that adelphos can denote "any blood-relation or kinsman," the debate is no longer:

"Can adelphos ever have a broader kinship sense?"

The debate becomes:

"Does Matthew 13:55 use it that way?"

That is an exegetical question. Ironically, that is exactly what Thayer does. He does not argue:

"adelphos means biological brother, therefore the case is closed."

Rather, he acknowledges the broader kinship usage and then argues from Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, Acts 1:14, and John 7:5 that Jesus' brothers were biological brothers. That means even Thayer did not believe the lexical definition alone settled the matter. If he had believed that, there would have been no need to appeal to those additional passages. That has been my point from the beginning.

Likewise, your appeal to 48 English translations still misses the issue. I agree with all 48 translations translating adelphoi as "brothers." I agree with the Catholic translations translating adelphoi as "brothers." I agree with the Protestant translations translating adelphoi as "brothers." The question is not how adelphoi should be translated. The question is who those adelphoi were. Translation and identification are different questions. Abraham's nephew Lot could be called adelphos and translated "brother" without becoming Abraham's biological brother. So a translation does not automatically establish a genealogical relationship.

You also argue that the existence of anepsios and syngenes destroys my position. It does not. My position has never been that adelphos lexically means "cousin." Rather, my position is that adelphos can denote a broader familial relationship than a uterine brother, a point acknowledged by the Septuagint, Thayer, Strong's, and other lexical authorities. The existence of more specific kinship terms such as anepsios and syngenes proves that Greek possessed more precise vocabulary. It does not prove that adelphos could never be used in a broader kinship sense.

More importantly, you continue to ignore the actual basis of my conclusion. I did not conclude that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were relatives of Jesus because a dictionary told me so. I concluded that they were relatives, and specifically cousins by marriage, because of a cumulative case:

• Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 never identify them as sons of Mary.
• James and Joses are associated elsewhere with another Mary.
• James the Lord's brother appears identifiable with James of Alphaeus.
• The genealogical evidence points toward the family of Clopas.
• Early Christian witnesses such as Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome repeatedly connect the Lord's brothers with the family of Clopas.

You object that James and Joseph were common names. I agree. But that observation does not refute my argument. If common names automatically invalidated identification, we could never distinguish between the various Jameses, Judases, Simons, and Marys in the New Testament. The question is not whether the names were common. The question is whether multiple lines of evidence converge on the same identification.

My argument does not rest on the names alone. It rests on the Gospel data, the genealogical evidence, and the testimony of early Christian witnesses taken together. So we're back to the same unanswered question: Which of those arguments is wrong, and why? If James and Joseph are not connected with Mary of Clopas, explain the Gospel evidence. If James the Lord's brother is not James of Alphaeus, explain the identification. If the genealogical argument fails, explain where it fails. If Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome are mistaken, explain why. Because simply repeating that adelphoi is translated "brothers" does not engage any of those arguments. In fact, your own appeal to Thayer confirms the point I've been making all along:

The lexical question ("What can adelphos mean?") and the identity question ("Who were Jesus' adelphoi?") are not the same question.

And you miss the point. The Jewish authors of the Septuagint used adelphos to mean any kinsmen while the Greek at the time of Jesus did not allow for that usage.

BTW near kinsmen means parents, brothers and sisters, not cousins aunts and uncles.

Please read this twice as you have missed it already many times.

Though the Hebrews used adelphos as kinsmen, it was the only word available to translate "ach". By Jesu sday that usage was not allowed for syngenes and anepsios were the commonly and universally used words for mere kinsmen.

YOu are making an empirical argument for a usage not accepted in Jesus day but accepted in teh OT for it was the best word available AT THE TIME. An example would be horseless carriage. That was a perfectly fine definiton for anautomobile until automobile and car came out. No one uses horseless carriage anymore except to point out its historic use.

 

[Moonwood]

And that is exactly what you are doing! It is not an exegetical argument but an eisegetical argument based on the evidence from Scripture.

Once again other than the Septuagint authors using adelphos in the OT, there is no explicit use of adelphos denoting cousins. You have completely failed to prove it, you have implied it, but failed to bring empirical evidence to the case you are trying to make.

Foolish arguments. They are called his brothers and sisters in the context desribing Joseph( carpenter) and Mary. It is foolishness for then to go to cousins using adelphos when syngenes or anepsios were the commonly used words! YOu have failed to prove this breach of common grammar.

And you miss the point. The Jewish authors of the Septuagint used adelphos to mean any kinsmen while the Greek at the time of Jesus did not allow for that usage.

BTW near kinsmen means parents, brothers and sisters, not cousins aunts and uncles.

Please read this twice as you have missed it already many times.

