Theories on the "extended" Holy Family

[teresahrc]

I have been thinking about the "aldephos" of the Lord, and I love to imagine not just how the Holy Family lived, but also their extended family--aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers, etc.

I wonder if anyone would like to investigate with me some theories about Jesus' family.

I'm sure we can't prove anything or someone would have already done it, but I love to imagine possibilities.

First of all, I believe that the "brothers" of the Lord we not sons of Mary or Joseph, but close relatives, probably the Lord's cousins.

Now, we know that it is written that Mary's "sister" was Mary, the wife of Cleopas (Alphaeus).
To me, it sounds a little odd that Mary would have a "blood" sister named Mary. What parents (except maybe George Foreman) give 2 daughters the same name? It's possible, but not likely.
The next possibility was that the other Mary was Mary's cousin. Although not impossible, to me it makes the most sense that the other Mary was the Virgin Mary's Sister-in-Law, though not the "blood" sister of Joseph, but Josephs' brother's wife. (which would make Alphaeus Joseph's brother)

The reason for my theory is that I have studied some of Jewish culture in the 1st century and then (and in many places today) The culture was completely Patriarchal. Fathers made sure that their sons not only learned their faith, but also learned a trade. Even rabbis learned a trade (St. Paul the tent maker for example.) Now most Fathers would obviously train their boys in the trade they already knew. Hence, Jesus' "foster-father" Joseph was a Carpenter and he trained Jesus in carpentry. Joseph's father (Jacob--see Matthew 1:16) most like trained Joseph to be a Carpenter. He may well have had other sons--brothers of Joseph--that he would have trained in carpentry too.

In Patriarchal societies, the daughters would get married and move away to be with their husband's family (for example, Isaac and Rebecka) Sons, however remained with their father either in the same household or very close by--certainly in the same town. Often, the sons (who had been trained in the father's business) would continue working with their father in the "family business" even until the death of the father when the sons would then take over the business. Carpentry would have certainly been a trade that would have benefited by having partners. With no pickup trucks to haul lumber, (no Lowe's for that matter) and no power tools to work with, it would have been very difficult to do alone (or with a 4 year old Jesus)

But if Joseph had brothers to help him, not only would it have made for a better carpentry business, but it would fit the culture of the time and ensure a very close-knit association of extended family members living together. Joseph, and Joseph's brother(s) and their wives and children may have all lived and traveled together. Mary's sister(s) would have been Joseph's brother's wife(s) and their children would have been playing with Jesus and grown up with him. The Mary who was the Virgin Mary's "sister" would have been her sister-in-law, and her sons would have been so close to Jesus that it almost wouldn't matter if they were brothers or cousins.
It might not make sense in 2008 USA where people can't even stand to live with their children/parents/ whoever, and where individualism rules. But this theory takes into account the family structures of the Old Testament, and the Greek and Hebrew wording (the words for "brother" can mean cousin)

25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Also, in this verse, it makes perfect sense that Mary needed a "home" after the death of Jesus. Joseph had most likely already died and Jesus was her only son. Now, if Joseph had other brothers, then they would have been required to take care of Mary, BUT Jesus quickly relieved the situation (if Joseph's brothers were still alive we don't know) because He made John her Son. Now that she had a "son" to take care of her, she had no need to remarry, as was the custom. And John certainly did live long enough to take care of her!

teresa

[teresahrc]

Right after I posted that, I did some Internet research. This is what I found:

“Woman, Behold Thy Son”


