Sometimes it is easy to write about current persons, places or things. Current events are the things that are of interest to most people. Human-interest stories are the type of things we can talk about all day long. But it is more difficult to touch on scholarly or theological issues that are more abstract. These are things that can give one “a pain in the brain.”

However, I would like to pass on to you an item that has come to my attention. It relates to our faith—specifically our Roman Catholic faith and our devotion to Our Lady, Mary the Virgin.

Perhaps you know that while we Catholics believe that Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus, many others—non-Catholic Christians and some Catholic scholars—have real doubts or deny this basic tenet of our faith.

The problem for the doubters rests primarily on three scriptural texts.

The first is Matthew 1:25 and “he (Joseph) did not know her until she bore him a son.” This text, however, does not confirm or deny the virginity of Our Lady. The Greek “until” (heos ou) implies nothing about what occurred after the birth of Jesus. It only refers to the fact that Joseph did not “know” Mary before the birth of Our Lord. It says nothing else.

The second text names the brothers and sisters of Jesus. “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, and Joses, and Jude and Simon?” (Mark 6:3, also Matthew 13:55).

Another group of texts concern James, “the brother of the Lord,” who was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem (Galatians 1:19). James the “brother of the Lord” is mentioned by a pagan historian named Josephus.

A group of Catholic and Protestant scholars wrote a small book entitled Mary in the New Testament. After studying these texts they came to the conclusion that “the continued virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus is not a question directly raised by the New Testament.”

I would like to address these last texts concerning James.

At the present time there is a huge controversy over an ossuary (a box for the preservation of human bones) that purports to be the burial coffin of a certain “James – son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus.” An unnamed epigrapher (an expert on ancient writings) writes the following in a magazine entitled Biblical Archeological Review in the May – June issue, 2004: “The specific relationship of James and Jesus in our ossuary is quite simply indeterminable. … The term “brother” actually concurrently meant blood brother, half brother, husband, uncle, nephew, cousin, friend and companion.” As for the Biblical text, he says, “It was only popular hearsay that he (James) was thought to be the son of Joseph.”

The anonymous epigrapher elsewhere goes on to speak of John 19:25-27 where Jesus, as He hung upon the cross, entrusts His mother to the Beloved Disciple.” If Jesus had had brothers, it would have been difficult to entrust her to someone other than His genetic brothers for whom (since Joseph must have died before Jesus’ active public life) it would have been a duty of filial loyalty.”

Never, never, never would Jesus have consigned the care of His beloved mother to a disciple if Jesus had siblings. The brothers and sisters of Jesus would have had an absolute iron clad obligation and a duty to care for Mary their mother.

Therefore, we can agree wholeheartedly with the epigrapher and also with Herschel Shanks, the editor of Biblical Archeological Review: “Jesus had no brothers.” It’s nice to know that Jewish experts support our Catholic point of view.

Oh, by the way, the archeological experts are leaning to the common belief that the ossuary is from the time of the first century, but has been tampered with. The jury is still out.

Home ~ Classified Ads ~Advertise in the Advocate Archives Editorial: tobingre@rcan.org