Though the Hebrews used adelphos as kinsmen, it was the only word available to translate "ach". By Jesu sday that usage was not allowed for syngenes and anepsios were the commonly and universally used words for mere kinsmen.

YOu are making an empirical argument for a usage not accepted in Jesus day but accepted in teh OT for it was the best word available AT THE TIME. An example would be horseless carriage. That was a perfectly fine definiton for anautomobile until automobile and car came out. No one uses horseless carriage anymore except to point out its historic use.

You keep repeating the assertion that by Jesus' day the broader kinship usage of adelphos was "not allowed," but you have not actually demonstrated that claim. What you have demonstrated is that:

1. The Septuagint uses adelphos for broader kinship relationships.
2. Greek had more specific kinship terms such as syngenes and anepsios.
3. Thayer argued that Jesus' brothers were biological brothers.

I agree that those are accurate descriptions of the evidence and of Thayer's position. What I do not agree with is the claim that Thayer's conclusion is therefore proven, or that the lexical meaning of adelphos alone settles the identification of Jesus' adelphoi. But none of them proves your claim that broader kinship usage of adelphos had become impossible by the first century. In fact, notice what has happened throughout this discussion. Originally, you argued that adelphos could not denote a broader kinship relationship. Then you acknowledged that the Septuagint uses it that way. Now you're arguing that the broader usage existed in the Septuagint but supposedly disappeared by the time of Jesus. Those are different claims. The burden is on you to demonstrate that transition.

More importantly, even if I granted your entire argument regarding first-century Greek, it still would not answer my actual case. My argument does not begin and end with the lexical range of adelphos. My argument is that the identity of Jesus' adelphoi must be determined from the total evidence. You continue to focus on the word while largely ignoring the rest of the case:

• Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 never identify James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as sons of Mary.
• James and Joseph are associated elsewhere with another Mary.
• James the Lord's brother appears identifiable with James of Alphaeus.
• The genealogical evidence points toward the family of Clopas.
• Early Christian witnesses repeatedly connect the Lord's brothers with the family of Clopas.

Instead of addressing those arguments, you keep returning to the same lexical point. You also keep insisting that I must prove Matthew 13 means "cousins." But I have never argued that Matthew 13 can be solved by a dictionary definition. I have repeatedly stated:

"Kinsman or relative is the lexical category."
"Cousin by marriage is my historical conclusion based on the cumulative textual, genealogical, and historical evidence."

Those are not the same claim.

And regarding your "horseless carriage" analogy, that analogy assumes the very thing you're trying to prove: namely, that the broader kinship usage had disappeared by the first century. That is the point under dispute. You have asserted it many times, but you have not demonstrated it.

More importantly, even if you could demonstrate it, you would still have to deal with the larger historical question:

Why do the Gospel family references, the Clopas connections, the identification of James, and the testimony of Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome all point in the same direction?

That's the part of my argument you've never really addressed. And until that evidence is addressed, repeatedly saying "adelphoi means brothers" doesn't resolve the identity of the people in question. It only restates the translation. The question has always been who those "brothers" were.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You keep repeating the assertion that by Jesus' day the broader kinship usage of adelphos was "not allowed," but you have not actually demonstrated that claim. What you have demonstrated is that:

1. The Septuagint uses adelphos for broader kinship relationships.
2. Greek had more specific kinship terms such as syngenes and anepsios.
3. Thayer argued that Jesus' brothers were biological brothers.

I agree that those are accurate descriptions of the evidence and of Thayer's position. What I do not agree with is the claim that Thayer's conclusion is therefore proven, or that the lexical meaning of adelphos alone settles the identification of Jesus' adelphoi. But none of them proves your claim that broader kinship usage of adelphos had become impossible by the first century. In fact, notice what has happened throughout this discussion. Originally, you argued that adelphos could not denote a broader kinship relationship. Then you acknowledged that the Septuagint uses it that way. Now you're arguing that the broader usage existed in the Septuagint but supposedly disappeared by the time of Jesus. Those are different claims. The burden is on you to demonstrate that transition.

More importantly, even if I granted your entire argument regarding first-century Greek, it still would not answer my actual case. My argument does not begin and end with the lexical range of adelphos. My argument is that the identity of Jesus' adelphoi must be determined from the total evidence. You continue to focus on the word while largely ignoring the rest of the case:

• Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 never identify James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as sons of Mary.
• James and Joseph are associated elsewhere with another Mary.
• James the Lord's brother appears identifiable with James of Alphaeus.
• The genealogical evidence points toward the family of Clopas.
• Early Christian witnesses repeatedly connect the Lord's brothers with the family of Clopas.

Instead of addressing those arguments, you keep returning to the same lexical point. You also keep insisting that I must prove Matthew 13 means "cousins." But I have never argued that Matthew 13 can be solved by a dictionary definition. I have repeatedly stated:

"Kinsman or relative is the lexical category."
"Cousin by marriage is my historical conclusion based on the cumulative textual, genealogical, and historical evidence."