Also, consider the moving passage from St. John’s Gospel in which our Lord commits His Mother into the care of St. John as He dies on the Cross. Why would He do so if she had other children to look after her? Jewish custom dictated that the care of a mother would fall to the second born if the firstborn died, and if the widow had no other child she would be left to take care of herself. Since she is without other children, her Son gives her into the care of the beloved disciple. The Women at the Cross and the Identity of the Lord’s Brothers Who exactly are the “brothers of the Lord” if not fellow sons of Mary His mother? (Here, I am gratefully indebted to Fr. Lawrence Farley’s article, “The Women at the Cross.” [publication ref?]) A close study of the women at the Cross in Matthew 27:55, 56 yields a plausible answer. These women were said to be:
(1) Mary Magdalene;
(2) the mother of the sons of Zebedee;
(3) Mary the Mother of James and Joseph. In the parallel passage in Mark 15:40, 41, the women are said to be:
(1) Mary Magdalene;
(2) Salome;
(3) Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses.
In John 19:25, the women are listed as:
(1) Mary Magdalene;
(2) Christ’s Mother;
(3) His mother’s sister, Mary wife of Clopas.
For our purposes we should focus on the woman who is referred to by St. Matthew as “Mary the mother of James and Joseph,” by St. Mark as “Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses ,” and by St. John in his list as “His mother’s sister, Mary wife of Clopas.”

Note that in Matthew the names “James and Joseph” were mentioned before. Indeed, the way Matthew mentions “Mary mother of James and Joseph” in 27:55, 56 presupposes that he has already introduced these “James and Joseph”—as indeed he has. In Matthew 13:55, we read that our Lord’s “brothers” are “James and Joseph and Simon and Judas.” Similarly, in St. Mark’s Gospel, “James and Joses” are mentioned as if we already know who “James and Joses” are, which in fact we do from Mark 6:3, where Christ’s “brothers” are listed as “James and Joses and Judas and Simon.”

It seems beyond reasonable dispute that the Mary at the Cross in St. Matthew and St. Mark is the mother of our Lord’s “brothers,” “James and Joses.” Also, it is inconceivable that Matthew and Mark would refer to the Lord’s Mother at the foot of the Cross as the mother of James and Joseph, but not mention that she is the Mother of Jesus as well!


If it is the case, as the Scriptures suggest, that Mary wife of Clopas is the same as the mother of James and Joseph, we have the following conclusion: the Theotokos had a “sister,” married to Clopas, who was the mother of James and Joseph, our Lord’s “brothers.” Here, the question ought to immediately arise concerning the Theotokos’ relationship to this Mary: What kind of “sister” is she?


Hegisippus, a Jewish Christian historian who, according to Eusebius, “belonged to the first generation after the apostles” and who interviewed many Christians from that apostolic community for his history, relates that Clopas was the brother of St. Joseph, foster-father of Christ (apud. Eusb. Eccl. H. iv:22). If this is so (and Hegisippus is generally acknowledged as fully reliable), then “Mary wife of Clopas” was the Virgin Mary’s “sister” in that she was her sister-in-law.


The puzzle therefore fits together. St. Joseph married the Virgin Theotokos, who gave birth to Christ, her only Child, preserving her virginity and having no other children. St. Joseph’s brother, Clopas, also married a woman named Mary, who had the children James and Joseph (along with Judas and Simon, and daughters also). These children were our Lord’s “brothers” (using the terminology of Israel, which as we have seen made no distinction between brothers and cousins but referred to all as “brothers”).


St. Matthew and St. Mark, focusing on our Lord’s family (Matthew 13:53ff and Mark 6:1ff), naturally refer to Clopas’ wife Mary as “the mother of James and Joseph (Joses).” St. John, on the other hand, focuses on our Lord’s Mother (cf. John 2:1ff) and just as naturally refers to this same woman as “His mother’s sister, Mary wife of Clopas.” But it is apparent that it is one and the same woman being referred to by all. This reconstruction is the best that can be made (though others exist, they all contain serious weaknesses) given both the Scriptural and historical evidence.
www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9174.asp


I guess it can't be proven, but it is so fascinating.
teresa

[Cepha]

It´s so easily provable.

No other man is called Mary´s Son, but Jesus.
Period.
It simply doesn´t appear in scripture.
No one ever said that Joseph didn´t have children ¨before¨ he was told to care for Mary.
Heck, The Bible doesn´t even say that Joseph and Mary even actually got married.
It only says they were engaged.

So there is no biblical evidence that Jesus had biological brothers. Period.

And all those called his brethren in The Bible have their mother´s named.

If ¨brethren¨automatically means blood brothers, then Peter´s mom gave birth to over 3,000 children when Peter preached to 3,000 and converted them calling them ¨brethren¨.

;D

God is Mary´s Baby´s Daddy.