Those are not the same claim.

And regarding your "horseless carriage" analogy, that analogy assumes the very thing you're trying to prove: namely, that the broader kinship usage had disappeared by the first century. That is the point under dispute. You have asserted it many times, but you have not demonstrated it.

More importantly, even if you could demonstrate it, you would still have to deal with the larger historical question:

Why do the Gospel family references, the Clopas connections, the identification of James, and the testimony of Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome all point in the same direction?

That's the part of my argument you've never really addressed. And until that evidence is addressed, repeatedly saying "adelphoi means brothers" doesn't resolve the identity of the people in question. It only restates the translation. The question has always been who those "brothers" were.

For all this verbal garbage you just spewed, prove that James, Joses, Simon, Judah and the sisters were not biologocal brothers and sisters.

You blather on much about how the word was used in the OT (but not NT), and the what ifs and might bes, how about writing the proofs that these were cousins.

The Roman Church has made Mary and her immaculate conception, virgin birth (I agree) and perpetual virginity, the subject of legions of books! If teh best you can offer is that it could, or might or may mean something else and yoiu adhere like Rome does, you are a fool! sorry for the biting comment, but that was the nicest I can think of for someone holding such truths on a maybe.



remember Rome declared anyone anathema who denies perpetual virginity. they are excommunicated and denied the sacraments. That belief of theirs says the person is now lost!.

 

[Moonwood]

For all this verbal garbage you just spewed, prove that James, Joses, Simon, Judah and the sisters were not biologocal brothers and sisters.

You blather on much about how the word was used in the OT (but not NT), and the what ifs and might bes, how about writing the proofs that these were cousins.

The Roman Church has made Mary and her immaculate conception, virgin birth (I agree) and perpetual virginity, the subject of legions of books! If teh best you can offer is that it could, or might or may mean something else and yoiu adhere like Rome does, you are a fool! sorry for the biting comment, but that was the nicest I can think of for someone holding such truths on a maybe.



remember Rome declared anyone anathema who denies perpetual virginity. they are excommunicated and denied the sacraments. That belief of theirs says the person is now lost!.

At this point it may be helpful to summarize where we actually agree and where we disagree.

Points you have effectively conceded​

1. The Septuagint uses adelphos for broader kinship relationships beyond biological brothers.
   You originally argued that adelphos could not denote broader kinship. You now acknowledge that the Septuagint uses it that way and explain it as a Hebraic usage.
   
   
2. Greek speakers had more specific kinship terms such as syngenēs and anepsios.
   I have never disputed this point.
   
   
3. Thayer acknowledges broader kinship usage.
   Your own quotation states:
   "according to that use of language by which adelphos like the Hebrew ach denotes any blood-relation or kinsman."
   Whatever conclusion Thayer ultimately reaches about Jesus' brothers, he explicitly acknowledges a broader kinship usage.
   
   
4. Thayer does not rely on the lexical meaning of adelphos alone.
   He appeals to Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, Acts 1:14, and John 7:5 in support of his conclusion.
   That means even Thayer does not argue:
   "adelphos means brother; therefore the case is closed."
   He makes an additional exegetical argument.
   
   
5. Translation and identification are different questions.
   We both agree Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 should be translated "brothers."
   The question is whether those "brothers" were biological brothers, stepbrothers, cousins, or some other relatives.

---

What remains in dispute​

You argue that the broader kinship usage found in the Septuagint no longer existed by the first century.
That is now the central linguistic claim under discussion.
You have asserted it repeatedly.
You have not demonstrated it.
The existence of syngenes and anepsios does not by itself prove that adelphos lost every broader kinship sense.
That conclusion still needs to be demonstrated.

---

More importantly, the larger argument remains unanswered​

My conclusion does not rest on the lexical range of adelphos alone.
It rests on a cumulative case:

1. Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 never identify James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as sons of Mary.
2. James and Joseph are associated elsewhere with another Mary.
3. James the Lord's brother appears identifiable with James of Alphaeus.
4. The genealogical evidence points toward the family of Clopas.
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 repeatedly called these arguments "foolish," but you have not actually interacted with them.

---

So let me narrow the discussion​

Which of the following do you believe is false?

• James and Joseph are associated with another Mary.
• James the Lord's brother may be identified with James of Alphaeus.
• The Clopas family connection.
• The genealogical argument.
• The testimony of Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, and Jerome.

If one or more of those claims is wrong, explain specifically why.
Because simply repeating that adelphoi is translated "brothers" does not answer those arguments. We settled the translation issue pages ago.
The remaining question is the identity of the people called Jesus' adelphoi.